When you think about it, the Times may have it backward. It charges $1 for the latest news in print, and offers it free over the Web, but for old material demands $3, which is three times the price of an entire newspaper. —Adam L. Penenberg —Searching for the New York Times (Wired)
The NY Times is a great paper, but you have to register to read articles, and they quickly dissapear into paid archives. So it’s not making a dent online. There are ways to get around it, but I haven’t found it worth the trouble. It’s also possible to get Salon articles for free (if you sit through a long commercial), but there’s plenty of other good stuff online that will be less annoying to read.
Similar:
Quantity leads to quality - Austin Kleon
The Assignment #StarTrek #DS9 Rewatch (Season 5, Episode 5) Keiko is not herself after a t...
A surprising detail in bank records helped a historian bust a longstanding myth about Iris...
Microsoft is once again asking Chrome users to try Bing through unblockable pop-ups
Interesting use of A.I. in a radiology journal
NASA Communicates with Ailing Voyager 1 Spacecraft
I love this. So true! Can’t believe I never thought of it this way. The $ is tied to the archive, not the breaking news…the past has become the treasure chest of the media, not the present.