Japan Today
tech

New York Times to start charging for website

31 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

They feel very "self-important". It didn't work before and it won't work this time. I won't delete the link now because in 2 months they'll announce termination of the fees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unless all the major news sites start charging, there's no way most people will pay this. I'm sure they'll get subscribers, but most people will go elsewhere. Heh heh, I prefer Japan Today anyway!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can manage without the subscription. $15 per month? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pay a little more for a printed paper.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i just visited the "New York Times" website and its structure and layout looks so dumb, almost like the newspaper.(like your reading a classic literature book) the only people i know(at the library) who reads New York Times, are a bunch of business people....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the articles are written by a bunch of d people..... the layout is the worst ever...it's still using the same text front from "1914" ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the articles are written by a bunch of superficial people..... the layout stupid...it's still using the same text front from "1914" it takes me only 10 minutes to read the articles i want to read and 30 minutes studying the business and stock portion. in part, i use "Yahoo news" and other Japanese websites for my new interests.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"New York Times"

Ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't see myself paying $195, $260, or $455 annually for online contents that I don't own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who reads that New York Times ?they and BBC are nuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NYTimes can go pound salt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The less I read of Hiroko Tabuchi's tripe, the better. Misinformation bakkari.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's like setting up a shop at the beach and charging $15 for a plastic bag of sand, and rationalizing it by saying, “I think this will show that people are willing to pay for high-quality sand.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A very stupid idea NYT!

Newspapers (paper based) will be obsolete anyway someday soon and they have the nerve to charge a fortune for the online one? They lost their mind somewhere LOL

Just as silly as some online radio stations being blocked from from being listened to outside the U.S! Major bummer man

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The New York times has some excellent journalism but this is a stupid over priced idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It appears that many Americans can't discern or appreciate good journalism. "You get what you pay for" applies to journalism as much as it does to any other consumer item. That being the case, the reaction by many to the concept of paying for a quality product is yet another indicator of a society on a swift decline to the bottom rung.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It appears that many Americans can't discern or appreciate good journalism.

The New York Times employed Jayson Blair as a reporter for nearly four years during which time he committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events. Surely this is not the "good journalism" which you believe many Americans are unable to discern.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anybody wanna estimate ho many readers they lose? They are gonna lose out in the long run. People will stop reading it, which means people will stop advertising on their site. 1-1=0 Bye, bye NYT,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good luck NYT! You gonna need it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

New York Times has some good in-depth coverage and interesting articles by guest writers, but I could easily replace them with free online articles from the traditional magazines (like TIME) or with new media websites (like HuffPo). Is this an attempt at emulating the Apple business model? Unfortunately, they are a content producer and that category plays by very different rules. Nevertheless, I will miss their America-centric, liberal view on things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's like setting up a shop at the beach and charging $15 for a plastic bag of sand...

Yeah, a bit like selling bottles of water when there is a tap 4 feet away... hang on...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't the New York Times just go Wisconsin on the American public?They should force right wing Americans to read their paper.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There appears to be a positive correlation between distaste for the New York Times as a whole and spelling/grammatical errors.

That’s odd . . .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The New York Times employed Jayson Blair as a reporter for nearly four years during which time he committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events. Surely this is not the "good journalism" which you believe many Americans are unable to discern.

This is like saying that good police officers in any city should be respected because occasionally some corrupt themselves. Yes, and when they're found out, often years will have passed. And yes, occasionally cadets will be found to have violated the code of conduct of their academies. Does that mean all officers and schools are equally tarnished?

When the rare unethical journalist is found out, the profession always does the right thing by itself. Anyone who would reject the excellent journalism of the NYT because of Blair is not what I would term a paragon of discernment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is like saying that good police officers in any city should be respected because occasionally some corrupt themselves.

The above should read: "should not be respected..."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does that mean all officers and schools are equally tarnished?

No, but it leads one to question the ability of New York Times editors and readers to recognize "good journalism".

If New York Times readers and editors are able to discern "good journalism" why were they so slow to recognize the fraudulent journalism of New York Times reporter Jayson Blair during his four years at the newspaper?

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From the topic article: "The digital fees reflect the Times’ confidence in the quality of its newspaper, which has won more than 100 Pulitzer Prizes."

Some may feel that an example of people like Blair (or Stephen Glass at The New Republic) -- who violated their journalistic principles, but could write spellbinding stories -- somehow prove that organs like the NYT are less deserving of being considered high quality.

Those two got through and were eventually discovered in organizations that carefully check -- much more thoroughly now because of the lapses. Does anyone believe that free outlets like Huffpo, Drudge, or the dozens and dozens of right-wing hack-miesters represent higher quality journalism?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Some may feel that an example of people like Blair (or Stephen Glass at The New Republic) -- who violated their journalistic principles, but could write spellbinding stories -- somehow prove that organs like the NYT are less deserving of being considered high quality."

Others understand that the Walter Duranty - types will always undermine our efforts...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Others understand that the Walter Duranty - types will always undermine our efforts...

LOL!! So, you had to go back to 1936 to find such an example.

With such tripe so the Lieberman2012-types always quickly undermine their own efforts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! So, you had to go back to 1936 to find such an example.

The Jayson Blair example of poor journalism at the New York Times is from 2003.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites