I was a TimesSelect subscriber at the very beginning. Then, when I read that only 150,000 or so people had actually subscribed, I felt like a chump. That, combined with the fact that I was basically paying $50.00 a year for Paul Krugman (I had had enough of Maureen Dowd after about six columns worth, made me decide that I wouldn't renew when my subscription lapsed. I wonder how many of those initial 150,000 made the same decision.

Can you boycott the crossword puzzle now?

too late; they're already irrelevant

I, too, have boycotted the NYT, going so far as to buy the Sunday Washington Post instead of the NYT. I haven't been online to the NYT since they went "pay-up." I have used WaPo and Reuters, as well as the Huffington Post, for my online news. If they drop the wall, I will go back, hoping that the surge in readership will validate the voices that told them it was a bad idea to put opinion up for sale.

Will the 'free' access be a limited version, differentiating it from some form of 'full access' subscription?

Other than having the Times as an easy target for snark and derision what reason is there to end your boycott?

The New York Times is poised to stop charging readers for online access to its Op-Ed columnists and other content

David Brooks for free. Woo-hoo!

Yea! Free Tom Friedmans for everyone!

The NYT is a "liberal hawk" rag - that's all there is to it. Before the Iraq War, the op-ed's were frequently AEI or Brookings guys. The NYT is utter crap. Their news section is just as compromised. Crap, top to bottom.

It's TNR lite over there. They should be ostracized and ridiculed.

I get TimesSelect for free because I subscribe to their Sunday edition. I like it a lot (probably because it IS free) for a feature that allows me to not only save any NYT article, BUT also ANY article on the web. I'd pay for that privilege, believe me.

Good for you, Kevin, and your awesome powers!
I have been a happy subscriber just to read Frank Rich - and Krugman, Herbert, Kristof - but getting them for free is even better. If it happens - - -

Crap. After nearly two years of missing Krugman, I paid the $50 a couple of months ago. I should have waited. (The story of my life.)

Anandine--and here I was just about to post about how it was going to piss off the ones who paid for the subscription.

By the way, you all are familiar with screwsubwalls.blogspot.com, yes?

i dumped that crap after i realized you didn't get the crossword. Pay money to read Freidman and Dowd?

Cost extra for the crossword? yeah right.

The forces of good triumph once more. Congrats, Kevin.

Kevin, it wasn't just you - the new Congress surely gets some credit for this startling development.

Alwasy bizarre that they charged for nitwit columnists like Friedman and Dowd, but gave away their sterling news reporting away for free (I'm not counting their political reporting as sterling - Matt Bai and company are right up there with the Post and TNR as nitwits)

Now they are going to continue to give away their main product - I don't get it really. Charge a little something for the news and they should be able to make money off of it.

Now, if only I could figure out a way to make the NYT pay me to read Brooks or Friedman! I was sorry to see them make their sorry ass return to the Sunday Times. It was just more wasted column inches of birdcage liner insofar as I was concerned.

i dumped that crap after i realized you didn't get the crossword. Pay money to read Freidman and Dowd? Cost extra for the crossword? yeah right.

Whereas I paid for the crossword and was neither surprised nor altogether devastated when it didn't get me the columnists after they went behind the subwall. It's all about priorities.

The NYT should have put the O'Hanlon and Pollock pro-surge editorial behind the TimesSelect wall. People should have to pay to read their crap.

I just cannot understand why the NYT is unable to cash in on the millions of eyeballs looking at the website every hour of every day.

I am a NYT non-subscriber and for two years have been reading Krugman, Rich, and any other favorite who gets stuck behind the wall occasionally. I go to truthout.com or commondreams.com and usually find what I missed. I thought everyone was doing that-- I guess being an internet novice (and 80 yrs. old)was a plus, like a bee that flies even tho' it is not aerodynamically possible for it to do so. washingtonmonthly is a daily stop to start my day.
1st time poster---

JMarie

Can you talk back to them?

I've gotten fussier so that I have to be able to respond to writers, like here. The internet moves on.

Brooks, The Paxil pundit

Kevin: "I give full credit to my two-year boycott of NYT op-eds."

Given that both you and I failed to attend YearlyKos in Chicago, coincidentally both citing "procrastination" as our supposed rationale, I would have instead credited our mutual and obvious propensity to be a couple of cheap bastards.

DrBB, I wasn't, so thanx

JMarie: I guess being an internet novice...

Nah...you found your way around, didn't you? We were all noobs once.

Welcome to Political Animal comments section!

Yes, but now you will have no excuse not to read David Brooks.

I-yi-yi. This isn't good news, to the extent that it underlines the nonviability of the traditional newspaper model.

The web has plenty of commentators, but most actual reporting is done by newspaper men and women.

This activity needs to be funded in one way or another. I'm not sure web ads will do the trick.

I share Measure for Measure's concern -- Although I wasn't entirely sure that TimesSelect was the right answer, I'm also not entirely sure how we pay for all of this with Google Ads.

I'm certainly not like that guy who wrote the book suggesting that only big-time journalists should be allowed to be read, but we do need a mix of big-time journalists with all of the others. To suggest that we're going to get the information we need from a bunch of folks sitting in their living rooms (like all of us are doing right now!) is naive.

And, in the middle of all of this, how does WSJ.COM still get away with it? (And, now that Rupert will probably put a picture of an attractive and minimally dressed person on page 3 of the soon-to-be newly-revamped WSJ (finally dumping the Salt & Pepper cartoon--one small blessing), will I have to pay to see that as well?)

In all seriousness, I remain worried...

reporting is done by newspaper men and women.

Many have written that we rely upon newpapers for the news. In none of the articles have I seen mention of Bloomberg, a new media company that does much of its own reporting.

Maureen Dowd is available on the blogs now. Goodie.

What's her motto? "Keeping the White House Safe From Democrats since 2000" or something to that effect?

I too subscribed and then realized all I wanted to read there was Krugman.

So yay! $50 freed up for people whose writing I actually appreciate - like Kevin Drum! And Josh Marshall! And Jane Hamsher! And Digby!

Don't take all the credit, Kevin.
You had some help out here.

Been away for a while.
Is luci the newest troll?
Nasty one, that.

"David Brooks for free. Woo-hoo!"

Al - couldn't agree more. Bring back Safire!

Intelligent, informed dissent is fine.
David is neither.

Since I agree with you on this, I won't comment further.

> Now, if only I could figure out a way to make the NYT pay me to
> read Brooks or Friedman!

I wouldn't read those two if you paid me. (You wait for one like that for a long time, and then....)

I get the weekday paper version, so the Select stuff useful, especially since I'm not around on Sunday to deal with the $5 wad of newsprint.

WP's opinionists are abundant and interesting. I like Krugman, but I thought he was writing too much before he got the regular slot. Maybe the Times could change him to twice a month with an option to write extras when provoked.

It'll be interesting to see what sort of subscriber perks the NYT comes up with. They haven't yet pestered me with questionnaires (unlike the run-up to Times Select).

Here's something I wondered about. They put the collunmists behind the wall to make people pay for subcriptions. So when the Times' revenues went up, did they share some of it with Friedman et al?