Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

N.Y. Times to end paid Web service

Reuters

Latest comment posted at 11:20 AM EDT 08/08/07

Access to columnists and op-ed pieces on a section of website known as TimesSelect to be free, N.Y. Post reports ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Todd Buttenham from Guelph, Canada writes: Are you paying attention to this, Globe and Mail? If the New York Times is doing it...
  2. Edward Thomas from Kingston, writes: The business paradigm for newspapers is shifting away from an outdated reliance on print advertisement lineage and subscription revenues. When electronic distribution allows you to forgo both printing and distribution costs (close to 60 per cent of all traditional newspaper expenses), then it should be clear to all publishers that national/regional advertising products are about to go high-volume, low-margin. Circulation won't mean anything, but readership will.
    Defending outdated distribution niches is a suckers' game.... Banking on your traditional readership demographics to deliver 'high-value' readers to advertisers makes precious little sense when any smart publisher can reach them with only a modest capital investment and merely a little bit of marketing savvy. Only the most local titles will be able to play this kind of game, but even their days of comfortable little monopolies are numbered.
    Profitable publishers will be the ones who go out of their way to attract the most eyeballs by publishing the best product. The age of starving editorial departments will come to an end, but not before dozens of publishing dinosaurs bring down their businesses through sheer inability to deal with the change.
    Publishers live in a world of pervasive wireless networks, nearly free electronic presses and a public with very little loyalty to traditional mastheads. WiFi enabled digital paper will probably be the killer app that irreversibly flattens the marketplace -- and traditional publishers have maybe five years to be prepared. Incidentally, this does not bode so well for Canadian publishers, who are, like their counterparts in manufacturing, finance and services -- painfully risk averse. But the ones who survive will be the ones who invest in the quality (not quantity) of their product at the same time they reduce dependency on subscription revenues.
  3. Mark Mitchell from London, Canada writes: FINALLY!

    Access to Friedman, Dowd, Krugman, Kristof.... I am foaming at the mouth.
  4. Bob Seven from Edmonton, Canada writes: I used to like all the extra features the Globe had online, it was like having the paper but without getting ink on your fingers.......when they made some of those features requiring a paid membership, I just went elsewhere for that. I would like to come back and read some of the columnists that are now only available for a fee if they were free.
  5. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: I hope the decision makes at the G&M read this article!
  6. Was Canadian from New York, United States writes: 2 days after cancelling my web subscription. I found I just prefer to read the print version - it's bad for the environment, but I read it on the Subway and recycle it. Same with G&M, I don't buy the web access, but buy the paper any time I can.
  7. jim young from Newfoundland, writes: Even if The Globe and Mail put its entire print version online and made it completely free, I would still walk to the corner store every Saturday morning and pay $2 for the paper. Perhaps this is just a ritual, but it is one that I enjoy.

  8. Tim Bee from Canada writes: I stopped reading them when they began to charge for it. If you want to be influential, you can't charge a fee. You can make money from advertising.
    Actually, I just read the first sentence of Friedman to see how stupid his column is going to be then I stop.
  9. Football Fan from Toronto, Canada writes: Globe and Mail single day paper free of charge:
    www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com
  10. E.H. B from Mississauga, Canada writes: I don't understand why they would cease charging for the service when their subscriptions were increasing.
  11. LostInSpace Forever from Brampton, Canada writes: The big newpapers and media of the last century are in a death spiral.

    Why pay for their shoddy and politically-biased journalism when your forum/blog of choice provides all the things you want to read about for free, and comes with a community of like-minded individuals who care about the same things you do, as well as a few trolls to permit a few fun arguments?

    To save money they close bureaus and outsource 'journalism' to biased local operators, and end up providing no added value, so what little reason there is get the paper (columnists, editorials) fade away. Newsreporters were a respected group a generation ago, now they are lumped in with politicians and lawyers.

    I'm not saying it's a good thing that we increasingly rely on the Internet for our news and opinion, but it's the reality. Free, easier to use, more responsive with breaking news than the paper, and it doesn't get your hands dirty or create more junk for the recycling bin.

    I honestly can't see what future big conglomerate papers have. A few titans may survive , but the days of cities with 3-5 competing newspapers are done. I've spoken to a couple of newspaper editors and they have no answers.

    I used to read the paper religiously every day. My whole Saturday was focused around it. Now I don't remember the last time I actually went out of my way to open a paper.

    Things change. The world moves on.
  12. bob smith from writes: LostinSpace:
    Blogs perfect. Traditional media bad. Me understand everything now... How droll!
  13. LostInSpace Forever from Canada writes: Meh, you're just being deliberate obtuse. Let me put it in obtuse terms for you then. Blogs and internet free and easy to use. Newspaper cost money and provides little added value for it.
  14. Mark Swartz from Trawna, writes: Lost In Space - You really do seem to be just that.

    Depending on untrained, low-resourced bloggers as your sole source of reliable news - given your abhorrence of '...shoddy and politically-biased journalism' - is like saying you should only watch Fox News because CNN and ABC are biased.

    Actually, more like saying all those years of disciplined training, professional ethics, learned reportage, and hiring of mainly the best talent out there (I refer here, of course, to the big bad Main Stream Media, with its warts and all) should take a back seat to some guy or gal writing from their living room, wearing torn underwear and smoking their last Camel, using week old copies of People and Us magazine as their primary reference sources - or better, basing their 'news' on what others of their ilk are likewise writing on the Internet.

    Hope you also believe that fairies will teach you about what's real or not, and that your blogger community withholds its innate tendency to blog based on its own points of view (e.g. with inherent bias).
  15. d s from Mississauga, United States writes: Ah, suddenly NYT will find that light (Maureen Dowd) and leftish (Paul Krugman) are far, far more read, linked-to and eamiled than multi-millionaire loser Tom Friedman and eating-his-own-laundry David Brooks. If the Globe did this, they would find that few read Simpson, Ibbottson and Greenspon, but do read David Olive and Joe Fiorito and pass them along further increasing interest in the paper product. Leah Mclaren, Murphy suck?
  16. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes: .

    Newspaper publishers, like the music industry, will figure out how to profit from the Internet or perish fighting it. It's not going away any time soon.
    .
  17. Maggie Now from Canada writes: Free access is easy to the NYT columnists if you just do a little searching. I never paid for this service but have always read their latest columns – check out Truthout for one.
  18. I Brian from Canada writes: Providers of digital content (news, books, music, movies, games, ...) have to make a choice between immediate revenue and increased mindshare. Mindshare leads to revenue eventually, in many different and unexpected ways, but not everyone gets that connection.
  19. gord winters from Canada writes: and the nyt charged a reasonable annual rate, not like the insane monthly bite this rag tries to put on the uneducated.

    has anyone with two brain cells ever paid for this pile of crap?

    this is a terrible newspaper.

