.

Not just because I would have love to post some of the great op-ed pieces, but also because:

They have been limiting some of the greatest writers and political analysts from communicating their messages to the public (which is the whole point that these people write for, besides, of course, just making money).

(My friends and) I got what I paid for, which is more than I can say about much of what I shell out money for.

It's the people who didn't or couldn't subscribe who were cheated for all those months. (The WSJ model would not have worked for "the newspaper of record" either, I think)

And besides it says right in that there article I will be reimbursed:-)

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

wow. would they have garnered $10 million a year from web ads previously?

to quit charging for online content. A couple of the professional societies I belong to charge for online content if I don't happen to subscribe to a particular specialized-interest journal. And the rates are steep--typically $35 for a 5-page article that I can read in local university library for nothing.

Much of this stuff is of historical interest only--electrical engineering articles from the 1960s, for example. I can't see how it has any particular IP value, but I'm charged for it nonetheless.

As a graduate of one of the outstanding journalism schools on the West Coast, I must say that these developments are outstanding. What this means is that newspapers can make the transition to the Internet, maintain their teams of professional journalists that we need to get accurate and dependable coverage of events, and continue to bring us great commentary from people like Krugman, Friedman and Dowd. This has all been of great concern among newspaper people around the country. But they are finding ways to make it work. Eventually there will be a transition to an all digital format with the print edition appearing in limited circulation, probably just in newsstands and vending boxes. That will eliminate a good deal of the cost of printing and delivering the newspaper so that more of the money will go into gathering the news. Meanwhile, there will be a good deal of fallout as a number of regional newspapers disappear or adapt into something different. I'm hoping they are able to adapt to allow for rich and deep coverage in communities across the nation.

Channing
Ventura CA USA

"Since we launched TimesSelect in 2005, the online landscape has altered significantly. Readers increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources. In light of this shift..."

The "online landscape" had already shifted by 2005. It's just that the Times was, well, behind the times.