Hurray!! Now I can start reading Paul Krugman again. 'Cause there ain't no other reason to go to their crappy website; of which I rarely do anymore.

I haven't missed a Krugman or Rich column since TimseSelect began, but I don't subscribe. They are always easily available through a Technorati serach of blogs..

I haven't missed a Krugman or Rich column since TimseSelect began, but I don't subscribe. They are always easily available through a Technorati serach of blogs..

Isn't that article headline about the Battle of Antietem what we should be hearing about our battles of Bahgdad? If you're making a point, well done.

Regards,

$50/year to access the archives is a perfectly acceptable price. But TimesSelect meant fee-based access to current content, too, which seems like a ridiculous strategy for a news organ that wants to be "the paper of record." We can hope that they will make the change, but it may already be too late. For many bloggers, a NYTimes link has become a link of last resort, and that may become as much of a problem for the Times.

I love Maureeen Dowd's column, but as a matter of principle, I am not going to pay a sum for it that covers both my annual Salon and Weekly Standard subscriptions.

They ended the TimesSelect podcasts over the weekend. That was about the only reason I subscribed, and now they won't respond to letters requesting a refund.

Personally, I think there's so little "embargoed' by the whole TS thing (and less and less over time, it's seemed to me) that it's just not worth it. Like others have said elsewhere, all you have to do to read the TS stuff is either head out to blogland OR wait a day or two and read it in other papers.

As for the whole archives thing, I can count on one hand the times I've used the feature.

Say! It just occurred to me! I stopped my Salon premier subscription a long time ago, mainly because of Ayelet Waldman and all that Joan Walsh stinking up the place. Yet, here I am, still paying $50 bucks a year for access to a mere one or two good columnists.

Hmm. There's a moral to that story in there somewhere.....

The expectation that has swept the world that information needs to be free is/will be the downfall of our communications system. Without the NY Times (or any other media provider) making money, there is no incentive to them to continue to publish and incur all of the costs that are associated with it. The idea that advertising will pay for everything is a canard.

I pay for the Times every day? Why shouldn't everyone else pay to get the benefit of the columnists as well as the rest of the paper?

The choice isn't between paying for content or not, the choice is between paying by viewing ads or paying by writing a check. Most people prefer ad-supported content (no out of pocket cost).

Anyone who thinks that advertising more than makes up for the direct investment that comes everyday from paying for information directly is deluding themselves. A direct purchase helps pay for all of the things that are needed to run a top flight news organization, costs that may not/do not show in the actual product that is in your hands. (A good example of a cost that would never show is NPR's Bhagdad bureau has a cook/chief to make sure that the staff there (much larger than what is heard on the air) eats. I know that NPR is paid for by radio station dues but who pays the dues? People who purchase the service by becoming members.)

The only reason that the network news system works/worked is that it is supported by the huge numbers that the networks were able to get from their other parts. News was never expected to make money on its own. Once it was assumed that the news should break even, the quality and time alloted began to change and not for the better.

In newspapers, subscription revenue is a small slug - basically, print news coverage is a medium to put car ads in front of viewers.

NPR raises money from listeners because they _don't_ run ads (or at least not very many, they have those "sponsorships"). If they did, they wouldn't need to do the fundraising drives.

is, as you say, a pretty good deal. For example, if you grew up listening over and over to the Woodstock album, and you always wondered what else might have been in the New York Times article that they read from the stage -- "Bethel, New York, August 16. Music was the magic ..." -- there's the article, even if you live in a community with no access to those old New York Times microfilms.

Newspapers generally do charge for online access to their archives, and article-by-article access is generally pretty costly, so the TimesSelect fee actually turns out to be something of a bargain. Maybe if they do free up access to the columnists they can reduce the price.

Mark Regan

Bethel, Alaska

It is indeed about time that NYT management pull their heads out of their collective a**es and acknowledge the revenue opportunities that have been overlooked. Perhaps there is still hope for free market capitalism to hold a viable position in this crazy world. I have steadfastly refused to shell out the money to read something that is available to peruse in my neighborhood bookstore at no cost while enjoying a cup of coffee. Lest my comments be misconstrued, let me make it clear: Krugman, Friedman, Dowd, et.al., are tremendous writers and I have thoroughly enjoyed their work over the years. The bottom line is that if we truly aspire to greatness, why limit access to brilliance?