backtop

Internet Free is Good: New York Times Online Drops Fees
Jason Mick (Blog) - September 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 98 comment(s) - last by Continuation.. on Oct 1 at 5:15 PM
America's third largest newspaper says free is good!

The New York Times has earned the reputation of being one of the world's premier newspapers since its founding in 1851.  For over 150 years people have relied on the paper to report their news daily.  Today, the Times is America's third largest newspaper, trailing only USA Today and The Wall Street Journal in distribution.

The Times hit the online newsstand in 1995 and has been a powerful internet news presence ever since.  The only downside is that it relegated much of its best content to "select" status.  Access to TimesSelect for this year was priced at $7.95 per month or $49.95 per year.

Now the Times has made a significant announcement in a press release -- there will be no more "select" content; everything on the site will be viewable free of charge.  The Times foresees significant increase in traffic as it opens up access to over 20 of its premier columns.

The Times' move already has its first major corporate sponsor, eager to increase its advertising presence:  American Express.

The TimesSelect launched in September 2005, and according to The New York Times had 787,400 active subscribers -- 471,200 whom received it as part of their paper subscription and 227,000 who paid solely for the online access.

Perhaps more significantly, the move also opens up a significant chunk of the Times online archives, which hold nearly all its content since the 1800s.  The 1851 to 1922 and 1987 to present archives will be offered free of charge. 

The only downside is that the 1923 to 1986 archives are only available via purchase in single or 10-article packages.

Additional tools for personalizing and customizing your Times account are also made available for free.

Free is the best price in most people's mind and the Times is setting a positive example by finally making most of its content available free of charge.  The Times’ faith in advertiser revenue is similar to the spirit embodied by SpiralFrog, a free online music download service which launched yesterday, paid for solely by ad support.  As more legal free content proliferates through various web firms, the internet is transforming the modern business model and businesses are learning -- sometimes free can actually make money.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Its free !
By crystal clear on 9/18/2007 11:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the internet is transforming the modern business model and businesses are learning -- sometimes free can actually make money.


How right you are on this-good analysis.

Talking about FREE then read this-(courtesy N.Y. Times)

"I.B.M. to Offer Office Software Free in Challenge to Microsoft’s Line"

The company is announcing the desktop software, called I.B.M. Lotus Symphony, at an event today in New York. The programs will be available as free downloads from the I.B.M. Web site.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/technology/18blu...




RE: Its free !
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 11:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't quite understand the strategy - IBM is investing money to give away a product to try to deprive Microsoft of revenue. On the one hand, I don't see how this helps IBM directly at all, i.e., where's the ROI?

On the other hand, even if they are able to decrease Microsoft's market share and revenue, how does this really benefit IBM strategically?

I guess I don't really "get" what I would perceive as destructive competition. I recognize the ability for these situations to change markets, but I fail to see how it benefits the shareholders of the involved companies.

Can anyone enlighten me?


RE: Its free !
By crystal clear on 9/18/2007 11:51:50 AM , Rating: 1
As mentioned in the article-

“Three major players — I.B.M., Google and Sun — are now solidly behind a potential competing standard to Office,” said Rob Koplowitz, an analyst at Forrester Research. “But it’s a tough road. Office is very entrenched.”



Will get back to you on this-The Trio behind it.


RE: Its free !
By smitty3268 on 9/18/2007 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
The better Linux and AIX do the better off IBM is. So they're directly helping those platforms and trying to make it easier to jump away from Windows. There's no direct ROI, so it's a bit of a long-term gamble. They obviously thought it was worth it, though.


Log-in nag pages?
By AmberClad on 9/18/2007 10:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
Great to hear that the articles will be free, but what about those annoying nag webpages on the NYT site that force you to log into an account (or use BugMeNot on it). The WP and LAT are just as bad in that regard.




RE: Log-in nag pages?
By darkpaw on 9/18/2007 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
My solution for those is just not to visit them. There is plenty of other news sources on the web and 90%+ of the content is from the services anyways.

I'd read more of the WP, but as long as they force logins and have too much active crap on the pages, I'll just read the news someplace else.


RE: Log-in nag pages?
By xsilver on 9/18/2007 10:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
I would suspect that this is the exact reason that the NYT is removing its fees; its market researchers have probably analysed that they'd be making more money buy having free articles subsidised by advertising rather than paid articles.

the login password thing might still be there but this is the perfect time to use the "remember password" feature on your browser.


typo
By flyboy84 on 9/18/2007 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 3
"The 1851 and 1922..."

should be

"The 1851 to 1922..."




RE: typo
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/18/2007 10:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, it will be fixed.


When it becomes free:
By AmbroseAthan on 9/18/2007 10:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
content previously available through TimesSelect, including online access to 23 news and opinion columnists, personalization tools, access to the Times archives back to 1987 and more, will be available free of charge at www.nytimes.com beginning Wednesday, Sept. 19 .


Quoted from the press release linked above.




The Times has lost credibility
By Nfarce on 9/18/2007 5:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people see the times as a political mouthpiece for the left. Take the former Times columnist Jason Blair for example. The man plagiarized many, many columns to get his point across against the right. One doesn't have to read past page A1 to see where the political agenda is.

But just look at the recent Moveon.org ad to give an insight into how the Times cares about accuracy in the media. An excerpt from the ad that ran last week:

“According to the NY Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, death by car bombs don’t count.”

