This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

NYTimes Select (paid) Content on the way out! — Brooklynian

NYTimes Select (paid) Content on the way out!

sevenoneeighty
sevenoneeighty
edited November -1 in The Lounge / Random Stuff
It was a stupid idea. Trying to put an old business model on a technology that is new. Didnt work for Salon.com, in 2000 and it wont work for you either New York Times. I simply went elsewhere like many others.

http://tinyurl.com/yucae3

TIMESSELECT CONTENT FREED
By HOLLY M. SANDERS

August 7, 2007 -- The New York Times is poised to stop charging readers for online access to its Op-Ed columnists and other content, The Post has learned.

After much internal debate, Times executives - including publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - made the decision to end the subscription-only TimesSelect service but have yet to make an official announcement, according to a source briefed on the matter.

The timing of when TimesSelect will shut down hinges on resolving software issues associated with making the switch to a free service, the source said.

Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis would only say in an e-mailed statement, "We continue to evaluate the best approach for NYTimes.com."

While other online publications were abandoning subscriptions, the Times took the opposite approach in 2005 and began charging for access to well-known writers, including Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Thomas L. Friedman.

The decision, which also walled off access to archives and other content, was controversial almost from the start, with some of the paper's own columnists complaining that it limited their Web readership.

In July, The Post reported that insiders were lobbying to shut down the service. After two years, however, the move to do away with TimesSelect may have more to do with growth than grumbling inside the paper.

The number of Web-only subscribers who pay $7.95 a month or $49.95 a year fell to just over 221,000 in June, down from more than 224,000 in April.
«1

Comments

  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    woot work out being a cheap bastard !!! i haven't order a nytimes paper since they come on the net for free. and i waited and hope to get the times select free and now my long wait is over yay.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    I think we're missing the big picture here: most Americans don't read, so all content, not just paid content, is on the way out.
  • daver
    daver
    I wonder if they will refund my money.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    doctorj wrote: I think we're missing the big picture here: most Americans don't read, so all content, not just paid content, is on the way out.
    People are definitely NOT reading full newspapers - who has the time- and most end up in the trash - unrecycled as it is. That is the biggest waste.
    I think the times is learning, like CBS with Couric, that you are no longer as special as you used to be in this age of information. If you make it hard or undesirable to get news/ information content, people can now find alternatives easier; this is not 1979.

    Re: Reading: Is it that bad though? Maybe it is...did anyone read the 9/11 commission report?Have book sales increased or decreased over the years? (that may not be a fair question to assess the issue of reading alone given the publishing industry changes over the last decade).

    I know we don't read as much as we should but, Oprah and her book club sell millions. We all like to be "entertained" with minimal interaction sometimes. I love contemporary and ancient history, politics and science reading and subscribe to several magazines. Women seem to read more than men (books) and we ALL watch too much bad TV. I think there is some quality content out there on the specialty channels ( Discovery, Military,Science, History, Travel, Cooking and even HGTV channels, not to mention PBS, BBC, etc.)
    -------------------------------------------------------

    BUT, back to the NY Times:
    In 2000, I wrote to Salon.cm when they started to try to charge a 'subscription' fee to readers. I wrote and asked them not do this and that it was a very poor business model. I received a polite reply from the CEO at the time telling me, basically, "too bad". I stopped reading Salon.com all together and apparently they weren't making any money with that model.

    Eventually, they dropped it and now have the obligatory ad you must watch before entering the site. The model alone doesn't seem to work and they didn't even have a hard copy/ print service as I pointed out in my email- Who the F*ck did they think they were? I simply went to other sites.

    But maybe the NY Times should go strictly web/ HTML email subscription and DROP the paper except for Sunday...is that a realistic possibility?
    Some people get romantic about the "paper" itself, but I'm over it.

    They could enhance their web video and update it every hour like CNN. How about a more complete podcast service.... or subscription through iTunes/ Avantgo service to your PDA/Phone/iphone... Perhaps in the near future: NY Times TV over FIOS or Satellite radio. Home computers have larger and larger hard drives and maybe people will subscribe and store content at home and read/print at their leisure - searching for information would be easier...you could search for articles and stories by keywords and author, etc. on your hard drive.
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    I am a Times home subscriber so the paid Select thing never bothered me personally.

    I understand why people didn't like it, but Newspapers (and other media) are hitting really hard times and if they don't come with some kind of new revenue stream, they're going to go under.

    As flawed as it is, I don't want to think of a world without the NYT or Wash Post
  • quijibo
    quijibo
    nytimes, et al, physical paper will continue to shrink and cost more
    as it relies less on ad revenue, and more on the purchase price as an income stream

    as digital paper evolves, it will eclipse the tree version
    and will have many of the characteristics of current print papers
    such as being light, and foldable, easy to transport and the added bonus of
    audio/visual interactivity{keyboard/mouse input will be part of the digital paper device},
    content is continuously updated through a wi-fi connection, and will lessen the need for more trees to be cut down

    digital paper will probably initially follow the xm/sirius model where you sell the digital paper device as a one time cost and charge for monthly access
    i doubt this model will be viable as young people growing up these days expect content to be free
    and in time digital paper access will be free and online ad revenue driven
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    Boygabriel wrote: I am a Times home subscriber so the paid Select thing never bothered me personally.

    I understand why people didn't like it, but Newspapers (and other media) are hitting really hard times and if they don't come with some kind of new revenue stream, they're going to go under.

    As flawed as it is, I don't want to think of a world without the NYT or Wash Post
    I think we can all agree that the NY times is an International paper and not just about New York alone. But they might be "hurting" for a number of other reasons too.

    Unfortunately, I CAN imagine a world without the New York Times or the Washington Post. I think their flaws are serious enough to allow for that.
    Don't get me wrong, I think there was a time when both of these papers were more respectable and reliable, but I find them to be mouth pieces for too many on one side of the table. I wish for the day when the media would really make an effort to mask their agendas and simply report information we all need.

    In order to do that, the very people who claim to be all about "diversity" and "equality" should practice what they preach and allow more of it in the news room. Too much of the NY times is "inside baseball" and group-think.
    Everyone who works at the times, or any paper, must have the ability to have a differing opinion in the editorials and in the reporting.

    I am paraphrasing Tim Russert (who is excellent , BTW) when I say this:
    The New York times (and all media) should employ people from ALL parts of our great nation and not just people from NE, liberal, Universities. They should hire Red state middle Americans, active military and retirees, high school educated, colleges from the south, pro-lifers,etc. and they should ALL be put in the news room for differing perspectives on stories and editorials. Only then, will the "news" reflect accuracy and fairness.

    In addition, besides the opinion pieces, so much of the news is directly from the AP or other wires, word for word...is this reporting?

    Too much of the New York Times' perspective reflects the attitude of "well, everyone I know feels the same way too" mentality. Well, DUH, you socialize, work, party and live with the same type of people 24/7 it tends to influence the way you think,write and report in your paper.

    It doesn't help any of us when all we seek in the media is affirmation of how we already feel about something, does it? And do we need to pay to agree with someone...?[/i]
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    Actually, I'd say if we wanted a more diverse sample, to broaden the perceptual framework of the paper, then adding small town red staters is the wrong direction. I'm simply not interested in their parochial point of view, as it doesn't affect my life or major decision making; if I were, I'd watch FOX. To balance the Ivy League groupthink, I'd prefer to make it closer to the International Herald Tribune, and add more natives of Mumbai, Capetown, São Paulo, London, Brussels, Sydney, Singapore, Moscow, Tokyo, Dubai and Hong Kong. Currently for balanced coverage, I follow leading quality media in four specific countries daily, supplemented by independents like the Asia Times.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    doctorj wrote: Actually, I'd say if we wanted a more diverse sample, to broaden the perceptual framework of the paper, then adding small town red staters is the wrong direction. I'm simply not interested in their parochial point of view, as it doesn't affect my life or major decision making; if I were, I'd watch FOX. To balance the Ivy League groupthink, I'd prefer to make it closer to the International Herald Tribune, and add more natives of Mumbai, Capetown, São Paulo, London, Brussels, Sydney, Singapore, Moscow, Tokyo, Dubai and Hong Kong. Currently for balanced coverage, I follow leading quality media in four specific countries daily, supplemented by independents like the Asia Times.
    I think I understand the premise of your post:

    But this is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
    Everyone from red states is NOT parochial and everyone from blue states is NOT on the far left fringes- some in blue states are, in fact, parochial-types too.

    It is possible to learn something from someone of another state/view in our country but it seems many think the way of your post: You would write off everyone from a Red state and rather hear the perspective of ANYONE else in the world. I think it is good and healthy to hear opposing political and social views from other Americans. ( But Dr. J, given your posts I know this is an oversimplification on your part, because you are WAY more analytical than that :)).

    This is the type of polarization we have to get away from in our thinking and our news coverage.

    Also, I agree international correspondents and writers is a great idea as well. But I don't necessarily think that most things American=Bad and everything Foreign/ European =good either. I would be interested in a broad range of perspectives and views, of course. But as an American, I would also be interested in perspectives of OTHER Americans as well.

    Let's be honest, Fox news is but ONE station that does not follow in lock step with all the other networks. Let's face it, they are an EXTREME minority in the field of media.

    Most other networks/ media have already anointed Hillary Clinton Queen or Obama King - its over. But interestingly, Fox programs have much higher ratings for shows like O'Reilly (who makes a good point of two during the week) than their competitors because people ARE watching.
    I've watched his show and can even say I have learned a few things watching. I don't agree with everything he says either but that's okay too.

    The ratings numbers don't lie. People are watching not because they agree 100%, but because they get the SAME thing everywhere else. This is one reason why Air America Radio (which I do like) was having so much trouble staying afloat. I learn a lot from their programming (details that don't come out in other media) and even tried to get my more liberal friends to listen, but I was once told by a very liberal friend at a party:

    "Why should I listen, I already agree with their perspectives anyway, we need to get people from Red States who don't "know" to listen to Air America..."

    I was dumbfounded. But understood now why their ratings were so low. She was convinced that she could not learn anything new ( she would have head great factual/ statistical information she lacked to 'battle' her conservative brother in law she argued with all the time) and was content with that perspective and didnt dare listen to anyone who had another one.

    But more importantly, she was getting the same perspective ( with less detail) from all of the other news outlets ANYWAY which is why she "knew" the information already. does anyone for a minute think Chris Mathews isn't a liberal? There is nothing wrong with that, its just so obvious in his cakewalk questioning of democrats....the same can be said of FOX when they interview republicans too, of course.

    Many in Red states are the same I am sure, but aren't liberals supposed to be the "open-minded" ones? It just seems like as much as liberals want people ( conservatives/ republicans/red-staters) to "understand" and broaden their horizons,they are some of the MOST inlfexible people, unwilling to listen to other voices or views for any reason - even when those voices agree with them (Air America).

    Don't you think that is a problem too?
    I'm just saying.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    I'd make a distinction between being open-minded towards informed or evidence-based opinion across cultures and across the political spectrum, and being open-minded towards garbage. For example, for right wing opinions, I like reading the WSJ, but I don't watch the 700 club. Time is limited so quality is important. Also, I'm post-globalization not American, so local news and events matter a lot, and the events and opinions in other world cities matter too. I'm as interested in rural Kansas as I am in rural Ukraine, which is not very (nothing personal against Kansans or Ukrainians).
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    i liked times select -- not for the op-ed folks, who i can mostly do without, but for the archive access. i never used to read their old stuff because $1.95 a pop was just too much for something that might well turn out to be useless. 99 articles a month, however, meant i could take a risk or 70.

    yes, there are other ways to get that info, but this was easier than microfiche or even a third party database like lexis or proquest.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    doctorj wrote: I'd make a distinction between being open-minded towards informed or evidence-based opinion across cultures and across the political spectrum, and being open-minded towards garbage. For example, for right wing opinions, I like reading the WSJ, but I don't watch the 700 club. Time is limited so quality is important. Also, I'm post-globalization not American, so local news and events matter a lot, and the events and opinions in other world cities matter too. I'm as interested in rural Kansas as I am in rural Ukraine, which is not very (nothing personal against Kansans or Ukrainians).
    Okay, yes, you want those evidence based opinions across cultures and political spectrum - so do I. All I am saying is to get that you must have people across political spectrums in your newsroom. The NY Times and other media outlets have a serious problem. When everyone thinks the same in the newsrooms across the country - we ALL miss out on vital information.

    This is an example that has ALWAYS stuck out in my mind and was blown away by how media bias can keep you from getting information that is evidence based.

    I want to go on record and say I AM for gun control and DO NOT own a gun, but wouldn't it be great if the media just reported the EVIDENCE?. I got this from NEWSMAX becuase its hard to find anywhere else - even when the story broke.

    I also understand that Newsmax is more "conservative", but that is okay, it doesn't change the FACTS of the case:


    Media Ignore Fact That Gun Owners Stopped School Shooter

    Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
    Saturday, Jan. 26, 2002

    Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter. Yet of the 280 stories written about the shooting, a mere four mentioned the fact that the heroic students were armed and used their guns to halt the rampage.

    That's according to Dr. John Lott, a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute and the author of the widely acclaimed book "More Guns, Less Crime."

    Writing in Friday's edition of the New York Post, Lott reported on last week's shooting at Appalachian School of Law. Nigerian student Peter Odighizuwa is accused of killing the dean, L. Anthony Sutin, 42 – a former acting assistant U.S. attorney general and campaign worker for Bill Clinton – professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and student Angela Denise Dales, 33.

    Noting that the rampage was widely covered in the world's media, Lott wrote: "As usual, there were calls for more gun control.

    "Yet in this age of 'gun-free school zones,' the vast majority of news reports ignored the fact that the attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars. The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported.

    According to Lott: Having just returned from lunch, Gross was outside the law school building when Odighizuwa began shooting. Bridges was inside, waiting for class to start.

    When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

    Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

    "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

    Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.

    "Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Charlotte Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at the attacker."

    Lott cited the liberal, anti-gun Washington Post, which reported that the heroes had simply "helped subdue" the killer. The leftist, anti-gun New York Times, not surprisingly, noted only that the attacker was "tackled by fellow students."

    "Most in the media who discussed how the attack was stopped said: 'students overpowered a gunman,' 'students ended the rampage by tackling him,' 'the gunman was tackled by four male students before being arrested,' or 'Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, who dropped his weapon.'"

    Such selective reporting is not unusual, Lott noted. "In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than 1 percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks."

    Wall of Silence

    Lott cited research showing there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year. "After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?"

    Such "misreporting actually endangers people's lives," Lott concluded. "By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where students merely 'overpowered a gunman' the media gives misleading impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.

    "Research consistently shows that having a gun is the safest way to respond to any type of criminal attack, especially these multiple victim shootings."
    -------------------------------------------
    Again, I am not FOR guns, but what would make the ENTIRE media ignore the FACTS of the case? Answer: Because the vast majority of newsrooms and newspapers are AGAINST guns and don't want that part of the story reflected that gun ownership actually HELPED in this case...See what I am getting at here? You are NOT allowed to report that in liberal newsrooms which is why you have such a huge problem if you "leave the reservation".