    its suitable as canada's national newspaper... yes, its that bad.
  20. james bell from great falls,mb, Canada writes: access to MY favourite newspapers such as globe, nyt, washpost, is only available through the web. i'd have to drive a 180 miles a day just to pick up the globe. if certain readers want to leave their snotty little remarks about 'lefties' and 'liberal press' fine, but i prefer a free and open expression of ideas. i'd suggest THEY stick to their mean spirited, narrow minded, hide-bound flunkies. can you imagine actually watching bill o'reilly for an entire hour? 'bloviate'? mr. rogers for conservative morons .
    jbell
  21. JA M from Our Town, Canada writes: So when does the Globe and Mail follow the NY Times lead?
  22. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: As you can see from the little box to the upper left, I pay for premium content. I also, until recently, paid for premium content for the New York Times. Unlike the virgins who only talk about sex, I've been there so I can talk about it with some experience, not like Gord Winters. That said, this paper does charge too much for it's premium content. I subscribed to the NYT premium content when it was offered at a discount precisely to read Dowd and the others. I lost some interest when Dowd clearly had won the battle against Bush and Cheney. I lost all interest when they changed the layout of the online edition to try to make it look like a newspaper. It doesn't work. The online edition is a mess. I still subscribe to this paper for a few minor reasons. It has a couple of good columnists which does not include Margaret Wendt, and John Ibbitson whose columns I rarely read. I have access to the archive for research purposes. In comparison, I regularly check out the Star online to access the views of people like Jim Travers and Chantal Hubert. Is the premium content worth the money? Not really. It is overpriced, but I can afford it so I subscribe out of hope that maybe one day it will become worthwhile. Lately, I find that the content on this paper is limited and not updated frequently enough. Usually I will check out the Star for the latest news and switch to this paper, when they finally get around to publishing the story, to the comments section. Yes, it's true, the one big advantage that this paper has is the comments section. It's easy to use and lacks the cumbersomeness of fully moderated comments sections on other papers. That said, I would like to see the ability to personally block out posters who post simply because they like to see their name in print or never have anything meaningful to say and waste everybody's time. A lot of readers have given up on the comments because they are not really debate and often sink to personal attacks but stay tuned.
  23. True Grit from Calgary, Canada writes: It looks like the Times is getting ready for the onslaught they are about to face from Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal. Smart move getting out front on this.
  24. Rod Payne from Cranbrook, Canada writes: There is so much content out there for free that I fail to see any need to pay to read anyone's opinion. Besides, as was previously pointed out, a little digging will turn up practically any column that requires a membership.

    To the G&M: Please note that I will never pay for your premium service since I place no added value on it.
  25. Dana Dana from Canada writes: I don't understand why opinion was considered to be something to charge money for but news reporting was not.

    Remember that vulgar old saying, 'Opinions are like a*holes, everbody's got one.' ? Remember that?

    I could never quite grasp why some a**sholes were worth money and yet others were not when the function of an a*    hole remains the same across all species of animal.

    But that's just me...
  26. FLUVIAL SEDIMENT from Canada writes: I never paid for the Times Select but I do pay for the Globe. The only newspaper I actually buy is the Alberni Valley Times because it gives me the stuff that's happening in my little town which the bigger papers don't even know exists and AV Times hasn't figured out how to go online yet. I get all my other news and editorial off the web - it's just easier for me to sit at the computer with my morning coffee and scan the news than it is to sit at the dining room table with my morning coffee struggling with this huge sheet of floppy paper and get ink all over my hands. I like the discussion groups and blogs - tho a lot of it is stupidly partisan ranting and personal attacks there are also a few knowledgeable and thoughtful posters who supplement what the reporters got. I like the idea that good reporters will get a bigger piece of the advertising revenue pie than the whole printing press apparatus - I think this will encourage better reporting because the best informed, best trained and best writers will rise to the top based on 'hits' to their articles. Less room for office politics in newspaper offices because you can easily tell who's being read and who isn't.
  27. Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: Agree with Lost In Space. Holding up the major media outlets as examples of 'disciplined training, professional ethics, learned reportage' is laughable. Maybe that USED TO BE TRUE. It does not seem to be any more. These days all the media seem to have political agendas that control the spin they put on every story, or even whether they report the story. Reuters and AP have been caught doctoring photos, publishing outright lies as facts reported to them by 'observers on the ground' that belong to terrorist groups. A week ago CTV reported that about 'conservative donation loopholes' beefore a blog (SmallDeadAnimals) caught them out on the obvious bias and force them to change it to 'political party donation loopholes). http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006757.html Maybe Walter Cronkite was a higly trained principled journalist. Dan Rather was not.
  28. Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: Mary and Lost, so it is, so it has ever been. Get a life, there could be a hundred reporters at a scene and they would all see something different and they would all have their own personality to contend with when writing about what they say. We, the consumer, have to sift through and relate it to our own world/life. The older I get the more I know this to be true.