That's a flat out lie that the NYT failed to correct. Here is what the Times themselves wrote in a column just days before about just that:

“Casualties that result from fighting between groups, like the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, however, are not classified as sectarian, as they are the result of clashes between two Shiite organizations. But victims of all car bomb attacks and Shiite and Sunni infighting are included in the overall civilian casualty count .”

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytime...

Anyway, this just goes to show you, as many others have stated, that the Times needs all the readership it can get, especially when dishing out false information that benefits the left for next year's election.




By TheGreek on 9/19/2007 2:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
That would be much more productive that a free website from the Times.




Who cares
By rninneman on 9/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 11:06:12 AM , Rating: 4
Speak like a loyal viewer of Faux News.

"Far left"? I guess in your little world everyone left of Bill O'Reilly is called "far left." LOL.


RE: Who cares
By Misty Dingos on 9/18/2007 11:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well anyone right of Bill O'Reilly is either a libertarian or Sean Hannity.

But what I think he is trying to say is that it has become obvious that many of our news sources have abandoned the principle of setting aside their own view points when publishing news. Whether that publication is news papers or TV. The record of obviously slanted writing on both sides of this argument tell of a sad time in these organizations.

I seriously doubt that anyone can make the argument that the CBS evening news is anymore ‘Fair and Balanced’ than Fox News. Having journalists that will not set aside their own bias and just report the stories is not good for anyone.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 11:37:33 AM , Rating: 5
I think most Americans actually want slightly biased news reporting. Why else would it be so prevalent and so unquestioned? Also, why else are "news commentators" like O'Reily so popular?

Think about it - if you are right-leaning, then watching Fox news, O'Reily, etc. probably gives you some satisfaction. If you are left leaning, probably CNN generally liberal reporting and commentary appeals. People like to see others take their side - it's basic human psychology.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
So, by your own logic...

The NY Times, being very biased --> is therefore very large (popular).


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, but I wouldn't get too carried away with that. I think it is reasonable the NYT is in part popular because it is in sync with the political sensibilities of a lot of New Yorkers. Consider the alternative - if they were out of step with their readers, surely readership would decline, right?

That said, I don't think it's correct to say that political bias is the only factor that makes a paper popular.


RE: Who cares
By Misty Dingos on 9/18/2007 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
The issue of bias in reporting becomes apparent when the pursuit of news becomes a witch hunt in search of a victim. What the press should do is pursue news worthy stories with vigor and detachment. Truth should be the goal and not pandering to the client. Pandering to your market should be limited to the editorial and comic pages.

Following your precept that the people want to be pandered to so it isn't wrong is the same justification a drug dealer uses.

If I can't trust the NYT or Fox News to be unbiased in their reporting of the news then what purpose do they serve? Would it not be honest then to have a disclaimer then at the top of every page that said "All news reported here is biased by the reporters and the editorial staff. Read at your own risk."

The confusion of editorial content and news seems like a blurry gray line to many but it should be a strong brick wall in the mind of editors.

And if the NYT had not run the ad by moveon.org that would not have been censorship. They have every right to run what ever ad they wish to and to refuse to run any ad they feel would bring discredit, disdain, lower sales, or if they just don't like the colors in the ad. If the government told the NYT not to run the ad that is censorship.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 2:07:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I agree with you, and I'm certainly not meaning to justify the bias in news reporting. I find it as troubling as you do, and I try to seek out straight-shooting news reports.

But on the other hand, almost all major news organizations do express some bias in my experience, and the "news commentary" type shows are as popular as ever, so there certainly is quite a bit of demand for this. Maybe the thought is that a little pandering is okay? (I mean who who amongst us hasn't tried a controlled substance at least once? Again, not saying it's right, I'm just making an observation.)

What I find really ironic is networks like Fox News who claim they are "fair and balanced," when any reasonable person realizes they are not. They are making a mockery of journalistic integrity with that motto.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are making a mockery of journalistic integrity with that motto.

Huh, Every time I see a broadcast I see a Liberal and a Conservative duking it out. I see Liberal and Conservative news anchors all throughout the day. What are you talking about.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 2:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, they bring in people to explain the liberal side only to tear 'em apart, and Colmes is their "token liberal."

There's nothing "fair and balanced" about Fox News.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 2:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
But doesn't the conservative guest come on to explain the conservative view??? The liberal and/or other party gets the same turn at the mic as the next guy. Both parties are there and they both argue with the same tactics.

Regurgitating a quote over and over again doesn't make it any more true or false as the first time you said it.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 2:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well I'll have to concede this point since I don't have any Fox News transcripts handy to analyze nor the time to analyze them anyway. My statements were based on my perceptions when I watch Fox News, but maybe I'm wrong. I've also watched a lot of O'Reily and maybe that has spilled over to color my view of the network in general.


RE: Who cares
By vortmax on 9/18/2007 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post. It's nice to actually see someone concede when the situation allows. I applaud thee....


RE: Who cares
By rushfan2006 on 9/18/2007 12:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Think about it - if you are right-leaning, then watching Fox news, O'Reily, etc. probably gives you some satisfaction. If you are left leaning, probably CNN generally liberal reporting and commentary appeals. People like to see others take their side - it's basic human psychology.


If I could rate this reply (above) to 6 I would...kudos to the most logical common sense reply I've seen in a long time in any "political" based debate.

More so this has been my view on politics from day one...and why everyone makes me laugh inside with the "FAUX news" (Fox News hit) or "Clinton News Network" (CNN News hit).....comments....

The sooner people realize that A) Wow other people don't always agree with me and B) Holy shit I'm not alone in this world.

The better off you'll be....


RE: Who cares
By rninneman on 9/18/2007 11:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
Plenty of people on the left (not far left) condemned the ad. Is your personal motto "Ignorance is bliss"


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 12:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
And plenty of people have no problems with the ad. What's your point?

Let me get this straight. You don't like the ad. Therefore you think NYT should decline to run the ad just because you personally don't like it.

Is your personal motto "I hate freedom and love censorship"? No wonder you love Faux News.


RE: Who cares
By rninneman on 9/18/2007 3:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Plenty of people had no problem with NYT running the ad or the ad itself. Most people had no problem with them running it; the problem was with the ad itself. Granted NYT did not create the ad, but they certainly aligned themselves politically by giving the large discount. (Not to mention the large sums of money they now have to give up for future ads. Stockholders probably aren't too happy.) If you read my other posts, you would know that I have said this is not a censorship issue. Even if the NYT declined to run the ad, it would not be censorship. In our free market economy, they have the right to accept or refuse ads from whom ever they choose. Now if the government told them not to run it, that would be censorship.

You far lefties are a strange bunch. You talk about losing freedom through censorship, but give one example of how that is happening.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 3:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
Just to keep the debate honest, I believe it was reported that the price paid by MoveOn.org was the standard rate offered to advocacy groups regardless of political affiliation. One of the posters has links below.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 3:28:55 PM , Rating: 3
You extreme righty lunatics have certainly taken up obfuscation as your modus operandi. How sad is that?

How is NYT "align(ing) themselves politically" with MoveOn when in reality NYT offered MoveOn the same standard discount they offer to all advocacy ads ?!?

"While The Times does not discuss its fees for specific ads, it has said it charges $65,000 for full-page, black-and-white “advocacy” ads that run on a seven-day “standby” basis."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/chen...

That's right. It's a standard discount that even conservative groups get. As a matter of fact, Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, was quoted the exact same $65,000 rate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14pa...

Does that mean that in your mind now NYT has "aligned themselves politically" with Freedom’s Watch?

Heck I ordered a book from Amazon today and got a standard discount from them. Wow I guess now Amazon has "aligned themselves politically" with me by offering that standard discount huh?

The lunacy of the extreme righties never ceases to entertain.


RE: Who cares
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/18/2007 11:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
On the contrary I would call them one of the most respected and long standing US news firms.

If moveon.org is willing to pay them to run an add that does not have profanity or racist or explicit images, the NYT was doing to the right thing to publish it.

Censorship in the media is a dangerous thing. I say kudos to NYT for publishing the ad, they are letting people voice their political opinions.

NYT is not on a decline either, as much as people are getting their news from alternative sources (ie Dailytech =D ). NYT is third largest newspaper in the country by distribution #s. USA Today is only ahead as they distribute far larger amounts for free. The WST provides a unique amount of information in a condensed readable form, still not matched online.

Regardless if the NYT hurt the far right wingers feelings, it still has a LOT of impact as one of the largest voices in our country's printed media.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 11:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
"NYTimes is only the third largest (newspaper) because AOL subscriptions are falling faster than the NYTimes. LOL"

Do you know what a newspaper is? Go ahead look it up. Did you know that AOL isn't a newspaper? I always knew the extreme rights are dumb. Just didn't know they are *that* dumb.

"LOL" indeed.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
With every additional post you're making a bigger fool of yourself.

Look at the original comment of JasonMick which you quoted and responded to:

quote:
NYT is third largest newspaper in the country by distribution #s.


Notice that little word "newspaper"? Notice how it doesn't say online? Yep that's right, Jason was talking about plain old newspaper, not online.

As a matter of fact, if you were less ignorant, you'd have known that NYT is indeed the 3rd largest plain old newspaper by circulation, behind USA Today and Wall Street Journal. If you're talking about online newspaper website, NYT is actually the largest, not the 3rd largest, newspaper website by number of visitors.

Yeah so if you were less ignorant, you would've known that Jason's comment had nothing to do with Online and you wouldn't have made such an idiotic statement "NYTimes is only the third largest because AOL subscriptions are falling faster than the NYTimes. LOL."

And if you were less dumb, you would've most definitely quited while you were behind and not have come back and made an even more moronic statement such as "Coming from someone who can't quote correctly you have little to jest about. Online subscriptions are the talk of the day. ...Online, Online, Online... Try to keep up with everyone please..."

But then again asking you to not do stupid things is just asking too much.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 12:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Try reading the Article title.
quote:
Free is Good: New York Times Online Drops Fees

Don't you look stupid now. This whole big rant and you missed the point entirely.

Jason also quoted the only time throughout an entire year that the NYTimes has even the slightest gain in subscriptions when the overall picture for the NYTimes was very bleak. They lost 10's of THOUSANDS or subscriptions for the year Jason quoted.

Your name Continuation is correct, continuation of a fool.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 12:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you try reading your own post genius?

Which statement of Jason did you quote and respond to? That's right it's this one:

quote:
NYT is third largest newspaper in the country by distribution #s.


Does it say anything about online in that statement little Einstein? Can you even read?

And what was your response to Jason's statement above? Yep that's right this is the gem you came up with:

quote:
NYTimes is only the third largest because AOL subscriptions are falling faster than the NYTimes. LOL


So you were telling us NYT was only the third largest newspaper "because AOl subscriptions are falling faster than the NYTimes" when in reality AOL isn't even a newspaper. What perfect logic LMAO!

Did you work hard to become this stupid or were you born this way?


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 2:00:57 PM , Rating: 1
Are you aware of AOL/Time Warner investments in the newspaper industry???


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 2:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
What does that have to do with your idiotic statement that

"NYTimes is only the third largest (newspaper) because AOL subscriptions are falling faster than the NYTimes. LOL"

Don't try to weasel your way out by dragging irrelevant stuffs into the argument. Your tactic doesn't confuse anyone except yourself.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 2:27:31 PM , Rating: 1
The only confused one is yourself. Who do you think owns the NYTimes? If I refer to parent companies and you don't get it then the only person confused is yourself. It isn't my obligation to inform you of what you don't know.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 2:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
I know you're slow so I'll be veeeeery patient with you. But still try not to drag everyone down to your room temperature IQ level...

You wrote and I quote:

quote:
NYTimes is only the third largest because AOL subscriptions are falling faster than the NYTimes. LOL


You said " AOL subscriptions ". The only thing that could've meant is "subscriptions to the online service AOL." Or are you trying to weasel your way out now by saying when you wrote " AOL subscriptions " you actually meant "subscriptions to newspapers which I'm not naming which may or may not be owned by AOl's parent company Time Warner"? LMAO! What a clown.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 2:41:22 PM , Rating: 1
Since you responded to your own post... I'll accept your criticism on your own behalf.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 2:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
What? no more idiotic attempts to weasel out of your own confusion?

Why don't you focus on what I wrote (like I did you) instead of making a feeble attempt to save face by trying to move the focus to irrelevant matters such as where my post was placed?


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 2:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't proven anything yet other than you don't know the corporate structure behind the news. Follow the money trail, figure out who was third before and do a little deduction. You'll figure it out eventually.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
So tell us exactly what did you mean by "AOL subscriptions." Go ahead, enlighten us.

I might not have proven anything. You, on the other hand, have proven beyond any doubt that you're a pompous idiotic with no sense of shame. Quite an achievement.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 2:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
And by the way, I'll give you another free lesson.

I didn't respond to my own post. I responded to yours . My post was placed the way it was because that's how the commenting software works.

Look at your own post - it also appears that you responded to the wrong post. That's how the software works.

So you got any more idiotic obfuscation tactics?


RE: Who cares
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/18/2007 11:31:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If they are so respected why are their subscription numbers going down the drain?


Care to name your sources?

USA Today reported last year that NYT subscriptions were up 0.5% from the previous year (05). This is significant as USA Today reported its own gain as only 0.09%, a substantial admission from a competitor.

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-05-08-new...

Again, while proponents of censorship may be deeply saddened, the NYT is very popular, had 1.1 million paid subscriptions last year, and is still growing.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 11:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
Times Select subscriptions falling, newspapers subscriptions falling like a rock, but look out the online viewer ship is up 0.5%.

We're making a comeback!!! 0_o


RE: Who cares
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/18/2007 11:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment makes no sense.

0.5% is refering to the increase in paper circulation subscriptions (if you read the source actually), not online subscriptions.

And obviously Times Select subscriptions are falling, they just discontinued the service, effective Sept. 19. Is that understandable?


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry but you are incorrect and nice spin by the way pointing to the May report while the October report paints the end result. The first article was pointing out website gains early in 06.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-10-30-new...

It fell 3.5% Thats a big NEGATIVE 3.5%


RE: Who cares
By rninneman on 9/18/2007 11:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a censorship issue. Only extremists would call for censorship of the ad. (Even that is debatable because MoveOn just showed their true colors.) It is the fact that the NYT aligned themselves politically with MoveOn by giving themselves a whopping 65% discount. In an effort to save face, they will give everyone the new lower price, including Rudi Giuliani last week who they loathe. If I were a stock holder, I'd be pissed at how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they will be giving up over the next few years until they can ratchet the price back up.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 11:54:01 AM , Rating: 1
NY Times isn't necessarily in trouble over simply posting this particular ad. Don't you "SPIN" this to be about censorship; when you know it's not about censorship.

The NY Times clearly supported, or aided this extreme left wing ad by giving moveon.org a 65 percent discount on a full page ad.

The NY Times was caught "red-handed" compromising its journalistic ethics. Now they are trying to make up for it by eliminating fees.

Who cares how large the NY Times is? Tabloids are large too, so what. The NY Times can be large, and yet have little journalistic credibility. Large size != credible.

I hope the greater Dailytech.com staff does not support what the NY Times did. I hope this is limited to just the opinions of Jason Mick only.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 12:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but you have yet to prove a connection between the moveon.org ad and this move. You haven't even started to make a plausable argument.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Source: New York Post

"According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/national...