    This type of reporting happens everyday on NBC, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, PBS, the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and everyone is complaining about FOX news...

    I just want the facts, PLEASE. In knowing the facts, it might CHANGE my opinion about something...get it?

    P.S. Isn't it also interesting how "conservatives" are always labeled when introduced but "liberals" are not? i.e., "We would like to welcome to the show conservative commentator/pundit..." This is ALL a problem in my opinion.
  • daver
    daver
    sweet tea wrote: i liked times select -- not for the op-ed folks, who i can mostly do without, but for the archive access. i never used to read their old stuff because $1.95 a pop was just too much for something that might well turn out to be useless. 99 articles a month, however, meant i could take a risk or 70.

    yes, there are other ways to get that info, but this was easier than microfiche or even a third party database like lexis or proquest.
    That is the main reason I popped for it too. I _do_ read the op-ed and whatnot from time to time, but it is really nice being able to read all the old stuff. And I like the "save folders" for keeping and organizing articles too. I hope they don't do away with that in this process.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    SevenOneEighty wrote:
    Okay, yes, you want those evidence based opinions across cultures and political spectrum - so do I. All I am saying is to get that you must have people across political spectrums in your newsroom. The NY Times and other media outlets have a serious problem. When everyone thinks the same in the newsrooms across the country - we ALL miss out on vital information.
    Given that almost all media is for-profit, it thrives on telling people what they want to hear. Presumably if there was money to be made in more fact checking and a greater spectrum of opinion, then someone would be doing it. If what you're saying is true and it's lacking in this country, then it's the taste of the American public that's to blame. A strong independent government funded news service, such as you will find in most Western countries apart from the United States, would help.

    Between the WSJ and NYT, SMH and the Australian, Politiken and Berlinske, the Christian Science Monitor, NPR, BBC, the Guardian, Asia Times, I think I stay pretty well informed about what's going on and get a range of evidence-based opinion; some of these have an editorial slant, some make a point of presenting different viewpoints. And I don't pay a dime for all these different quality sources (ok I'm lucky to get WSJ for free at work, but apart from that). So it's all there for anyone who wants it, more than ever before.

    As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but it takes a block and tackle to drown the bastard.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    sweet tea wrote: i liked times select -- not for the op-ed folks, who i can mostly do without, but for the archive access. i never used to read their old stuff because $1.95 a pop was just too much for something that might well turn out to be useless. 99 articles a month, however, meant i could take a risk or 70.

    yes, there are other ways to get that info, but this was easier than microfiche or even a third party database like lexis or proquest.
    Whenever I can't access something on the NYT site (which I have some access to through my weekend subscription), I get it from lexisnexis using my online library access (from one of the schools I've been affiliated with). It doesn't look like it does in the original article in terms of layout or photos, but the text is all there, and it's free.
  • kevin_on_putnam
    kevin_on_putnam
    Guess I'm an old-fashioned sort - I like to read the paper over breakfast and on the subway and now it's easier to fold. If I'm out of town, I read it on my PDA. I use the "select" feature to clip articles I want to save. I like the paper and find the writing is often entertaining. Still, I think it's cool to have newspapers on line and sometimes like to browse papers that I can't get on my doorstep every morning.
  • daver
    daver
    It is gone, received this today:
    Dear TimesSelect Subscriber,

    We are ending TimesSelect, effective today.

    The Times's Op-Ed and news columns are now available free of charge, along with Times File and News Tracker. In addition, The New York Times online Archive is now free back to 1987 for all of our readers.

    Why the change?

    Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment. Readers find more news in a greater number of places and interact with it in more meaningful ways. This decision enhances the free flow of New York Times reporting and analysis around the world. It will enable everyone, everywhere to read our news and opinion - as well as to share it, link to it and comment on it.

    Beginning today, we will issue refunds to our TimesSelect customers for the unused portion of their subscriptions. (The refund may take a few weeks to appear on your credit card, so please be patient.) If you need to update your billing information, please click here:

    https://select.nytimes.com/commerce/jsp/purchase_history.jsp

    To thank you for your loyalty, we are offering you complimentary access to Times Reader from now through December 31, 2007. Times Reader is a digital version of The New York Times that looks just like the print version. It is normally offered for $169 annually, and is free to home delivery subscribers. (Please note that Times Reader is available for Windows only, though a version for Macintosh is planned.) For the duration of this complimentary offer, you also have access to our Premium Crosswords as well as the full online Archive, back to 1851. To download Times Reader, click here:

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/timesreader.html

    We thank you for your support of TimesSelect, and hope you continue to enjoy The New York Times in all its electronic and print forms.

    For more information, including answers to frequently asked questions, click here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/ts

    To contact Customer Service, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

    Sincerely,

    Vivian Schiller
    Senior Vice President & General Manager
    NYTimes.com
    I'm glad they are issuing partial refunds, that is the only wrinkle that would have pissed me off a bit, since I paid for a year. And I'm glad they are doing this. Information wants to be free!
  • daver
    daver
    More: http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/ts/
    Now, everyone is entitled to our opinions.
    Effective September 19, 2007, TimesSelect has ended. Content previously published for TimesSelect is available free to all NYTimes.com visitors.
  • michaelkeys
    michaelkeys
    SevenOneEighty wrote: Let's be honest, Fox news is but ONE station that does not follow in lock step with all the other networks. Let's face it, they are an EXTREME minority in the field of media.

