What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
101 Comments
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -12/+71In related news, millions of people consider never visiting the NYT website or submitting their stories to social networking websites ever again. In related related news, NYT circles the drain in tighter and tighter circles.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -4/+39There's really nothing a Digger hates worse than the thought of having to pay for something.
- jrm125, on 07/10/2009, -7/+40While normally I'd mock this idea, I at least consider the NYT a quality news organization.
Yes, they trip up occasionally, but it's still some of the best journalism out there. $5 isn't a killer...though I don't know how many people would see it that way. - novenator, on 07/10/2009, -6/+32I've heard rumors like this before, but they never seem to get off the ground. Overall, it's really too bad the newspaper business is failing. They pay the salaries of so many professional journalists who are our only source of information as to what is really going on in the world (unless we happen to witness events first hand).
- hoppy2626, on 07/10/2009, -1/+24They can give it a shot, but will be sorely disappointed by the lack of people clamoring to subscribe.
I don't understand why the site isn't ad-supported. You know, like every other site on the internet. - stutimandal, on 07/10/2009, -3/+23Waits for NPAA (news paper AA) and piracy lawsuits...
- DorXtar, on 07/10/2009, -7/+26One less online newspaper to check for news from now on.
- darkism, on 07/10/2009, -6/+23Ha! ***** that! I'll take NEW.YORK.TIMES-07-10-2009-WEB-NEWMEDiA.torrent.
- ZenPirate, on 07/10/2009, -1/+13 Why don't they just have ad driven online content, and charge a subscription for additional functionality, like downloading a pdf copy of the newspaper every morning, or to not show the ads.
- ZenMojo, on 07/10/2009, -4/+13It's a vicious cycle. Many newspapers don't report breaking news, they sell aged news. So "consumers" (because that is what we are) seek out fresh news. This forces newspapers to go to news-light to cut the overhead and match demand. So, we stop reading them to find good, free news. So they decide to sell news-like substitutes. This convinces more people to find news elsewhere.
Maybe if the newspaper of record reported news that wasn't obsolete/debunked days in advance by a savvy online public they could put food in their mouths. Instead, they fire their best reporters and give you 30 pages of ballet reviews and sports scores while leaving international news to half a page. - BrandonJM, on 07/10/2009, -2/+11I doubt this will happen as it is being reported. You will probably see a $5 monthly charge for exclusive content than you would $5 for the whole thing.
- arizonabay, on 07/10/2009, -1/+9I agree with you. As far as US sources go, the NYT is the best it gets when it comes to international and national security journalism. A lot of people on this comments page are laughing at the idea of paying for news, but the fact is that the status quo cannot stand. Unless you want the 24-hour news networks to takeover as the largest and perhaps only source of commercial reporting in the next decade -- as opposed to the NYT, the AP, Washington Post, Boston Globe and others -- we as news consumers need to be willing to pony up some cash to these *actual* journalism institutions.
I would prefer some sort of consortium pay website. These struggling aforementioned news organizations should ally together and offer a single fee for access to dozens of newspapers. And yes, I realize that I'm offering up the "Bang Bros" and "Reality Kings" pornography business model as a way to save the faltering newspaper industry. - MacEnvy, on 07/10/2009, -1/+9It IS ad-supported, but a paper of record like the NY Times has way more overhead than your typical blog. They actually have to send people to investigate and report on things, unlike a blogger who just has to comment on the Times story when it comes out.
- WraTH017, on 07/10/2009, -3/+11I already pay for internet access, and I don't think I'm going to pay for the same information that's free everywhere else on the internet.
Better find a way around that NYT, because I don't even sign up for free memberships to these places. If i can't access information it straight forwardly, I'm most likely just going to go elsewhere. It's much easier to run a Google search than sign up for a membership and pay for it each month.
But that's me. If that business model works for them, godspeed. I doubt it will. - suntzusputnik, on 07/10/2009, -8/+15***** THE NPAA!
- MacEnvy, on 07/10/2009, -0/+7Actually, the NY Times already does that for archived stories and some special features.
- inboxnews, on 07/10/2009, -1/+8Thanks but no thanks. I'll pass on both.
- Cannonballkid, on 07/10/2009, -0/+7God no
- WiseWeasel, on 07/10/2009, -1/+7I think it was free reg, not paid.
- ffhc2000, on 07/10/2009, -8/+14This may be unpopular, but I'm glad they're finally doing this. Paying just $5 a month is still an absolute steal and if it will keep the paper afloat, I'm all for it. Blogs can't even sniff the capabilities of major newspapers in this country in bringing the news and some occasional great reporting.
- root06, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5You really think the quality of news you get from Twitter and the New York times are equivalent? Really?
- sirbeta, on 07/10/2009, -5/+10Sure. Why pay for something when there's even legal alternatives (ie, thousands of other news sites just as big reporting on the same thing)
- jezsik, on 07/10/2009, -2/+7Occasional great reporting? How about occasional REAL reporting. Most papers are reprinting trash they find elsewhere, not doing any sort of reporting at all ... and don't get me started on fact checking. If a paper can't keep up with the times it can stand in the museum next to the town crier and pamphleteer.
- RadioFreeOpium, on 07/10/2009, -3/+8Exactly. 99% of what is called news today is complete garbage. The NYT is an exception, it's intelligent, professional, and publishes things that actually are worth my time to read. If a small fee is necessary to maintain this level of quality, so be it. Then again, most people today (at least in this country) consider paying for intellectual material to be some sort of a con so I don't see much of a prospect for success in this.
- root06, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4How about NSA warrantless wiretapping?
But I speak of newspapers in general. No blogger could break the story on CIA black sites and be taken seriously; it takes an organization like the Washington Post to do that.
The New York Times saw that Blair was breaching professional ethics and he resigned. They could have left it at that. But they cared enough about the truth to investigate his past articles and publish a 7,000 word story on the front page explaining that one of their people screwed up. That takes professionalism. - rda1441, on 07/10/2009, -2/+6Why not just go 100% online. Take a big bold step. They are doing a slow death rattle anyway, be bold and see what happens.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4because ads haven't paid the bills for several years now. For pretty much EVERY site.
- LargeStack, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4About time the do something like this.
I was looking for a pay site to join.
Can I use my some of my Flooz credits? - root06, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4TV news is about immediacy, not depth. It has its place, but by no means replaces the newspaper.
- Daniel591992, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4I like how you use the word "report" in quotes after saying that field reporters are becoming unnecessary. You do want credible information, right?
- justdru, on 07/10/2009, -1/+5THIS JUST IN: justdru offering daily PDF of NYT website for only $1 a month! More later.
- CrimsonBlur, on 07/10/2009, -2/+6Two words: hell no.
- WiseWeasel, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4Methinks hoppy needs to turn AdBlock/Flashblock/Noscript off and try loading their site again...
- arizonabay, on 07/11/2009, -0/+4Please name a US newspaper with superior international coverage than the NY Times. By superior, I do not refer to ideology, but rather to resources, comprehensiveness and column inches dedicated to international coverage.
- superkendall, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Dugg for desperately trying to unload Flooz.
- inigomntoya, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4Its only a matter of time after this happens that someone posts their NYT subscription info on some torrent site...
- itstodd, on 07/10/2009, -3/+6Great example of how to alienate more of your customers...
- Richandler, on 07/10/2009, -10/+13The New York Times is crap anyway. Paul Krugman? Seriously? If you pay $5 for that you deserve to remain an ignorant sheep. They had their heyday 50 years ago.
- mksmothers, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4If only there was another free source of news on the Internet that I could fine. /s
Seriously, the Wall Street Journal couldn't pull this off either. - superkendall, on 07/10/2009, -2/+5They are far from the only source. Want serious, in-depth war reporting? I'd take the independents Michael Totten or Michael Yon (On a side note, I'm not sure why Michaels are so drawn to dangerous war reporting) over the entire lot of major newspaper pool reporters.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
They are both reader supported. - apextek, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3pricing actually sounds resonable
- DirtDog, on 07/11/2009, -1/+4Pay for the best you cheap Bastards!
- loki1584, on 07/11/2009, -0/+3I would pay $5 a month to be able to download it to my Kindle. If I were willing to pay $299 for a Kindle.
- laofmoonster, on 07/11/2009, -0/+3National Professional Anglers Association?
- Spotacus, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I would pay $5 a month for a digital copy of their actual paper but not just for the website as is. You find a lot more to read browsing through a paper than trying to go through an entire website. A pdf delivered to my email every day that I could save and later search through for old articles. I wouldn't even mind having the regular print ads included.
- Aroundtown27, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2Twitter and blogs don't count as news sites.
- WiseWeasel, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3The problem is that a paywall for the bulk of their content would do just the opposite of "keep the paper afloat". It's nowhere to go but down once they lose their online readers to competitors.
- jezsik, on 07/10/2009, -3/+5Here, here! It's a wonder the NYT doesn't look at it's income statement and see how much it's earning from advertising vs. subscriptions. It's not a leap to see they're better off with lots and LOTS of eyeballs looking at their web pages than making a few bucks a month from a few readers.
- Vtorch, on 07/12/2009, -0/+2The New York Times really isn't a good newspaper anymore. There journalists are too one-sided on many issues. The only reason why people still think that they are so/still great is simply because of the fact that they have been around so long.
- jezsik, on 07/10/2009, -2/+4Yeah! USA Today all the way!
/s -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is