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 12:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
OK, that's a start, but please now prove the connection to the change to make NYT online free, since that's what we're talking about.

(Also, I should point out that nearly all advertisers will not be paying the open rate for ads in NYT. In addition, the rates for non-profits are often discounted even more. But I think you already realize this, however.)


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 3:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have to prove the timing connection, nor is it my intention to.

All I am saying is the NY Times timing of its fee removal is convenient in light of recent national headlines. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Readers will decide for themselves.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 3:13:13 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
All I am saying is the NY Times timing of its fee removal is convenient in light of recent national headlines.


No. You were also making the totally unsubstantiated claim that

"The NY Times clearly supported, or aided this extreme left wing ad by giving moveon.org a 65 percent discount on a full page ad."

when in reality the discount MoveOn received is a standard discount offered to all advocacy ads including those from conservative groups.

You want to correct your misstatement? No? That's what I thought.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 4:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
I have recently re-addressed my statement a few posts below.

I hope you kindly take the time to read it.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 1:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why am I not surprised that you were quoting NY Post, owned by the extreme right Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News?

Of course in their zealotry to "prove" a vast left wing consipracy, NY Post , and you, conveniently neglected to disclose the fact that the $65,000 is a standard discounted rate for advocacy ads:

"While The Times does not discuss its fees for specific ads, it has said it charges $65,000 for full-page, black-and-white “advocacy” ads that run on a seven-day “standby” basis."

Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/chen...

As a matter of fact, Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, was quoted the exact same $65,000 rate:

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14pa...

What? No "outrage" that a conservative group is quoted "only" $65,000 by NYT for an ad?

So much for your vast left-wing conspiracy theory...


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 1:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
Uh-huh...and both your sources are from the NY Times.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 2:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
So, kill the messenger, smear the source, right?

I think the NY Times would be a credible source for information about their own advertising rates. In addition, if the NY Times lied, it would be a simple matter for the named conservative organization to speak out and correct the record, right?


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 2:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
"So, kill the messenger, smear the source, right?"

I could use your same argument against you with all the news media organizations you have tried to smear or discredit here.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 2:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but if you read what I wrote, I didn't dispute something that a news organization wrote by saying the source is biased. You did that, not me.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 2:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Your posts speak for themselves.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 2:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
As do yours. You've made a number of assertions which I've challenged you to back up, and you haven't come up with even a single reply for any of them - all you do is try to change the subject. It's tough to debate someone who won't take responsibility for his/her own words.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 2:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
Which makes sense, since NYT knows better than anyone else about their own ad rates. What's your excuse for using the tabloid NY Post as a source?

Also you so conveniently ignored this quote from Bradley A. Blakeman, president of the conservative group Freedom's Watch:

"The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000"

So the $65,000 standard discounted rate was confirmed by a conservative group. That doesn't make your conspiracy theory look good, does it now?


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
You know, you and Tomz may be right about the "standard non-profit STANDBY discount" the NY Times offered moveon.org. However...

This particular ad was highly offensive and a "slap in the face" to our military veterans who have fought extremely hard and placed their lives in harm's way to defend our country.

Because this ad had the STANDBY discount, the NY Times was under no obligation to place this ad on the said dates nor on the preferred pages where it would receive the most exposure.

*** 1) The NY Times could have used a little discretion, and placed the ad on a page where it would receive much less exposure.

*** 2) The NY Times could also have chosen to run the offensive ad on low volume dates.

The NY Times made the choice to run the ad where it would receive the most exposure.

The NY Times likely knew this particular ad would be highly controversial, and would generate lots of exposure (and possibly a huge sales boost) for them. I believe the NY Times chose to exploit this ad to their advantage, rather than do the right thing with the options I stated above.

I will have NO SYMPATHY for the NY Times should they lose in sales or suffer a loss in advertising revenues because of their chosen actions.

You can bet the actions of the supporters behind moveon.org and the NY Times will come back to haunt them.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 4:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, so now the NYT didn't use proper discretion on the timing and placement of the ad. You've got to be kidding me. Way to use your imagination!

And while I'm not a military veteran myself, I at least understand what they fought for. They fought for the freedom for moveon.org, NYT, and every other organization to exercize their First Amendment right to free speech. I would think that a veteran who fights for our country but does not support one of its most important principles would be a hypocrite.

Your notion of PC crap is for the birds!


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 5:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
Look, EVERYONE here is already in agreement that censorship is clearly NOT an option. EVERYONE here supports the First Amendment. I thought we were at least passed this point. Can we move forward now?

I'm a little surprised I should have to tell you Tomz that "use of discretion" != censorship. The media masses commonly uses discretion everyday here in the free world. I know this comes as no surprise to you.

The NY Times has the right to print whatever they please, and I encourage them to do so.

Tomz and the NY Times can insult our military as much as they please, but we reserve the right...

*** 1) to not have to read their BS.
*** 2) to respond with our opinions about their BS.

Nice attempt at spinning what I said though.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 6:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
If somebody places an ad for a specific date to coincide with a political event, and the newspaper refuses to print it, that is not "discretion," that is "censorship."

Discretion is telling the lingere companies to go easy on the racy photos. Refusing to accept a political ad is censorship. See the difference?

Again, I find it hard to believe that many military folk were offended by the ad. Another point for consorship.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 6:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
I am trying to defend our military vets to the best of my abilities here, Tomz.

