NYT To Stop Charging For Online Access

New York Times:

The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight Tuesday night, reflecting a growing view in the industry that subscription fees cannot outweigh the potential ad revenue from increased traffic on a free site.

The move comes two years to the day after The Times began the subscription program, TimesSelect, which has charged $49.95 a year, or $7.95 a month, for online access to its columnists' work and to the newspaper's archives. TimesSelect has been free to print subscribers to The Times, and to some students and educators.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[larry278]

Times Select isn't worth the price. WSJ is still worth the price. Mr Murdoch is acting like a Scot when it comes to money for now but he could get a terminal case of the stupids & make WSJ into a worthless Murdoch rag. The FT is prepared to step into the void with its US operations if Rupe gets a case of the stupids. There are also competent American publishers to provide reliable, financial data & facts if Rupe slips.
If Schmendrick Sulzburger bankrupts the NYT-it won't be missed.

[MagisterLudi]

NY Times is an important cultural institution.
Only a person whose head is stuck up his rear-stock column can attempt to equate the moronic shekel-rag WSJ with Her Gray Eminence.
You MUST be a penny stock trader!

[DatelessNerd]

It's simple "supply and demand."

There are a billion free news sites out there. Unless you are providing compelling, original content that people can't get elsewhere, you can't charge for it.

[CaptainVideo]

This is great news. Now many more readers will have access to Paul Krugman's powerful criticisms of the Bush Administration. I subscribed to Times Select to have access to Krugman's articles, which were worth the cost. Some of the other columnists were an additional bonus, but I would not have paid for access to them. While I like the fact that I will now have access for free, the important thing is that Krugman's views will be more generally available.

[racetoinfinity]

I'm with you, Cap'n, as I stated above.

[MagisterLudi]

Yeah, like anyone actually paid for that yellow marked content. Most of it was some "exclusive" opinion bullshit story. When they introduced it I just when there less. Still, for all it's faults The Gray Lady is the best newspaper in U.S.bar none.
Reading TImes is like being in a presence of royalty.Especially when compared to hysterical yellow blogger press like Huffpo or Faux News.

[TerryFL]

.

Fees for Judy Miller's columns will remain unchanged: 100,000 dead Iraqis and 3,750 dead US troops.

.

[tiredandworried]

This is good news. The more free sites the better. This way blogs can refer to these "news" reports and comment on them. Also, writers can find past stories to check dates and facts. This means that the internet is working. KEEP THE INTERNET OPEN!!!

[Avantdan]

Good. Now even the poor will have access to this corporatized propaganda!

Who cares? Fucking Bullshit.

The NYT will be a tabloid in a NY minute.

[ajax2]

Lost my excuse for not reading Tom Friedman. I Will go to my fall back position, Friedman has been dead wrong since 2002, quite a losing streak, zero for five years.

[NoContest]

The Times Op Ed writers are soooo stale,

"Dowd - bleeech!" She has set the democrats back 40 years with her callous vile people-puke.

Friedman? A traitor against the country with his encouragement for the Iraq War... Not to mention that worthless white trash, Judith Miller.

Paul Krugman is interesting, but kind of creepy in his own right.

What's left?

In a word.... nothing.

!~

[LibsRHilarious]

This should increase their readership to about 10.

Maybe they should pay us to read their rag.

They sure paid BowelMoveOn.org to post their attack on an American's patriotism.

[racetoinfinity]

Paul Krugman is one of the best and most right-on writers we have around today. "Creepy"? You've got to be kidding! How old are you, "no contest", btw?

Glad The NYT will be letting us read Krugman, Rich, Herbert (both very good, too), Dowd (she has her fun moments and what you said about her is a bit ridiculous "nc"), plus the thinking of Richistan (Friedman - it's fun to watch himself twist himself in pretzels to justify his cheerleading on globalism and the war now) - one needs to keep up with the thinking of the opposition - and I guess that includes the other right-wing commentators there - Brooks is a fool, though - Friedman is too, as mentioned.

But I want to repeat how great I think Krugman is!