2 ms·
Their point remains.
by t-writescode 2y ago
Their point remains.
- mhb 2y agoNo it doesn't. He could subscribe to the online NY Times and get ALL the articles for every day (including Sundays) for less than the cost of printed Sundays alone. So what's the missing element? Taking a fun article to work on Monday?
- t-writescode 2y agoTheir argument was: > If you simply let me read TFA for $1 or $0.50 I would do that 5 or 10 times a month. The subscription is a major contributor to the problem. Also, NYT does the tricky "change the price to $25/mo after 6 months" game.
- mhb 2y agoHe says two things. My reply was responsive to: "I could buy the entire f*cking Sunday paper for $1.75 and spend three hours reading it on Sunday morning, and take a fun article to work on Monday. I miss those days..."
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 2y agoI was addressing the price specifically. I do have fond memories of reading the Sunday Times all day, and for much of the next week. On that I'm in agreement. I'll add another useful feature of both newspapers and more especially magazines. When you were done with the damned thing, you could pick it up and dispose of it ... trash, recycling, reuse as fishwrap or firestarter, take your pick. Rather than leaving a litter of individual browser tabs which are painful to collect and discard (even using tools such as Tree Style Tabs), the format was an aggregation itself. What was harder of course was to maintain an archive of items of interest. That's not a primary role of publishers however, and many news sites have paywalled their archives (this strikes me as ... shortsighted), broken links, or both, which should be familiar frustrations to many. I'm not sure how OP is really responding to the questions of how to fund and provide access to news and journalistic content, however.