What does that say about your character, as you continuously attack me and spin the things I say?

I bet you are one of the founding, senior members of moveon.org, and I bet it was you, personally, who made the ad.

Our posts do speak for themselves. Continue on supporting and defending moveon.org, their ad, and the NY Times on this thread. Let people know who you really are as a person. To think I ever once respected you disgusts me.

To all our military vets:

We can never thank you enough for all you have sacrificed for us.

I will continue to support you by volunteering, and by other means.

You have never given up on us. We will not give up on you.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 7:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
Geez, why all the emotional rhetoric? Why don't you just explain why you think that ad would offend military folks? Because all I'm saying is that I think they would understand and appreciate the freedom that was exercised in comparison to being offended by the contents of the message.

Anyway, if you can't answer that, then I'm going to have to give up and let you have the last word.


RE: Who cares
By rsmech on 9/18/2007 11:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because all I'm saying is that I think they would understand and appreciate the freedom that was exercised


I really don't think they appreciate it, but they stomach it. I assume they are as human as myself. I would be offended if my sacrifices caused disdain to those I sacrificed for. I would think what they are doing isn't only for Move On, they just reap the rewards by proxy. I sure as hell wouldn't be over there if they were my cause. Sorry just human nature. This is my non censored view & I respect yours.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/18/2007 8:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
So now the extreme righties have turned into PC police? You're complaining that NYT doesn't run their business exactly to your liking? Would you want them to undergo some mandatory sensitivity training? That makes you happy?

This may come as a shock to you, but just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so. Plenty of people have no problem whatsoever with the ad. Plenty of people think the ad actually speaks the truth. Who the hell do you think you are to force your point of view onto everyone else?

Yes NYT could have placed the ad somewhere else. They could have run it a at different date. But why should they? Just to please you? Get a clue.

You think the only way for NYT to "do the right thing" is to follow your options? You have a very deluded sense of self-importance, I'll give you that. Just because NYT didn't take a course of action you agree with doesn't mean they're not "doing the right thing." Since when have you become the ultimate arbiter of morality?


RE: Who cares
By rsmech on 9/19/2007 12:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would you want them to undergo some mandatory sensitivity training?


Sorry Libs already tried that on me, didn't work.

quote:
This may come as a shock to you, but just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so.


Sure it does. If I say I am offended then I sure as hell am.

quote:
Since when have you become the ultimate arbiter of morality?


Since I took the post over from you.

All fun & games aside this whole thread could be reduced to the fact that you can't change my feelings of "bias" about the NYT as I cannot change yours about Fox. I am entertained with the challenge of it as sport. Like it was stated earlier we like our slanted news, I agree. Yours offends me as mine offends you.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/19/2007 10:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure it does. If I say I am offended then I sure as hell am.


Do you actually know how to read? Re-read what I wrote: "just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so." If you say an ad is offensive, then sure you're offended, but that does not make that ad offensive. Can't tell the difference between your subjective feeling and the objective quality of an item? Next time you might want to think twice before skipping out on your remedial English class again. Not cool to waste all those tax payer money, you know.


RE: Who cares
By rsmech on 9/22/2007 12:30:52 AM , Rating: 2
What are you nuts or something? To say it's not objective is just as subjective as my assertion. But like you said
quote:
Since when have you become the ultimate arbiter of morality?
It way my mistake oh ultimate arbiter of morality.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/23/2007 12:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
OK nutty boy I'll give you an example:

"Rsmech says he's disgusted by the bible because of all the incest and violence in it."

So does the fact that "Rsmech says he's disgusted by the bible" makes the bible disgusting? Using you logic it must right?

How about 1 more example:

"I say rsmech is a retard." Does saying that make you a retard? That's an objective statement according to you right?

Still going to tell me you can't tell the difference between subjective and objective? LOL.


RE: Who cares
By rsmech on 9/24/2007 12:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
Can you say anything coherent?

"just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so."

quote:
Still going to tell me you can't tell the difference between subjective and objective? LOL.


PLEASE REREAD YOUR OWN POSTS

I told you that it is subjective to call the ad offensive or not. You disagreed with me at first now you call me retarded in the same post you agree with me.

So my question to you is can you read your own post or keep your mind focused enough not to contradict yourself. Or call me retarded just after stating my own argument against your first post. HELLO anyone home


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/24/2007 1:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
You should take your own advice and READ YOUR OWN POST. Apparently you don't even know what you're arguing about. Can you understand simple english?

I said "just because you find an ad offensive doesn't make it so". You said "Sure it does". So you're saying that just because you find an ad offensive that means that ad is offensive.

Using your logic - if you find the bible disgusting then that means the bible is disgusting. Right? Right?

quote:
I told you that it is subjective to call the ad offensive or not. You disagreed with me at first


Are you for real?! Now you're stealing my position?! I was the one who told YOU that it is subjective to call the ad offensive or not. Hence my statement that "just because you find an ad offensive doesn't make it so". YOU were the one who disagreed with me, hence your response "sure it does." Now you're lying about that?!


RE: Who cares
By rsmech on 9/25/2007 8:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
You don't seem to be understanding. Here is your post.
quote:
This may come as a shock to you, but just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so. Plenty of people have no problem whatsoever with the ad. Plenty of people think the ad actually speaks the truth. Who the hell do you think you are to force your point of view onto everyone else?