    The ratings numbers don't lie. People are watching not because they agree 100%, but because they get the SAME thing everywhere else. This is one reason why Air America Radio (which I do like) was having so much trouble staying afloat. I learn a lot from their programming (details that don't come out in other media) and even tried to get my more liberal friends to listen, but I was once told by a very liberal friend at a party:

    "Why should I listen, I already agree with their perspectives anyway, we need to get people from Red States who don't "know" to listen to Air America..."

    Many in Red states are the same I am sure, but aren't liberals supposed to be the "open-minded" ones? It just seems like as much as liberals want people ( conservatives/ republicans/red-staters) to "understand" and broaden their horizons,they are some of the MOST inlfexible people, unwilling to listen to other voices or views for any reason - even when those voices agree with them (Air America).

    Don't you think that is a problem too?
    I'm just saying.
    As usual, you make some good points, sir. I do think I disagree with the assessment of Fox News being "an EXTREME minority in the field of media" in so far as the presence of a different viewpoint is concerned. Especially when you couple Fox with talk radio, which is hugely conservative. As for its high ratings, I'd be surprised if it were largely due to viewers looking for diversity per se. Seems to me those viewers are looking for a similar viewpoint as theirs. (And if you've noticed that a certain ratings-faltering, Atlanta-based, cable news network has gotten a bit more conservative and sensationalistic in its reporting, that's no coincidence.) I think we can all agree that while some media outlets may have a liberal slant/bias, Fox is staunchly conservative and terribly so. (The labeling of a govt official or politician as a Democrat, or not even mentioning their true party affiliation when a Republican is caught red-handed in a scandal, is one of their oft-repeated classic moves, to name just one of many.) They position themselves, not as conservatives, but as truth merchants and that's where their demagoguery truly shines. Perhaps Keith Olbermann is a true blue liberal but he does not strike me as a liar. I'll take bias--liberal or conservative--over lies any day. (Btw, Chris Matthews talks up the president too much to be a liberal me thinks.)

    The liberal friend you mention seems like the perfect counterpart to many closed-minded conservatives out there. I'm not surprised. Sadly, as a whole, my experience has been that liberals are not as open-minded as they think they are. Ex: I've read posts on here by people saying that they wouldn't even be friends with a Republican; I've seen plenty of "Republicans need not apply" in online dating ads, etc etc etc. I've actually had some of the most ](*,) political discussions with fellow Democrats/liberals. If we're going to act ignorantly like allegedly the red-staters do, what the point?

    We need to somehow stop this polarizing sort of mentality from either side of the spectrum to continue permeating the news media, as well as many other facets of our society. As a Democrat myself, and one whose friends and family run the gamut from reactionary right-wingers to tree-hugging liberals to communists and every thing in between, I've learned that people that come to their own political conclusions through honest introspection are always preferable than knee-jerkers, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

    Of course, the NY Post is still a racist, right-wing rag. Sorry.
  • pitu
    pitu
    Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment.
    That line just cracked me up. Grandpa just discovered America.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    As usual, you make some good points, sir. I do think I disagree with the assessment of Fox News being "an EXTREME minority in the field of media" in so far as the presence of a different viewpoint is concerned. Especially when you couple Fox with talk radio, which is hugely conservative. As for its high ratings, I'd be surprised if it were largely due to viewers looking for diversity per se. Seems to me those viewers are looking for a similar viewpoint as theirs. (And if you've noticed that a certain ratings-faltering, Atlanta-based, cable news network has gotten a bit more conservative and sensationalistic in its reporting, that's no coincidence.) I think we can all agree that while some media outlets may have a liberal slant/bias, Fox is staunchly conservative and terribly so. (The labeling of a govt official or politician as a Democrat, or not even mentioning their true party affiliation when a Republican is caught red-handed in a scandal, is one of their oft-repeated classic moves, to name just one of many.) They position themselves, not as conservatives, but as truth merchants and that's where their demagoguery truly shines. Perhaps Keith Olbermann is a true blue liberal but he does not strike me as a liar. I'll take bias--liberal or conservative--over lies any day. (Btw, Chris Matthews talks up the president too much to be a liberal me thinks.)
    Well, Air America and company spent millions on a radio netwrok for liberals - and they still dont have the ratings and are always in financial trouble...even with all that liberal money from movie stars...why is that?Their ratings are consistently lower than conservative radio because people are NOT listening to them. Frankly, I can only listen to people bash America for so long before I get bored. I used to like Bill Maher, but his show is becomming an applause show for Bush insults...its Boring.I truly think the reason folks are not listening because they already get their 'fix' from everyday media. Why do you think conservative Radio does so well? Are they smarter? More established? More Money?

    All reporters today use the " I'm going to tell you a question" technique, exposing their true feelings in a long "question" ( "some people say"....katie...)

    The NY Times gave a "family and friends" discount to Moveon.org for the ,oh so clever, rhyme of "Patreus/ Betray us" ad on the eve of his presentation. They claim the rate applies to ads that have no specific date of print, but it CONVENIENTLY came out the eve of the Gen. Patreus Iraq presentation. Funny huh? (Moveon.org could have just waited until Sunday an gotten their message across for free via the NY times staff writers, reporters and editors....They then gave Guiliani the same deal apparently - only once they were caught, but that doent change the original facts." I love Al Franken and think he is briliant, but I will occasionally listen to Bill O'Reilly too, becuase sometimes he DOES make a good point ( gasp!!!). I know I am not "allowed" to say that here in Brooklyn.

    One of the best parts of the hearing with Patreus is when Senator Levine asked the genral who just came from the field of battle in Iraq, if he read the NY times article about the war....HE IS THE GENERAL IN THE WAR dumbass!! He came FROM the war to the hearing. He doesn't NEED the NY Times to know what is happening in IRAQ. He is THERE everyday!!
    How telling is that?? People think the Times is the only source of true information - even for a soldier in a war they are covering.
    The liberal friend you mention seems like the perfect counterpart to many closed-minded conservatives out there. I'm not surprised. Sadly, as a whole, my experience has been that liberals are not as open-minded as they think they are. Ex: I've read posts on here by people saying that they wouldn't even be friends with a Republican; I've seen plenty of "Republicans need not apply" in online dating ads, etc etc etc. I've actually had some of the most political discussions with fellow Democrats/liberals. If we're going to act ignorantly like allegedly the red-staters do, what the point?
    So True. It's so ironic and yet they dont see it...I have had the same experiences with very liberal friends.

    Look at Barry Manilow this week: Refusing to go on "The View" becuase he disagrees with Elizabeth Hasselbeck's political views... I mean really, shut up and sing. I always wonderd if '1984' could become a reality, but I never figured it would come from the "open-minded" people. Always thought it would be the other way around, but the thought police have us all cornered. You had better not even THINK outside of the reservation or you will be shunned with the scarlet letter "C" for conservative, thus ending all arguments before they begin ( i.e., we already know what you think about eveything). The whole thing is stupid on both sides but the liberal side is at a clear advantage when it comes to the media, let's be realistic, here.

    There is a great website that documents liberal media bias daily:

    http://www.newsbusters.org

    Very infromative and I read it once a week.
    We need to somehow stop this polarizing sort of mentality from either side of the spectrum to continue permeating the news media, as well as many other facets of our society. As a Democrat myself, and one whose friends and family run the gamut from reactionary right-wingers to tree-hugging liberals to communists and every thing in between, I've learned that people that come to their own political conclusions through honest introspection are always preferable than knee-jerkers, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

    Of course, the NY Post is still a racist, right-wing rag. Sorry.
    There are some overall mesages that are sent home in all media outlets by both sides that are polarizing, but conservative thinking is definitely pushed to FOX and talk radio because they cannot get a spot on NBC, CBS, ABC....and forget Anne Coulter, she is an idiot trying to sell books.

    The NYpost is pretty much the National Enquirer for NYC.
    Are you joking about Chris MAtthews!? OMG! IF you listen to any conservative radio at all, they call him "Bathtub Boy" - swimming in his own world. He is BLATANTLY liberal with his softball dem questions and debate moderations. They play his clips almost everyday on some shows because of his ridiculious questions. Sometimes I am laughing at the clips.

    But of course, I know that because I listen to different sources...that inclde conservative viewpoints also....
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    pitu wrote:
    Since we launched TimesSelect, the Web has evolved into an increasingly open environment.
    That line just cracked me up. Grandpa just discovered America.
    Hilarious.

    Or it could be that everyone can go to Washingtonpost, LAtimes, Moveon, Dailykos, Huffingtonpost, Salon or any of the many other billionaire, Geroge Soros sponsored media outlets that give the exact same viewpoints, articles and opinions for FREE.

    Way to go "gray lady".
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    If Chris Matthews is liberal, it's only the most tepid sort.

    I'm a liberal and I think Barry Manilow was being ridiculous. I mean, she's not running for office, so to shun someone for their political views is stupid.

    I was engaged to someone whose politics were those of a troglodyte. I mean, they were EXCREBLE. And to make it worse, he wanted to run for office. Still, if he hadn't turned out to be such an asshole, I would have had no problem marrying him, but I wouldn't have voted for him.

    We had an argument about that once. "You're my wife. You're supposed to support me." "Honey, if you want a meal cooked and your feet rubbed after a hard day's campaigning, I'm happy to do it, but I don't think voting against my conscience is part of the marriage contract."

    There is a point where the personal has to trump the political. Refusing to associate with someone because of their political views (unless they are David Duke or some other hatemonger) is just stupid. I had an argument with another friend because apparently Condi Rice's best friend is a gay man, and the two of them with another friend jointly bought a house to bail out the third friend financially after a bad divorce. My friend thought this was scandalous and inconsistent. Personally, I would think less of her if she let her political ideology keep her from bailing out a friend.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    I know Chris has been accused of both, but I think if we were to bet money on which "side" he fell on, you would make a smart bet to win the money....

    Classic mathews clips and stories here: some more blatant than others:
    http://www.newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/206

    But this is the type of ridicoulous stuff that goes on EVERYDAY in too many news outlest in america- the liberal side.

    Article:
    http://newsbusters.org/node/14899?q=blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/16/msnbc-newsroom-booed-bushs-state-union

    video of events being recalled:
    MSNBC Newsroom Booed Bush State of the Union
    By Mark Finkelstein | August 16, 2007 - 06:36 ET

    http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/07/2007-08-16MSNBCMJScarborough.wmv

    Interesting, no? Fox News, you say....?

    I just find this dangerous in a society that prides itself on freedom and being fair with news, when this is what is going on in the newsroom; how can this happen? It comes across on the reporting as well. I know about Fox, they make no excuses and I can see them coming. But this type of thing...is coming from the side that says they are "fair and balanced", more so than Fox News...which is more dangerous?
  • pitu
    pitu
    SevenOneEighty, lover of foxes wrote: The NY Times gave a "family and friends" discount to Moveon.org for the ,oh so clever, rhyme of "Patreus/ Betray us" ad on the eve of his presentation. They claim the rate applies to ads that have no specific date of print, but it CONVENIENTLY came out the eve of the Gen. Patreus Iraq presentation. Funny huh? (Moveon.org could have just waited until Sunday an gotten their message across for free via the NY times staff writers, reporters and editors....They then gave Guiliani the same deal apparently - only once they were caught, but that doent change the original facts."
    The MoveOn ad was on a Monday -- much lower ad revenue/ad load day. Guiliani wanted the rate on a Friday, their big ad day along with Sunday.
    :roll:
    "Liberals" have never gotten a particular break from the NYT in terms of ad sales. They don't give away anything over there (except for TimesSelect, of course. ha.)
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    Well, since that site is patently anti-liberal, I'm apt not to trust it.

    Chris Matthews is a centrist, and what he is saying on his show is a reflection of what MOST Americans now think about the war and the administration. He can go at length because he has a bully pulpit. I don't think he was anti-war when the whole debacle began.

    I think what we need to do is give up all pretension of an objective media because there is no such thing. State your bias upfront and then I can weigh the information accordingly. I find that I am better informed by avowedly partisan publications, both liberal and conservative, than I am by supposedly objective media.

    There's nothing wrong with having an axe to grind so long as you show people what kind of axe it is.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    pitu wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty, lover of foxes]The NY Times gave a "family and friends" discount to Moveon.org for the ,oh so clever, rhyme of "Patreus/ Betray us" ad on the eve of his presentation. They claim the rate applies to ads that have no specific date of print, but it CONVENIENTLY came out the eve of the Gen. Patreus Iraq presentation. Funny huh? (Moveon.org could have just waited until Sunday an gotten their message across for free via the NY times staff writers, reporters and editors....They then gave Guiliani the same deal apparently - only once they were caught, but that doent change the original facts."
    The MoveOn ad was on a Monday -- much lower ad revenue/ad load day. Guiliani wanted the rate on a Friday, their big ad day along with Sunday.
    :roll:
    "Liberals" have never gotten a particular break from the NYT in terms of ad sales. They don't give away anything over there (except for TimesSelect, of course. ha.)

    Not true at all- Nope. That is straight spin there, I'm afraid.

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm

    According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

    A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

    A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday
    Now it is the NYPost - but it is true....
    Well, since that site is patently anti-liberal, I'm apt not to trust it.
    They pretty much collect scripts, videos and transcripts and post them...
    If there is anything untrue definitely point it out (PS: In that clip above, Scarborough is a big liberal which is what makes the story even more interesting - watch the video of Scarborough - he is giving his account).
    Chris Matthews is a centrist, and what he is saying on his show is a reflection of what MOST Americans now think about the war and the administration. He can go at length because he has a bully pulpit. I don't think he was anti-war when the whole debacle began.
    hmm...all I can tell you is he is a big whipping boy on radio - and they use his own clips...John Gibson plays Mathews clips all the time; they are pretty "incriminating" so to speak, But I know he was in there with many ohters at the beginning of Iraq.

    Interestingly, it is that thought process: This is what MOST people ( read: that I know) think about XYZ...." that left so many New Yorkers surprised on November 5th 2004... They were victims of their own press and culture of knowing only people who think like THEM....MOST people voted for W.

    Lastly, who are the conservatives in the media who are NOT on FOX news or talk radio?NBC?CBS?ABC?

    The media is very polarizing, I just wish people would see more of the other side of it too and how it effects everything we see and read.
    I know it is impossible not to be bias as humans, it's just a trip that the thought pattern is:

    1.Conservatives are the "others" and out of touch.
    2.There is no liberalism in media, it's just what everyone is thinking already anyway...

    All I ask for is that the media (news) reports the news and leave the opinions to the editorial pages. We would all be better off on both sides and every "side" in between.
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    But there is no way to report news without bias. No matter how professional someone is, their personal bias is going to affect their perception of the story and how they report it, and it's not always done consciously. I'm saying it's better to be truthful about your bias rather than pretend that a bias doesn't exist.

    Individual reporters may be liberal, but the corporations of mass media are overwhelmingly conservative. And that does affect what gets reported. Many worthy stories get killed because it goes against the agenda of the corporation. I will bet you that I will be able to dig up as much evidence of conservative bias in the mass media as you can of liberal bias.

    I mean, the mass media did not even QUESTION Bush's absurd statements justifying the Iraq war and basically acted like his cheerleader. Liberal bias? During the runup to the war, it wasn't even in evidence. They even failed to cover mass anti-war rallies. No wonder our president thought he could act with impunity.

    And Scarborough a liberal? OMG, you have GOT to be kidding! I can't even watch his blathering and I'm liberal. His viewpoints would be run-of-the-mill at the American Spectator. :lol: :jocolor: :lol::lol:
  • michaelkeys
    michaelkeys
    SevenOneEighty wrote: Well, Air America and company spent millions on a radio netwrok for liberals - and they still dont have the ratings and are always in financial trouble...even with all that liberal money from movie stars...why is that?Their ratings are consistently lower than conservative radio because people are NOT listening to them. Frankly, I can only listen to people bash America for so long before I get bored. I used to like Bill Maher, but his show is becomming an applause show for Bush insults...its Boring.I truly think the reason folks are not listening because they already get their 'fix' from everyday media. Why do you think conservative Radio does so well? Are they smarter? More established? More Money?
    I'm going to venture that a big reason for those ratings, or lack thereof, is the result of liberals not being able to properly and effectively convey their message--sometimes in a manner so clumsy it borders on pathetic--along with a very succesful conservative effort to convince their audiences that "those other people" are crazy radicals and that their conservative values are "normal" and "truly American". It makes it possible for numerous veterans like Democrats John Kerry, Max Cleland and Bob Kerrey to have their service questioned and smeared, while prominent Republican draft-dodgers who level these accusations make out like teflon. And 6 becomes 9. That's the power of a well-crafted, well orchestrated message and conservatives are masters at it. (I haven't done any scientific research on why military people and their families are overwhelmingly supportive of this admn despite the incredibly shoddy way that Iraq war veterans have been treated, but it's gotta be some of the above and not just blind loyalty.) It's like a more refined and better-implemented version of the "acting white"-bashing that progressive African-Americans get from some elements of their community. The whole cliche about liberals being masters at snaching defeat fom the jaws of victory is not a hollow one, unfortunately.

    Trust me, I understand your Air America/Bill Maher fatigue but they do bring up some valid issues that no mainstream news media outlet will touch. And yes, "America bashing" as a sport is annoying to say the very least, but criticizing our country purely in the hopes of correcting certain shortcomings and bettering us as a whole, is a patriotic duty in my book.
    SevenOneEighty wrote: Lastly, who are the conservatives in the media who are NOT on FOX news or talk radio?NBC?CBS?ABC?
    Here are but just a few that come to mind:

    - Glenn Beck
    - Pat Buchanan
    - Tucker Carlson

    and yes, Joe Scarborough.

    Both Scarborough and Buchanan have, of late, frequently criticized the Bush admn, but that doesn't make them liberals any more than David Duke is a member of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. Buchanan even wrote an op-ed piece in one of the conservative mags--exactly which one escapes me now--on the eve of the 2004 election in which dressed down W and basically came down to "yeah, he sucks in so many ways but we'll hold our noses and vote for him 'cause he's closer to our ideology than the other guy."
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    Yeah, actually, opposition to Bush does not indicate political affiliation as a LOT of conservatives are getting increasingly disenchanted with Bush. I've even heard quite a few saying that they will hold their nose and vote for a Democrat because they are so ticked off about being trapped in the quagmire of Iraq.

    Conservatism is NOT monolithic and there is a serious split in the conservative movement as we speak. The Bush administration is basically Neoconservatism run amok. They want to remake the world according to their ideology and damn to everything that gets in the way, including reality and the Constitution. Ideology is paramount and there have been Stalinesque putsches (Colon Powell? Hello!) when someone turned out not to be ideologically pure enough.

    Then there are the conservatives (formerly called Paleoconservatives, but I think that's insulting) who may not be in favor of stuff like gay marriage but who respect the rule of law and to whom the Constitution is paramount. While I don't agree with their socially conservative ideas, I am more apt to respect their views because they usually have come to them after much thought. It's actually possible to have a discussion with those people unlike the hyenas that infest Fox News. These are the ordinary church-going folk, usually not as rabid as liberals claim.

    These are the people who are breaking with Bush over Iraq. These are the people who are increasingly disturbed by violations of the Constitution, such as Guatanamo and the Patriot Act. They see that Bush has seriously eroded our standing in the world. (And the irony is that Bush seems to genuinely want to do something about Darfur, but because our troop strength is strained to the breaking point and we've squandered our moral credibility in the world, he's powerless to actually do anything about it.) These people are PISSED at Bush. They feel utterly betrayed by him and they blame him for destroying the conservative movement.

    So it is possible for liberals to gain the upper political hand now as more people are prepared to listen to their message. They need to learn to do it effectively, which remains to be seen.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories