Post by: gunug on September 18, 2007, 08:06:24 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNew...=22&sp=true
I have enjoyed reading "some" of their content via a newsletter in my email for years now; this could be real nice.
I just read more about this at Network World:
QUOTE
The New York Times intends to recoup a portion of the revenue lost to its elimination of most online subscription services by enlisting all reporters, columnists and editors in what will be called The New York Times Premium Stoplight Squeegee Service.
Although not mentioned in the official announcement of the demise of TimesSelect, Network World has learned of the newspaper's windshield-washing plans through a Times reporter who asked to remain anonymous for fear of "losing this sorry-ass job."
"You gotta be friggin' kidding me," the veteran reporter told Buzzblog. "Why can't we sell hot dogs or Italian ice on the street corner instead; anything would be more dignified than squeegees."
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/19656
Although not mentioned in the official announcement of the demise of TimesSelect, Network World has learned of the newspaper's windshield-washing plans through a Times reporter who asked to remain anonymous for fear of "losing this sorry-ass job."
"You gotta be friggin' kidding me," the veteran reporter told Buzzblog. "Why can't we sell hot dogs or Italian ice on the street corner instead; anything would be more dignified than squeegees."
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/19656
Post by: jwboyd on September 18, 2007, 09:24:56 AM
The reason I did this is that my son and I expect to attend and participate in the national crossword puzzle contest next spring, and I need the practice.
I'm sure I read in this press release that current paid subvscribers will receive a prorated refund on their credit cards. But I found nothing to indicate that the daily puzzle will be free. Will definitely check it out.
Post by: dboh on September 18, 2007, 02:29:35 PM
Post by: gunug on September 18, 2007, 03:14:22 PM
QUOTE
Times technology writer David Poque said he's fine with the initiative -- "Did you see my house on "60 Minutes"? Nuff said." -- and that he's been busy researching squeegees.
"Squeegee technology hasn't advanced much over the years, but I've seen stuff from … oh, right, I'm under NDA. Let's just say we're going to leave some drivers with their jaws agape."
I'm sure they will.
"Squeegee technology hasn't advanced much over the years, but I've seen stuff from … oh, right, I'm under NDA. Let's just say we're going to leave some drivers with their jaws agape."
I'm sure they will.
First the Wall Street Journal is sold to Conan the Australian then the NYTimes is forced into dire straits!
Post by: dboh on September 18, 2007, 05:49:06 PM
Post by: Shades of Gray on September 19, 2007, 08:25:16 AM
Post by: Gregg on September 19, 2007, 12:08:06 PM
Post by: sandbox on September 19, 2007, 01:35:11 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 20, 2007, 08:57:57 AM
The Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times charged for archived material more than a week old; it has now changed the policy to allow free access as far back as 2003 for anyone:
QUOTE
Here's what you can find: Boston Globe articles since 1979. Everything since 2003 is now free, and will show up when you do a "Greater Boston" search. Older stories can be found by clicking on the "Boston Globe" tab. That archive is free to Globe subscribers who login through Boston Globe Extras, and is available at a small fee to non-subscribers.
It will be interesting to see if those few remaining papers with paid "premium" services eventually see the light and discontinue them as well. Canada's Globe and Mail also has premium content - mostly in its archives from what I can tell, and charges a rather hefty $4.95 for each article.
I want the newspapers to stay in business - while I read lots of news online, I've always subscribed to the major newspaper wherever I've lived and I still enjoy spending some time each day perusing it, while gently moving the cat off the articles I'm trying to read. (how come they never sit on the page with the full-page ad?)
Post by: Gregg on September 20, 2007, 12:11:56 PM