- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,414
- Reaction score
- 3,212
- Points
- 598
In another thread, I mentioned that the NY Times is going to start charging for online access (that includes for smartphones and the IPad). I admit to having some sympathy. Without generating more funds, a shrinkage of their coverage seems inevitable. The times covers many areas that other news sources do not. At the same time, with all the other online news sources, this is obviously a very risky move. (According to an NPR story, they won't need a huge amount of the current readership to be willing to pay. Even one percent will generate substantial income. But even that low a percentage might be hard to come by.)
In any case, in a very frank article, the Times admits that they themselves are moving into this with some trepidation (and lots of internal debate).
Go here to see the article (free for now). (Actually under the new policy, you will still be able to access twenty articles per month for free.)
Personal comment: One thing that I appreciate about the Times is that it is one of the very few papers world wide that has full time, trained science writers. (Actually, the Guardian is the only other paper that I know for sure also has a science staff.) Most papers cover science stories with people with degrees in journalism. It often shows.
In any case, in a very frank article, the Times admits that they themselves are moving into this with some trepidation (and lots of internal debate).
Go here to see the article (free for now). (Actually under the new policy, you will still be able to access twenty articles per month for free.)
Personal comment: One thing that I appreciate about the Times is that it is one of the very few papers world wide that has full time, trained science writers. (Actually, the Guardian is the only other paper that I know for sure also has a science staff.) Most papers cover science stories with people with degrees in journalism. It often shows.