patrick.net

Well, I guess the WP also has a paywall.

$2.50 a week or $10 month.

Still, seems pricey and if I were a person getting these two major newspapers it would be costing $30 a month...just to read news.

That seems too high for web pricing where the cost of delivery and access is zero.

The cost of delivery and access via web is not zero. Data centers and bandwidth are not free.

(Unless they're powered by hydrogen, of course.)

John Bailo says

I was looking at digital subscription rates for the New York Times, and it seems expensive compared to other content options.

Why would you subscribe to that rag? A newspaper that hates journalism. If they applied their current standard of Court Historian journalism to the recent past, Daniel Ellsberg would be in jail, sharing a cell with Seymour Hersch and Jack Anderson.

My dad offered me his password so I can read the Times and I said no thanks.

The problem is I don't like that kind of journalism much these days.

The Times dilettantes are a dying breed of dinosaur; over priced and less relevant.

To me it is endlessly amusing that the worlds richest fat Mexican had to bail out the NYTimes. When Mexicans are saving your bacon, your business model is broken.

They paid that fired woman editor 1/2 a million bucks per year, come on.

C'mon, don't forget Judith Miller's crack reporting about WMD mobile weapons labs in Iraq. A brilliant piece of obliging dumbass reporter manipulation - Bush administration plants fake data with Miller, Miller willingly publishes, and the amazingly brilliant bit - the Bush administration uses the story to back up their bogus position.

You cannot buy better news reporting than the NY Times.

oh yeah it's Bush's fault I forgot.

Blurtman says

C'mon, don't forget Judith Miller's crack reporting about WMD mobile weapons labs in Iraq. A brilliant piece of obliging dumbass reporter manipulation - Bush administration plants fake data with Miller, Miller willingly publishes, and the amazingly brilliant bit - the Bush administration uses the story to back up their bogus position.

And where would we be without the same bandwagon drumming up support for HeritageFoundationCare? Credit where it's due, Krugman is consistent: he loved it when it was called Hillary's Plan (and back then he ridiculed then-Senator Obama, who opposed it at the time), then mirabile dictu when President Obama converted to the new religion of eternal life via maximizing medical insurance spending, Krugman embraced him too. Credit WaPo's Ezra Klein on that point also: after publishing his mea culpa apologizing for supporting the Iraq war and listing lessons he claimed to have learned, he made all the same "mistakes" in his gushing support for HeritageFoundationCare. These advertisements don't write themselves you know, somebody has to pay big bucks for them.

Blurtman says

C'mon, don't forget Judith Miller's crack reporting about WMD mobile weapons labs in Iraq.

That was the moment the NY Times whored away its last shred of credibility.

curious2 says

These advertisements don't write themselves you know, somebody has to pay big bucks for them.

"News is something somebody doesn't want printed. All else is advertising."- William Hearst

Blurtman says

C'mon, don't forget Judith Miller's crack reporting about WMD mobile weapons labs in Iraq.

Since then, she was welcomed with open arms by Fox News. Also a scholar at the Manhattan Institute - I thought libertarianism was about reality - and also writes for NewsMax.

What the hell is wrong with conservative media that they welcome anyone from the putatively liberal side who is wrong, wrong, wrong, as long as they're wrong in a way that favors conservatives?

How is this person allowed to earn a living writing about policy?

They're all in the same village, marrying each other.

When your spouse brings home 90% of the family income by lobbying on behalf of the powerful, and enables you to have a beautiful Georgetown home, with nannies and maids, shop at all the expensive stores, and drop $300 on lunch, your desire to leak stories and criticize the powerful is greatly reduced.

Journalism was better when it was done by people in battered fedoras and worn scuffed shoes writing on dime-store notebooks on a really short pencil so well used it was 2 inches long and the yellow paint came off.

thunderlips11 says

Journalism was better when it was done by people in battered fedoras and worn
scuffed shoes writing on dime-store notebooks on a really short pencil so well
used it was 2 inches long and the yellow paint came off.

Well, here in SFBA there's KPFA free speech radio 94.1FM. They go where no "mainstream corporate media" will dare to go. Unfortunately, you have to listen to fund drive plea for donations every 2 months or so. So, in the end while they may be "independent" from "corporate sponsors" they are still very much reliant on being in good graces with private donors and consequently while the coverage is thought provoking, there's not a whole lot of debate going on.

John Bailo says

I was looking at digital subscription rates for the New York Times, and it seems expensive compared to other content options.

your paying for their NYC Manhatten lifestyle.. $10 martini and $2 M Condos

thomaswong.1986 says

your paying for their NYC Manhatten lifestyle

Um, it's "You're" and "Manhattan," but in any event your subscription is not what pays for those things - you pay in other ways. For more about how the game works, you can read examples of conflicts of interest, where "journalists" get paid directly by the industries they report on. The commercial press is infested with paid placements by public relations firms, trying to sell whatever pill or war is being promoted at the moment.