Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  dorpus, 16 May 2005 @ 11:40am

  
  

  Oh Good

  I didn't like their opinionated leftist trash anyway.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Rajesh, 16 May 2005 @ 11:48am

    
    

    Re: Oh Good

    That settles it - I hate their opinionated right wing crap anyway.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Kurt, 16 May 2005 @ 12:03pm

  
  

  Opinion

  Seems odd to me that they would be locking up the one thing the WSJ still leaves free through their opinionjournal.com site.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2005 @ 12:45pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  you have elevated penenberg's assertion (not proof) that WSJ is "in danger of becoming irrelevant" to fact in your blurb, Mike.
  
  That is a dangerous journalistic tendency. rethink this.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 16 May 2005 @ 3:24pm

    
    

    Re: No Subject Given

    you have elevated penenberg's assertion (not proof) that WSJ is "in danger of becoming irrelevant" to fact in your blurb, Mike.
    
    No, we're pretty clear that it's an opinion. However, we believe it's an accurate one, and supported by lots of data, including new measurements of discussion online.
    
    From everything we've seen, we believe that the WSJ is taking the wrong path, now being followed by the NY Times. It risks taking them *out* of the conversation at the very moment when being a part of the conversation is going to be the most important element of a media play.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2005 @ 7:40pm

      
      

      Re: No Subject Given

      "....the Wall Street Journal, who is losing its relevance with many influencers."
      
      where did I miss the "opinion" part?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2005 @ 7:49pm

        
        

        No Subject Given

        for those who don't want to read the journal, you can podcast it -- in fact, you could podcast it before podcasting was termed. their print is #2 newspaper in the country, they pioneered paid content among big newspapers and made it stick, they pioneered audio, and they are expanding to a weekend edition for better leverage of barrons. Of course people are attacking them: they're great.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          jojo, 17 May 2005 @ 1:09am

          
          

          WSJ / NYT

          The only reason the WSJ subscriptions are so big is because it is de rigueur for companies, particularly those involved in the financial or tech world to subscribe to this rag. Go into most companies main offices and you'll find a copy sitting on the welcome desk. But you won't see many copies anywhere else. People mostly subscribe to it for looks (and it's a tax deductible item anyways).
          
          If the NYT starts charging for content, then I agree, they will join the WSJ in the ranks of the irrelevant and online readers will move onto other sources. There's still the Washington Post, the LA Times, probably a whole host of other quality papers in the USA that I am not familiar with. And don't forget the rest of the world out there either.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Mike (profile), 16 May 2005 @ 8:04pm

        
        

        Re: No Subject Given

        If you read through the links, it points to many influencers who are no longer reading or discussing the Journal. That's what we said. Which part isn't accurate? If you haven't figured it out yet, just about everything we write here is our opinion and our analysis... But, that one seems to be supported pretty clearly. Multiple people, who are clearly considered "influencers" have said they no longer read the Journal because it can't be discussed. Stats that look at how people online talk about news sites show that few link to the Journal.
        
        We've made it clear that it is our belief that the future of news is in the ability to share the news, and the fact that the Journal has made this more difficult is a problem for them.
        
        Which part is confusing to you?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Precision Blogger, 16 May 2005 @ 2:18pm

  
  

  WHat is the NY Times' REAL problem?

  It's obvious that the NYT is taking a gamble here that has a good chance of failing. If the NYT is taking a gamble with one of their best aspects, they may be trying to solve a serious problem. Could there be something really bad about their current online $$ model?
  
  - The Precision Blogger
  http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Fazookus, 17 May 2005 @ 5:03am

  
  

  Subscription announcement

  The Times doesn't seem real proud of their new subscription service... it was announced in the Technology section of NY Times Online, pretty well hidden from people reading it for the Op/Ed section.
  They are doomed... doomed. Until the rest of the papers do the same thing, then WE are doomed.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Bobdog, 17 May 2005 @ 8:52am

  
  

  NYT Pay-perview

  I'd pay $50.00 a year to NOT hear from the likes of Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and the rest of the arrogant elitists at the Times.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2005 @ 12:23pm

    
    

    Re: NYT Pay-perview

    I can arrange that. Send you check to
    
    Me
    555 Greedy Lane
    NY, NY 55555
    
    For $100/yr, I can stop you from hearing from me, too.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  http://www.bonus-internet-casinos.info, 20 Mar 2006 @ 4:10am

  
  

  http://www.bonus-internet-casinos.info

  George stared at Biff who stared back angrily online casinos (hesitantly) What year is this .

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]