quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a rolling new york times thread

The prices are incredibly high. The most I would pay is $49 a year. That is what I pay for usatoday.com.

Best comment on that story. People pay for USA Today?

i've been a daily subscriber of the times for about five years
if you want yesterday's paper, hit me up on twitter

lotta quiddities and agonies itt

the nyt syndicates a lot of their content don't they - so you'd be able to get the content by going through the Louisville Gazette or w/e (via google news search)

but not necessarily the content relating to rich yuppie/hipster twits and their inane "trends," tho'.

i feel like this wont be a realistic business model until more newspapers die off - theres still way too much redundancy - people will just go elsewhere - and it may never be a a money making approach - arriana huffpost is surely enjoying this announcement v much

― ice cr?m, Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:10 PM Bookmark

*buys AOL stock*

I buy the paper on Sun, Wed & Fri, I've done my part

interesting point from felix salmon I can link to an NYT article knowing that my readers will always be able to follow the link, but Paul Krugman can’t. Which isn’t going to make him very happy.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/05/25/nyt-side-door-opens-up-again/

last time they tried this it worked well http://backend.userland.com/2003/06/16#a265

Did anyone already post this?

The Times scheme allows readers 20 free stories per month before they have to pay. However, if you come in via Twitter or Facebook, reading the story doesn't count against your total.

So, cheapskates, meet @freenyt, a three-hour old Twitter feed that intends to tweet all the Times stories.

A non-paywall related comment -- I've been feeling frustration with the NYTimes's reporting for a long time now and I recently put my finger on what it is while reading a Sunday story about the egyptian vote -- everything is so narrative-based, and the tendency is toward fitting everything into narrative tropes. So there's this article on an important Egyptian vote, and yet in the whole four or five paragraphs that appear on the front page, there's nothing substantial about what the vote actually concerns. Instead it's just a lot of cliches about democracy coming to people who didn't have it before and photos of old, weathered looking brown people voting, presumably the most-weathered and most exotic looking people the photographer could find. Into the second page, we start to get some idea that it has to do with things like term limits and a number of other parliamentary democracy-related measures, some of which are scattered throughout the messy article, and others of which are never mentioned.

Yeah, I've sensed that feature-writing vibe, too, with lots of color when sometimes all you really want is the news.
xpost Pretty sure the Times said going through links - which I assume includes twitter and facebook and blogs and stuff - does count toward your 20 free.

12. Can I still access NYTimes.com articles through Facebook, Twitter, Google or my blog? Back to top
Yes. We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media. When you visit NYTimes.com through a link from one of these channels, that article (or video, slide show, etc.) will count toward your monthly limit of 20 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you've already read your 20 free articles.

makes sense when you think about it.

didya catch this Mag feature of Gore Vidal talking about the pulp mysteries he wrote?

After “The City and the Pillar,” which was a cheery tale of two boys who were in love with each other, Orville Prescott of The New York Times, a very distinguished newspaper of yesteryear, said that he would never review a book by me, much less read one. And he said that to Nicholas Wreden, who was the head of E.P. Dutton, who was my publisher. I said, “Can’t we get him up on charges?” And he said, “No, The Times is always like this,” and I said, “Well, the sooner they are out of business the better.” I hope I step on no toes there, but it is a kind of lousy paper and deserves everything that is coming its way.

And that is an opinion that you hold to this day?

I see no reason to change it.

gore vidal is 85

one of his many virtues!

did anyone else get anything like this?

http://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-lincoln-paywall-free-2011-3

i got it

Yes. We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media.

Meanwhile they're trying to get @freenyt shut down...

xp i don't know if it's connected to the fact that i used to have free nyt select access through my academic email address or something?

I need to double-check, but I swear I got an email saying I get unlimited online access since I get the Sunday nytimes? I need to check how much I'm paying, but I think that's actually cheaper than their online-only deals, wtf.

since they would have to be idiots to think this will make me buy (or afford) a lincoln, i figured it must have something to do with targeting people who are likely to spread around links to times stories in somehow the right way, and act as free advertising to entice other people to subscribe. i don't think i ever even had times select, though i did pay for crossword access once.

a 7 day print subscription is cheper than the online only deals!

stopped clock telling the right time here: http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/pricing_should_be_simple

Both companies also have legacy businesses. Netflix’s legacy business is home delivery of DVD and Blu-ray discs. Pricing for this service starts at $2/month in addition to the basic $8/month plan. It makes sense: every Netflix customer gets a digital subscription; those that want a physical product too pay a little more. The pricing steers people toward a digital-only future.

The New York Times’s legacy business is the printed newspaper. They charge less for a print subscription than an all-inclusive digital subscription, despite the fact that all print subscriptions include an all-inclusive digital subscription. This makes no sense. You pay less but get something that intuitively bears a significant real cost: hundreds of pounds of printed newspaper delivered to your home throughout the year. The pricing steers people toward the legacy business.

that's kind of a total lie, because the nytimes is notorious for publishing "introductory rates" and then jacking them up after a brief period. they also bury the actual billing cost way down in the system

otm, my weekend only paper subscription is more than an online sub will be.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/21/rising-wealth-inequality-should-we-care

hey lets have a debate about income inequality and invite only rich white academics

haha it just makes the title ("Rising Wealth Inequality: Should We Care?") even more poignant

Poor People: Should We Do Something About That, or?

that is a humdinger of a headline

i mean

jjjjjjjjfc

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/roomfordebate/contributors/michael_norton.jpg

for posterity

http://f.cl.ly/items/152x2H2o0L130c2v2g44/Screen%20shot%202011-03-23%20at%2000.12.29.jpg

Why Rock the Boat?
Lisa Keister

^^^ lisa really tapping into the ny times "room for debate" soul here

"We Feel Rich Enough"
Scott Winship

That's really an Onion person on the street infographic, right?

RIGHT?

why rock the boat when i might fall out and drown in money?

A Mix of Volatile Attitudes About My Mountain of Pure Gold

cake: should we let them eat it?

keeping envy lolcal

After all, why rock the boat when things could be worse?

hm

crossedarms.gif

http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/bats/

ok actual lol

In terms of income, the gap between rich and middle class is growing, but in terms of happiness it is relatively low by broader historical standards.

These are those people who are poor because they make less than 2 million, right?

these days rich people are not even permitted to enslave poor people for instance