Just because I may say it is offensive you say doesn't make it so. My point if you follow is - If you say it's not offensive doesn't make it so. Do you follow yet. You are placing yourself as the sole judge as to right & wrong. I have been telling you it is SUBJECTIVE, you state it as a fact that it is not offensive in your original post. I merely stated that is your OPINION which you are entitled too AS AM I. Therefor it is offensive to me & maybe not to you. Are you getting the point of the argument yet. REREAD your original post & my comment. I merely stated it was offensive & have been debating with you that we may not agree but don't tell me it is not offensive to me. Or are you still
quote:
the ultimate arbiter of morality?


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 9/26/2007 1:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
REREAD MY POST AND YOUR POST. STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID .

quote:
you state it as a fact that it is not offensive in your original post


Exactly where did I state that ? Care to enlighten me on that? What I wrote was "just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so" which is exactly what it means. It doesn't state anywhere that it's "a fact that it is not offensive." All it states is that just because you find something offensive doesn't make it offensive. It may be offensive, and it maye be not. But you saying it being offensive doesn't make it so. Huge difference between what I said and what you claimed I said.

If you want to argue about somethng, at least argue about it honestly. Don't lie about what I said just to set up a strawman . You're fooling nobody but yourself. Is this method of "arguing by lying" what you learned from Faux News?

Your response to my statement "just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so" was:

quote:
Sure it does.


Hence you were saying that just because you find something offensive surely MAKES said thing offensive. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO TRIED TO PASS OFF YOUR SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS AS FACTS.

Now tell me, Who's trying to be the ultimate arbiter of morality ?


RE: Who cares
By rsmech on 9/30/2007 11:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This may come as a shock to you, but just because you find the ad "highly offensive" doesn't make it so. Plenty of people have no problem whatsoever with the ad. Plenty of people think the ad actually speaks the truth. Who the hell do you think you are to force your point of view onto everyone else?


Enough said on that.

Next what I'm trying to illustrate is that I may call it highly offensive while you do not. We are both correct. I am not arguing that you should believe me, as I don't have to believe you. I just took offense from your comment:
quote:
Who the hell do you think you are to force your point of view onto everyone else?
I think the original poster, myself, as well as you can be "Who the hell" we want. So as your question ask the opposing party I address it to you. "Who the hell are you"? I was making jest of your moral superiority. His, mine, as well as your statement are valid. Just live with it. Neither of us is right on this point and neither is wrong. It's an opinion of offense. That is my point. The end.


RE: Who cares
By Continuation on 10/1/2007 5:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Next what I'm trying to illustrate is that I may call it highly offensive while you do not. We are both correct. I am not arguing that you should believe me, as I don't have to believe you.

My comments were never about whether the ad was offensive or not. In fact I made it very clear that it was a "subjective" opinion, that some people find the ad offensive, and some people don't. So stop beating that strawman and stop lying about what I said.

quote:
I just took offense from your comment: "Who the hell do you think you are to force your point of view onto everyone else?" I think the original poster, myself, as well as you can be "Who the hell" we want.

READ my comment you quoted and the post it was addressed to (the post by EndPCnoise). My "Who the hell" comment at which you claim to take such great offense was a direct response to EndPCnoise's claim that because he found the ad highly offensive, NYT should do what he wanted them to do or else they were not "doing the right thing." THAT is acting like an "ultimate arbiter of morality".

To prevent you from again resorting to obfuscation and lying, I'll summarize what the 3 of us have said:

EndPCNoise: He finds the ad highly offensive, therefore NYT should do what he told them to do or else they're not doing the right thing.

Me: "Offensive" is highly subjective. Some people find the ad offensive, others don't. Just because someone find something offensive doesn't make said thing offensive. EndPCNoise was acting like a self-appointed ultimate arbiter of morality in telling NYT they need to do what he told them to do or else they're not doing the right thing.

You (rsmech): Just because you find something offensive surely makes said thing offensive. You also lied about how I said it was a "fact" that the ad was offensive.

So as you can see very clearly from above, there is no parallel between the 3 of us. EndPCNoise thinks NYT needs to do what he tell them to do or else they're not doing the right thing. You think you are some ultimate arbiter of morality and that just because you find something offensive surely makes said thing offensive. I merely pointed out the arrogance of the 2 of you and the lie of yours.

Clear now?


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 12:13:12 PM , Rating: 1
While we're on the topic of censorship...

We all see how you "conveniently left out" the important, and highly relevant facts, which possibly led to the NY Times choosing to eliminate its fees.

As you know, this is another form of CENSORSHIP.

I wonder what Kristopher Kubicki would say about this?

Remember Jason Mick, it's not just your integrity at stake, you are representing DailyTect.com.


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 12:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously suggesting that Jason and/or DT should publish speculations about the possible reasons for this move?

I'd say if the NYT stated a reason, then it should be published. Otherwise if we are just guessing the reason - especially a politically-motivated one like yours - then it should be left to the consiracy theorists like to you post here in the comments section.


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 12:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
Funny. This news has made headlines across the nation in the news media, and yet Tomz is in convenient denial about it (politically motivated?).