    Otherwise, I will be glad to read Nicholas Kristoff without having to pay for it any more. I love the NYT on line mostly because I can't get it the day it is printed in my town...
  29. ghostofpatbuchanen buchanen from Victoria, Canada writes: The problem with print media is that it's cutting strengths while hanging on to liabilities. Its strength lies in its news-gathering infrastructure. But newspapers have been chopping salaries and bodies in the newsroom since the early 90s. Meanwhile, with reduced staff and decimated morale, they push the expensive printed version of their product, despite the fact nobody under the age of 40 would be caught dead with a newspaper and the technology is so one-dimensional as to be laughable. If they beefed up their newsrooms, paid salaries that enticed bright people to become journalists, and dedicated decent ad-rep resources to selling online ads, the 'print' media would be killing the blogs. Paying for the online Globe or Times would be as natural and worthwhile as paying for the newspaper used to be. Instead, I hit the G&M online to skim headlines and read reader comments (where, despite the flaming, I learn more than I ever do in the stories) before I move on to my favorite websites, the best of which offer online writers who rival anything you'll find in print. Just to name three of my favorites: Slate, DailyReckoning, FinancialSense. And I'm not just some techno-punk. I worked at a reputable Canadian daily in the years before Conrad Black r*ped it. I used to shake my head in wonder at people who didn't get home delivery of the local newspaper. The brightest people left for jobs in the corporate world, leaving the careerists and world-changers in charge. Now, the only time a printed newspaper comes into the house is when my wife buys it for the crossword. I consider it a recycling problem.
  30. Michael S from Toronto, Canada writes: Actually the next thing they should change is their font. . . ugh.
  31. LostInSpace Forever from Brampton, Canada writes: I'd be content to read a paper - if there was something worth reading....

    Local news is basically a report of local crime.

    Political news is so biased as to be laughable.

    World news is easier to find, more detailed, more quickly available online, and very highly selectively reported based on the bias of the paper.

    Local sports and entertainment have never interested me.

    In depth articles, meaningful analysis, interesting reading.....? These don't exist in today's paper's anymore.

    I guess there is always the crossword. Is that worth buying a paper for?
  32. LostInSpace Forever from Brampton, Canada writes: Jennifer - I am perfectly aware that it has ever been so with regards to biased reporting, although I would argue that journalistic ethics and standards are probably lower now than in the past.

    But the real point is that never before have I had the choice of getting broader coverage than the paper can provide, for free. As a recent example, why read the Toronto Star's day-old take on the Red Mosque siege when I can go to Metroblogging Islamabad http://islamabad.metblogs.com and see it almost in real time, read what is written by the people there!

    And I can read it on my cell phone, on my PDA, on my tablet, on my PC at work, etc etc etc.
  33. Let's Be Prudent from Toronto, Canada writes: I have been a subscriber to The New York Times paid edition.

    With the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar it has become even more reasonable.

    Columnists like Frank Rich, Maurren Dowd and Thomas Friedman are worth every nickel.

    The newspapers have to get their revenue for their newsrooms either from hard-copy subscribers, internet subscribers, advertisers (either on net or not) and syndication.

    I am willing to pay for the content and also a minimum of pop-ups as there are none with Times Select material.
  34. paul childs from camelot, writes: Thomas Friedman's neo-con ravings will be available for free? Man, even when they're giving some things away they're too expensive.
  35. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: I also have never minded paying for TimesSelect. It is very reasonably priced, and one gets to read some of the best op-ed writers in the world.
  36. Some Guy from Canada writes: About bloody time. Why pay to read opinions?
  37. Just a Lucky So-and-So from Tirana, Canada writes:
    Wake up, Globe and Mail senior management!

    If the Times can't do it, no one can.

    Fall in, smartly now!
  38. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: These days, some online things go towards paid for and some to free.
    'Which of the big online news vehicles parts has gone back and forth from consumer subscription paid to 'free' the most?' might be a competition.
  39. Rocky Balboa from United States writes: So what will the Globe and Mail be doing? Will it also cancel its on-line fees to access various columnists?
  40. Rob Katzer from Victoria, Canada writes: I scan the NYTimes website regularly. I missed it when they went to NYTimes Select, and the few times I was tempted to subscribe, it seemed buggy (may've just been a bad day).

    I have periodically subscribed to the Sunday Times, but it is a massive paper and found myself often without the time to do more than scan it.

    I look forward to being able to read Freidman, Brooks, Krugman and Dowd again.

    As an aside, the Vancouver Sun now has removed the 'pay for access' portion on their Columnists, so I'm able to get my Vaughn Palmer fix again as well.
  41. B Ford from Edmonton, Canada writes: I was a subscriber to timesselect, i liked how they could sort and send articles of interest to me. access to the archives was great; especially for someone who cannot always devote 1/2 to 1 hour a day on a paper or topic. LostInSpace is too cynical. political news is better from people paid to follow it; to be there and write on it. blogs can be interesting (best from those paid to follow it and be there) but not as interesting as leading columnists. Contrary to what he says, 'In depth articles, meaningful analysis, interesting reading' do exist but there could always be more. Lost could do well to find some of each in major papers. Many are cynical about various columnists. Many read Simpson, Ibbittson and they are mostly interesting. somedays, I recognize it is tough to write a great column every day. If one believes Leah Mclaren and social type columnists are unreadable... well... there is too much to read and they can be skipped. Perhaps the Globe should have more 'rotating columnists' to let readers determine who should be kept in that role or position. Do I hear Canada's next top columnist? I agree with others that more minds and eyes might view things on line if it were cheaper or free. If one believes all reporting is biased, that applies to all on-line sources too, including blogs. I agree that the comments feature on the Globe is great and often worth a read. i would love the ability to choose to block my view of certain usually irate posters. if they cannot be blocked by me, perhaps the insulting posts could be put at the bottom. I wonder does the Globe make much use of the comments section, i.e. when someone points out a forgotten aspect of the overall story; or more context.
  42. Rick C from Canada writes: Maggie hit the nail on the head at 09:20. You dont have to pay to read the columnists online if you search a little.
    I read papers online almost every day and paper copies almost every day too. I only buy the paper when the ones at the coffee house are not available, when I have to buy one I leave it behind when I'm finished. I would guess that I buy 1 or 2 a week. Lots of things have changed in the last 30 years and the news papers will have to adapt or fold their tents.

  43. garth west from VIctoria, Canada writes: I've been paying for Times Select and I'll be glad I won't have to renew and pay next year. The Times of London also dropped its pay to view service.

    What the Hell is wrong with the Globe and Mail????
  44. garth west from Victoria, Canada writes: Nothing in the Globe article about one of the most important features of Times Select - free access to the NYTimes archive for a maximum of 100 articles per month. That in itself is worth the price of subscription, in my view. I can't imagine they'll offer that for free.
  45. Robert Kennedy from Sydney, Canada writes: Yes, the Globe will follow -- like so much Canadian, still a pale imitation of America's best.
  46. s like from Canada writes: I love the comments from the 'it should be free' crowd.

    Are you all willing to work for free? I thought not.

    While I don't pay for the globeonline I've been thinking about it and I do like to sit with my coffee on a Saturday morning and read the paper. Ultimately you get what you pay for. Free is just another word for something not worth paying for.

    If you think the Globe is a good paper (left vs. right issues aside) then pay for it. You'd have to pack an awful lots of online ads onto this site to support a quality news product delivered solely online, which presumably is where it's all going in the long run.

    You also have to ask yourself whether you want a newspaper that is beholden to the advertiser or the reader?

    I hope the Globe doesn't move to a free online model and I think the NYT bailed too soon.
  47. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: I would again pay for the Globe if it integrated the print, online and GlobeInvestor services - I quit GlobeInvestor when the online paper started charging for its columnists and gave me no credit for a Saturday-only print subscription. It was infuriating to see business columns 'across the fence' on the same site, requiring a second subscription for access.

    Knowing little about the business dynamics, the rationale in Canada (almost captive market, apart from the free online TStar and emergent tax-paid CBC) may be similar the US, where the other major papers (WashPost, LAT) did not follow NYT's lead, and now Time Mag has gone and possibly even the WSJ is going free for all. Even at NYT, some of their best writing is in the Sunday Magazine and reviews which have remained free. The risk is that charged-for columnists and features will lose their national importance. When literate Canadians start asking 'Jeffrey Who?' the Globe will have a rethink.
  48. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: ghostofpatbuchanen buchanen from Victoria, Canada writes: The problem with print media is that it's cutting strengths while hanging on to liabilities... The brightest people left for jobs in the corporate world, leaving the careerists and world-changers in charge.____________________________ You hit the nail on the head! The bean counters who run newspapers today are akin to a dog chasing its tail. Newspapers have tried to allieviate their financial woes by cutting salaries and staff, thereby forcing reductions in content. They're asking subscribers and advertisers to pay more for less, and wonder why neither group continues to bite. I'm not too sure about the 'careerists' to whom you refer. Being a newspaper careerist isn't necessarily a bad thing. You could call former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee a careerist. He's an example of one who was good for the business. Are you referring to the likes of that young reporter from the NY Times who plagerized stories and made up facts? The thing that bugs me most about newsroom staffers is that they don't represent a cross-section of the public, diversity notwithstanding. Being a member of a visible minority group helps get you in the door. I don't necessarily begrudge this. But if you're not a person of color, you'd better come equipped with a trust fund. It's the only way you'll be able to satisfy the desires of editors looking for a long track record consisting of a degree from a prestigious university *and* long summers and early-career years working for media organizations for less money than that earned by a fast-food worker. Not to mention the required late-model car in good working order. Nobody else can afford to work in the business for small pay. Too many staffers come from well-heeled families with large disposible incomes - and that's the group to whom most content is addressed. Readers not part of that elite group are left to feel like outsiders looking in.
  49. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Cherly Nelson: I don't think you are correct, but I can't be sure.

    I suspect that salaries for beginning reporters are not bad by any reasonable comparison. Even the weeklies, I suspect, pay competitive wages. I think that an undergraduate degree in journalism is probably a basic requirement in most cases, but that doesn't mean much. And, I doubt that many reporters for big papers use their own vehicles very much in their work.

    I have never seen any studies, but it is my impression that the reporting community represents more a cross-section of society than you think it does.
  50. Steve Lee from Canada writes: Very good, I really miss reading for free some of these columnist especially since I find the daily news often a clone of tv,repetitious and boring.
  51. Steve Lee from Canada writes: Albin Forone from Toronto,I totally agree with you. It's called bait
  52. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: I think it's a shot across the bow of the Current Occupant of the White House. Let the columnists speak to the masses.
  53. Edward Thomas from Kingston, writes: Actually, Bob, Chery is largely correct on this one. In mid-market papers (think circulations of 100,000 and less), there is a good segment of middle-class reporters who've either worked their way up from small community papers, or started there after a uni degree. In the large metropolitan and national papers, you're pretty much in a well-heeled crowd of upper middle to upper class professional journalists who've been to the prestigious schools and paid their dues in severely underpaid (or unpaid) internships. I would say the divergence in income profiles tends to be a little more exaggerated in the U.K. and U.S. than in Canada, but the trend holds.
    As for competitive salaries ... a starting reporter at a small community weekly paper will earn about $19-23K and will be required to use their own vehicle and photographic equipment. Their wages are typically capped at $35-40K after 10 years. Their only hope is to make it to a middle-market paper where their unionized wages will be capped at around $45-55K plus benefits after 5-8 years full time (starting wages at these papers hover around $28K).
    A reporter starting at a national daily (in Canada) might expect to start at $50-65K and see income potential rise well into six figures (columnists, senior reporters, bureau chiefs).
    All journalism students are warned not to get into the business to make money. Even with the prevailing low wage structure for university or college educated professionals, the trend among publishers has been to cut editorial costs as much as possible, since print costs and distribution expenses are largely out of their hands.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top