Good-bye NYT
The New York Times is apparently in the process of deciding to cease to exist on the internet.
Now, if the NYT was the sole provider of American and international news this might make sense; but it isn’t and this will simply mean the Times will no longer matter on the net.
You will remember that the Times tried this stunt before placing its columnists behind a paywall: the net effect was that the Times lost share and people remembered that MoDo is a hack and Paul Krugman is the dumbest guy to ever win a near Nobel in economics. They were not missed.
The net is about attention. Nothing the NYT makes commands the sort of attention which has people paying to see it.
Very dumb.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:29 am
How marvellously selective you are. Why no mention of Rupert Murdoch?
January 18th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Mention it on your own blog you poncified piece of poodle poop.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:34 am
“How marvellously selective you are. Why no mention of Rupert Murdoch?”
I don’t follow this as closely as you two might. Can you flesh this out a tad? Are you saying the newspaper mogul from England who thought there was a niche market for a news service that would provide news and give both the liberal and conservative editorial positions, resulting in what is currently the most successful cable news network, has been dumb in his handling of news access to his properties off the internet?
January 18th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Good-bye NYT
Hello Doublemint Gum
January 18th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Jay, may I recommend this video:
How to stop your dawg barking
January 18th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
nicolas:
I guess I was referring to this:
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, plans to introduce charging for all the company’s newspaper websites, including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and News of the World.
It’s, er…from Jay’s link.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
That’s a good one, Dawg. Serves me right for not bothering to check out Jay’s link.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“It’s, er…from Jay’s link.”
Sounds like you were the victim of poncified piece of jerked knee Dawg. :)
January 18th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Quick note from management….pulling the Dawg’s leg, in a witty way, is just fine; but straight trash talking is not all that interesting.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I don’t think Murdoch will be particularly successful at this either.
It seems to work only in specific market segments, such as the WSJ which is purchased for financial information. General news I doubt.
Unless of course they are pulling some deal with Google or something. Usually firewalls are circumvented quite easily by googling the title of the article, and following the link.
Derek
January 18th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
hmmmph!
so rupert murdoch is a victim as well….
you heard it first right here folks…
January 18th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
oh come on jay !
the guy just begs for it….you can’t go around laying that risibly arrogant all wise omnipotent dialectician rubbish on people and not get a little needle back…....he’s a maestro at encouraging retorts laced with sneering contempt…and a giggle at the daring of such Crossharbourian pomposity from an utter nonentity…...
what a horripilating bore he is to be sure…but he’s OUR bore dagnabbit !
January 19th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
He’s a maestro at well reasoned retorts, often with a little barb for fun, but they may also distract you and get you off your game.
Barbs do not advance arguments or make them compelling. Thus, if someone spends a lot of time on them I tend to not take what they have to say too seriously.
However, at times my general assumptions have been incorrect.
January 19th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Bravo to the NYT for charging for their content. That’s the first step. The next step is developing content compelling enough to attract $$$. I suspect that’s where they’ll have a bit of trouble. As to the WSJ Online, they’ve got nearly a million paying subscribers, and that’s impressive. But that’s what happens when your content is worth paying for.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
What’s the New York Times?
January 20th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Er…Nicholas. It’s from Jay’s Link.
“Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, plans to introduce charging for all the company’s newspaper websites, including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sunand News of the World.”
Why blame Dawg for your failure to either read the link, or to notice Rupert Murdoch was mentioned as also beginning to charge for online content??
Bocanuts dropping was….well, trash talk.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Murdoch doesn’t own the NYT. The NYT is “owned” by the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust in that they control nearly 90% of the Class B voting shares. “The Times” (of London) is owned by Murdoch.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
“Why blame Dawg for your failure to either read the link”
I’m not blaming Dawg. That’s why it says: “That’s a good one, Dawg.” and ” Serves me right”
Really, this shouldn’t require too much explanation. I may largely disagree with the Dawg’s positions but I generally enjoy his argument. It’s particularly funny here because I made a small effort to show Murdoch as capable and successful, when it turns out he is doing precisely the same measures that Jay was criticizing, which I would have known if I had bothered to click on the link. It struck me as funny, Jim, and I laughed at myself with the Dawg. Truth is, I enjoy such things.
Now, how much different is Bocanut’s comment from your own?
January 20th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
My apologies Nicholas. I don’t read that well myself apparently.