RE: Who cares
By TomZ on 9/18/2007 1:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
I scanned about a dozen articles on this topic from various news sources, and I didn't see any mention of the motivation that you infer.

Yes, I am aware of the moveon.org ad, and I am aware of the now-free NY Times, but I don't see anybody else besides you tying the two together.

You, sir, are the one who is politically motivated, I believe.

If you can dig up some links to unbiased sources that make a reasonable argument, my mind is open. But in the meantime I just don't see it.


RE: Who cares
By SandmanWN on 9/18/2007 11:15:49 AM , Rating: 2
Granted the NYTimes is letting their political views interfere with their reporting but this free deal will still cause a surge in viewer ship. Even I may stop in to check out some articles and I don't really care for their news reporting.

Unfortunately it will most likely continue to dwindle after this small influx just as it was doing before for the simple fact that they have a horrible bias. Whether you like the Iraq war or not there is little excuse for a news organization to only report a one sided picture to whats really going on there.

Wheres the news about how many schools were rebuilt this month? Wheres the news about how many electrical grids were repaired this month? Wheres the news about the employment numbers and the situation of Iraqis going back to work and improving their lives instead of participating in this mindless jihad?

You never hear about this stuff. Its happening every day but why no reporting? These are the key factors that will allow the US to leave. The industry needs to be there, the people need to work, and the security issues need to be fixed. Why is every article about what negative thing the Democrats had to say today and what the Republicans said to refute that? Enough Already!


RE: Who cares
By MPE on 9/18/2007 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 3
Oh please.

How about I burn your house down but take out the garbage. I'm sure you will want to know about the garbage part. :/

And for those who are ill informed -
NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINEs and Print in general are down - for many reasons - TV, Internet, etc.

This is why print readers are down for NYT but online readership is up. This is generally true for many established newspapers (right or left) with some exceptions.

So the Times leans left? WTF are you surprise. What do you think humans are robots? If you want unbiased reporting - the articles would look like police reports.

Get over it. Learn to develop a more sophisticated reading skill. Only a dumb ass would assume that newspapers, TV news, news sites, documentaries and such have no POV. They are not created in a vacuum or by a robot.


RE: Who cares
By DarkElfa on 9/18/2007 1:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
That's got to be the smokiest view I've seen today. "...a more sophisticated reading skill", you almost made me laugh when I read that. People are always influenced by what they read, even the most "sophisticated" among us. Why don't you put that Starbucks down and grow a pair? Biased reporting not only changes the story, it changes the facts of the story.


RE: Who cares
By MPE on 9/18/2007 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Grow a pair? Grow brains fist.
So what if people are influenced by what they read? What does that have anything to do whit I what I said?
And influence can mean a lot of things - it can be positive, negative, minimal, major, etc.

If YOU had a more adequate reading skills - you may have filtered the article or ad in the way you want - which everyone does anyway. But instead, you let others (pundits, experts, politicians) to do it for you. And then you complain that an article, institution, etc is not being 'fair and balance'. I guess 8th grade reading level must be the the acceptable status quo for you. Good grief.

Starbucks? Wow did you get that joke from your bags of cliche and unimaginative?


RE: Who cares
By EndPCNoise on 9/18/2007 11:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.

The NY Times is in bad need of damage control after giving that extreme left wing radical organization a 65 percent discount on that full page ad about General Petraeus.

The NY Times had compromised journalistic ethics, and has destroyed its credibility being caught with this clear bias.


RE: Who cares
By DarkElfa on 9/18/2007 1:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that. Heck, I'm a middle of the road guy and I can't stand Fox's right leaning coverage or the NYT's liberial leaning agenda either. I'm sick of bias in my news, I just want facts, not the reporter's individual opinion with "extra spin". Screw the spin, I want news, not a wheel.


RE: Who cares
By AmbroseAthan on 9/18/2007 4:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am hoping if it is posted enough times, you might, for the love of god, understand. Conservative and Liberal groups have been quoted at the EXACT same price. Being Liberals actual took advnatage of the price doesn't mean there is any political affiliation within NYT, it simply means a group took out an advocacy group placed an ad. Please have a source if you decide to refute this.

Posted by Continuation:
quote:
"While The Times does not discuss its fees for specific ads, it has said it charges $65,000 for full-page, black-and-white “advocacy” ads that run on a seven-day “standby” basis."

Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/chen...

As a matter of fact, Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, was quoted the exact same $65,000 rate:

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14pa...

What? No "outrage" that a conservative group is quoted "only" $65,000 by NYT for an ad?


Posted by Continuation:
quote:
Also you so conveniently ignored this quote from Bradley A. Blakeman, president of the conservative group Freedom's Watch:

"The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000"

So the $65,000 standard discounted rate was confirmed by a conservative group. That doesn't make your conspiracy theory look good, does it now?


RE: Who cares
By AmbroseAthan on 9/18/2007 4:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
I broke the links:
Link1: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/chen...

Link2: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14pa...

The conservative quote comes from the second link.


RE: Who cares
By Hacp on 9/18/2007 5:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Its nice to see clueless right wing wackos like you making yourselves look like idiots. 65,000 is the standard rate for advocacy groups. They charged a conservative group the same rate, before the Moveon.org ad, and the group even admitted it! Keep spouting the 65% discount; it just discredits the junk that you spread.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki