or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › NYT execs struggle over iPad edition subscription pricing - rumor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NYT execs struggle over iPad edition subscription pricing - rumor

post #1 of 107
Thread Starter 
A new report citing an anonymous source suggests officials within The New York Times cannot agree whether to charge $10 per month or closer to $30 per month for a subscription to one of the world's most prominent newspapers.

The dispute, according to Gawker's unnamed source, lies between those with the company's print division, who view the iPad as "just another way to distribute the paper," and its digital operation, which would prefer to take a different, less expensive approach.

The source claims that those on the print side would like to see users charged between $20 and $30 per month to have the daily edition of the Times delivered to their iPad. Those with the company are allegedly "afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad," the report said.

On the other hand, those with the digital side of the Times would rather see users be charged about $10 per month for the iPad edition. The report alleged that those in the electronic business are "up in arms over print circulation's pricing."

The report also claims that New York Times Media Group president Scott Heekin-Canedy falls on the side of the print division, favoring pricing between $20 and $30.

"The internal fight might also determine how relevant -- and profitable -- the nation's most prominent newspaper can remain in the digital future," Gawker's Ryan Tate wrote. "Which is probably why there's reportedly so much sniping over who gets to control the iPad edition internally."

The news follows another recent report that some publishers are skeptical of Apple's iPad business model, which sees the company giving 70 percent of revenue to content providers, but not sharing any personal information about subscribers. Those in the publishing world, particularly in newspapers, view that information -- called "their most valuable asset" -- as crucial for selling advertising.



The Times played a significant role in Apple's introduction of its iPad, with company co-founder Steve Jobs browsing the official Web site when the hardware was unveiled. Later in the keynote, officials from the newspaper also demonstrated a daily iPad edition of the Times that will be available for download on the forthcoming device. No price for the subscription was given.

The Times Web site is also prominently featured in promotional videos demonstrating the iPad on Apple's Web site.

Days after it was unveiled, Jobs reportedly made a trip to New York City to meet with Times executives and pitch Apple's new hardware. It was said that Jobs demonstrated the iPad's functionality at the head of a restaurant table in what was said to be an "intimate, family-style gathering."
post #2 of 107
Inconceivable!
post #3 of 107
Well charge $10, then put the price up over time once people are hooked and you can judge the impact better.

You wont catch me paying $30 a month for a rag though, nor $10 for that matter... but I'm sure there are those that would.
post #4 of 107
I pay about $40 a month for a delivered newspaper. I'd happily pay half that much for an e-version, provided it was complete and well done. It's a little bit humorous to hear the Times people worrying about losing print edition subscribers to the e-edition. Well, duh. What's the point otherwise? You expect us to pay for both? Sure, right.

Since nobody really knows what this product looks like or how it works, probably they should offer free trials, at least to existing subscribers. One of the big newspapers is going to have to dive in with both feet and find out what works. I hope they're not planning on being completely clueless, like the music industry.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #5 of 107
Newspapers just don't get it... there is no value in news any more, it's too accessible to all for free. It's not as if they can offer anything unique that we can't find for free elsewhere.

Now, if they were to pay me to read it and be exposed to ads which they could sell based on subscriber base, that might be a good business model.
post #6 of 107
I'd pay $30 a month for a digital newspaper, as long as the experience is as good as/better than a print newspaper.

Having moved to the US from England, I really missed being able to read the UK newspapers, and regarded the ability to get The Times on the Kindle as a major plus, but the experience on there is naff. If they give me the sort of thing the New York Times demo'd, I'd gladly pay.
post #7 of 107
The economy has changed and they do not understand that FEW will buy-in to the $30 plan, but MILLIONS will for $10. They remind m of the record industry with regard to tracks for $.99.
post #8 of 107
Outlandish you say. Not at all, especially for an electronic edition. The average news paper is hardly worth more than a dime a day, the NYT might be worth a bit more but hardly more than a quarter.

This isn't really about editorial content but rather the reality that news is a 24 hour a day business, since the advent of cable TV and then the web. So one element here is that the NEWS in Newspaper is no longer important as by definition it is always old news. So if the papers of tomorrow seriously want to be in the news business they need to deliver the news 24 hours a day. That is not impossible but takes a total change in the mind set of a paper.

In many ways the news is not journalism. That may shock many but think about it, the news is about the events and activities that make up our days. Journalism, especially investigative journalism is another beast altogether. It is the search for truths, opinions and other elements of a story to inform the community in general. In other words news is really a passive thing where as journalism is a more engaging activity. In order to compete a "newspaper" needs to compete on both fronts to give people a reason to spend their time with the distribution.

Sadly I don't really think that newspapers in general get it yet. One of the primary reasons for their existence has vanished to more timely and diverse mediums. As the electronic forms gather an ability to cover local scenes and actually employ reporters the dead tree based businesses will slowly wither away. Think about a world where Google, Yahoo or Bing employed reporters to compete directly with the likes of the NYT. Or for that matter Apple starting up a news bureau to work in conjunction with that massive data center they are building. Mind you these organizations would not be hiring people to report the news (which they already to effectively baring Apple) but rather to engage in true journalism. I don't know about you guys but the papers just don't get it.

Dave
post #9 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

I'd pay $30 a month for a digital newspaper, as long as the experience is as good as/better than a print newspaper.

Having moved to the US from England, I really missed being able to read the UK newspapers, and regarded the ability to get The Times on the Kindle as a major plus, but the experience on there is naff. If they give me the sort of thing the New York Times demo'd, I'd gladly pay.

I would pay for a digital edition, but not $30 a month, maybe $10. They could include all the ads that are in the print edition, that would be fine by me. I would like the real print experience, without the ink stains.
post #10 of 107
Wow. They're deluding themselves if they honestly expect many people to pay $10/month for something we can already get for free. This is just pathetic and sad. Their stubborn refusal to adapt will be their end (and they've already got one foot in the grave, so it's just a matter of time).
post #11 of 107
Charge $30/month and give yourself time to watch paint dry.

WTF are they crazy??? My freaking internet service is only $30/month. Why on this earth would I pay that kind of money for a news paper where approximately 50% of the content is available for free?
Yes the NYT editorials and investigative journalism is top notch but $360/year??? You're out of your mind crazy.

That's 180 itunes tv shows or 363 songs.
Thats almost the cost of an ipad.
That's 6 ipod shuffles
That's 2 ipod nanos
That's 1731 12 oz cans of Mountain Dew.

If this is the revenue plan, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Newspaper and magazine people need to wake up. You are taking your production and distribution costs down to ZERO in this medium. You can cut prices like crazy and you *should*.
$10/month is the *highest* you should be thinking.
I'd put it closer to $5/month. That's a price that would make people subscribe in droves. Remember you've got to understand that people will only buy so many subscriptions.
So if your average customer buys the WSJ, sports Illustrated or Wired, plus NYT and lets say .. Scientific American, do you seriously think he will be dropping $40/month on this? Ar eyou so high in your ivory tower that you might actually believe that he might drop $120/month for his four magazines?? ridiculous!
post #12 of 107
Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.

What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #13 of 107
Hahahaha!!!

Yeah, charge $30/mo. See how well THAT goes!
post #14 of 107
I don't get it. I read news on the 'web, starting at Google News. I read NYT articles every day, along with lots of other papers.

Why would I pay for a digital subscription when it is all availabloe on the 'web for free?
post #15 of 107
I might pay for news on the iPad if all news on the internet that was free went away.

If all free online news did go away, I'd just go back to watching the 6 o'clock news. Eff 'em. They're not getting any of my money.
post #16 of 107
FWIW: With about twice the circulation as the NYT, the Wall Street Journal charges less than $9/month for the on-line only version and about $11.50/month for the print and online versions together.
post #17 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance

Wow. You're so much better than the average person.
post #18 of 107
The last time I read paper newspapers, which would be about 15 years ago, I read mostly NYT. Each daily edition was less than 50 cents (I can't remember the exact price though). Anyway, I read perhaps 2-3 daily editions per week (rarely the overpriced Sunday edition), which works out to about $4/month.

I still read NYT, courtesy of RSS feed (forget the bloated iPhone app), but just few articles per day. I am sure some will pay $10/month, perhaps even $30/month for the iPad version. But there's no way I would pay anywhere close to that. Perhaps NYT should considered tiered-pricing:
  • $30/month: unlimited full contents (including puzzles) with access to every single articles from its archive
  • $10/month: unlimited article read, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • $10/year: 5-10 articles per day, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • Free: Just the top articles
post #19 of 107
The NYT people are as deluded as record companies.

Raise prices to a ridiculous amount and people won't buy.

$5/mo, I will subscribe today. $10/mo for the NYT, no. I'll pay for the WSJ instead. $30/mo. I would not even consider it.

How could they justify $30/mo? Apple is taking care of the distribution. There is nothing physical to print, bundle, truck and then deliver.
post #20 of 107
One point to consider in their revenue models, is that many people may subscribe from outside their traditional newsprint delivery footprint. I live in Australia, and I might subscribe to such a daily as the NYT e print edition. That would be $10 / month they'd be getting from little old me in Australia, that they don't have a snow flakes in hell chance of getting right now.

The e print product should be considerably less due to its cheap distribution model etc. $10 would be top shelf pricing to me.

Now, how are they going to charge me, by the day, month or year, that would also change how much I would consider paying
post #21 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

The last time I read paper newspapers, which would be about 15 years ago, I read mostly NYT. Each daily edition was less than 50 cents (I can't remember the exact price though). Anyway, I read perhaps 2-3 daily editions per week (rarely the overpriced Sunday edition), which works out to about $4/month.

I still read NYT, courtesy of RSS feed (forget the bloated iPhone app), but just few articles per day. I am sure some will pay $10/month, perhaps even $30/month for the iPad version. But there's no way I would pay anywhere close to that. Perhaps NYT should considered tiered-pricing:
  • $30/month: unlimited full contents (including puzzles) with access to every single articles from its archive
  • $10/month: unlimited article read, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • $10/year: 5-10 articles per day, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • Free: Just the top articles

You should email this to NYT. Looks pretty good to me. I am willing to pay $10/month easily. But, $30/month! NYT can kiss my a** then.
post #22 of 107
I would possibly pay $10 per year, if I bought an iPad, which I probably won't.
post #23 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.

What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.

This. They bitch that newspaper quality ahs gone done then bitch that they get the same news for free. I only wish NYTimes wouldn't have stated their site is free until 2011.

I think a good model would be to give their loyal print subscribers access to the e-version for free. This will help maintain these customers which could be a problem as each drop will push distribution costs to every other account.

After that marketing will require bean counters but if they are still going to give away their website have to lessen the cost for the e-version, even if they make it as compelling as the print version. I would liked to see a newspaper and magazine section built into the iBook app. I don't want a separate app for each subscription with a separate login and account. I will be more likely to buy more if I can just use my iTS account. I'd also like it to auto-load so when I pick it up it's there waiting for me, like being delivered to my door. I don't want to have to go grab it first.

Overall, I'm disappointed that the focus on making a viable replacement for print media has not been thought out. It's the one thing that could have made the iPad a must have and potentially save publishers still dedicated to quality writing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #24 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

The last time I read paper newspapers, which would be about 15 years ago, I read mostly NYT. Each daily edition was less than 50 cents (I can't remember the exact price though). Anyway, I read perhaps 2-3 daily editions per week (rarely the overpriced Sunday edition), which works out to about $4/month.

I still read NYT, courtesy of RSS feed (forget the bloated iPhone app), but just few articles per day. I am sure some will pay $10/month, perhaps even $30/month for the iPad version. But there's no way I would pay anywhere close to that. Perhaps NYT should considered tiered-pricing:
  • $30/month: unlimited full contents (including puzzles) with access to every single articles from its archive
  • $10/month: unlimited article read, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • $10/year: 5-10 articles per day, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • Free: Just the top articles

Making a tiered access method like that would be very wise to pull people in. I'd also have an option for access certain days of the week.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #25 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larz2112 View Post

Inconceivable!

You keep using that word.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #26 of 107
I keep hearing about how worthless news is when you're able to get it for free.

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that the "free" news comes from sources like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Just because you saw it on the Yahoo! homepage for free, doesn't mean that a paid reporter from one of the news companies didn't write it.

To have news, you must have reporters.. to have reporters you must pay them. If people quit paying for news... who will report it?

---

What the news companies need to realize, is that when it comes to online content it's all about the user experience and synchronization.

They need to simplify the experience and offer one flat-rate fee per month and offer paper, app, and website access. (An additional discount for opting out of the paper delivery in order to help the environment would be a good idea.)

I would recommend they target the $25 price point.
post #27 of 107
$10 per month is the magic number for me.

Considering that Apple takes 30% for distribution, I'm willing to pay $14 so that the NYT can get their full $10 per month.
post #28 of 107
I think anyone willing to pay for an iPad is going to be willing to pay for high quality journalism and analysis, but the key phrase here is "high quality." The Times needs to step up their game a lot if they think anyone is going to pay $30/month. If every article they printed was free of factual or conceptual errors of the sort that are fairly obvious to an expert in the relevant field, then that would certainly be a good start. Add to that analysis that is original, insightful, and leaves me feeling like I really understand something important that I didn't understand before, and I'd be willing to pay (oh, and it has to be well written).

Right now it is rare for any newspaper to generate more than one such article per edition. If they really want me to pay $30 a month, then the paper had better be filled with those types of articles.
post #29 of 107
They are insane. The sweet spot would be $6/mo. I'd say. People would sign up for that. $30?! Not a chance. Even $10 is a little high.
post #30 of 107
I gave up my dead tree newspaper almost 15 years ago. Online news sites, online classifieds, online comics ;-), etc filled the 'need' nicely.

Newspapers are on the road to extinction. They seem to hold the misguided belief that there is some intrinsic value in holding a newspaper in your hand. Those who have spent their lives reading a newspaper every morning/evening are a, literally, dying breed. In 20 to 30 years( or less), there won't be any of them.

The iPad offers a bridge from what newspapers were to how news is/will be consumed. And they are worried about cannibalizing their already shrinking customer base, instead of seeing it as an opportunity to reach a new audience.

I say let them die. Creative Destruction. The world is harsh place. Old, fading industries must die to make room for new, vibrant ones. Until the new ones also age and die. Circle of life.
post #31 of 107
NYT needs to think about global penetration. They need to maximize their number of readers globally for the right price. iTunes will give them the world, they'll need to maximize their number of readers.

They should have professionals really research this and advise them. This is serious business.

Time will tell.
post #32 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacob1varghese View Post

$10 per month is the magic number for me.

Considering that Apple takes 30% for distribution, I'm willing to pay $14 so that the NYT can get their full $10 per month.

I agree.. but it should be $10 a month for a basket of newspapers and magazines for $10 a month.. then trillions of people would order the ipad so they could get this great deal.. The NYtimes would easily sell 4 times more subscriptions (a net gain of $10 for every four subscribers over the $30 plan!!! ) imagine the nYtimes, national geographic and .. the new yorker.. or sailing magazine etc etc in a package .. pick any three (of a big selection offered) and enjoy all editions of your three choices for one year by choosing the $10 a month box.. or !!! By choosing the 24 month box, you can receive a free Ipad soft mitten case!!!!! Just choose #24 box and select a color of your free (!!) soft mitten case... Colors are: turtle neck black, polar apple white, or desk top gray...

And in a short time.. all pulp paper will cease to exist.. because with a deal like this .. everyone would switch to an ipad ...
post #33 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.

What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.

Newspapers are obsolete. Sorry, they are. The delivery of news is not. I don't watch cable news. I read multiple news source -- very few of which are actually 'news papers'. I read Reuters and AP -- the same source of the majority of 'news' in most news papers. I pay for it by allowing myself to be subjected to advertisements.

This is not about information and ignorance, it is about an industry who's time has past. News will still 'get out'. But newspapers, like most dying industries, are so trapped in their own idiom, and so deep in denial that they are incapable of foresight.

Boutique content shops, either advertiser supported or subscription based are the future. Newspapers are the past.
post #34 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by svesan03 View Post

Newspapers just don't get it... there is no value in news any more, it's too accessible to all for free. It's not as if they can offer anything unique that we can't find for free elsewhere.

The reason news content has been free is that it was subsidized by print or broadcast operations, and those aren't cutting the mustard any more. So guess what: It's time to start paying for information that costs money to collect, report, edit, and package. On the other hand, expecting readers to pay the same as print delivery when there are no newsprint, trucking, or associated personnel costs involved is ridiculous.
post #35 of 107
The most telling line in the story is:
Those with the company are allegedly "afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad," the report said.
Did I miss something here? Isn't that the whole purpose of going digital?!

This is an internal turf war at the NY Times, one that has a great deal to do with whether or not the company survives as a viable and trusted news source. The Old World print people are beginning to really understand how much their traditional way of life is going to be threatened by the New World digital alternatives inside their own company. The real transition won't happen for awhile but it is the future, and the print people will be dragged kicking and screaming into it.

$30 a month is higher than I want to pay. But the curious thing is that at Macworld last week the New York Times was actively marketing their digital TimesReader 2.0, offering a price of $3.45 a week for the complete paper, including the Sunday edition. The last seven days would be stored on my computer without the constant need for an Internet connection. This is the first time I have seriously considered a digital subscription. I probably already spend that amount each week just on toner and paper when I print out favorite articles from the Times. If the iPad does not fall somewhere around this already existing digital price then their efforts to win over new digital readers will probably fail. I might pay $.35-.50 (but not a dollar) a day.
post #36 of 107
Actually, I think they should charge whatever they want to. A 'honest' approach would be for them to actually calculate the cost it takes to print, package and deliver a physical copy based on their current print base. Back that expense out of the monthly $30 paper subscription, divide it by 1.3 (to give Apple their mark up) and offer it at that price.

But they won't be that up front. They will talk about 'cannibalization' and set the price equal to print edition. And it won't sell. And then they'll point to the iPad and iBookstore and say that they are a failure.

They will cut jobs, have fewer people producing the content and therefore produce lower quality content. Then they will cut more jobs in response to a shrinking readership. The unions will strike. And in the end, Newspapers, like the buggy whip industry, will fade into mists of time.

Something new will grow up to fill the niche, something that understands the difference between content and the distribution medium. But the 'one stop, everything to everybody' newspaper will be gone.
post #37 of 107
I might pay $10 a month for a NYT subscription IF it included many of the Sunday edition features.

$30 a month? Nope.

They've got to realize the volume at a lower price point will be magic for them.

It's the same story for the music cos... out of greed they bumped prices out of the 99-cent comfort zone for iTunes songs, and have watched their sales steadily decline since. At 99-cents a song, sales were becoming robust!

WIth enough digital subscribers NYT could easily return to a healthy bottom line. They're not going to get there by overcharging for their content. They'll get it by charging so little everyone says "why not"? Then they get the critical mass... and profit.
post #38 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsz View Post

The NYT people are as deluded as record companies.

Raise prices to a ridiculous amount and people won't buy.

$5/mo, I will subscribe today. $10/mo for the NYT, no. I'll pay for the WSJ instead. $30/mo. I would not even consider it.

How could they justify $30/mo? Apple is taking care of the distribution. There is nothing physical to print, bundle, truck and then deliver.

They've got ol' farts making the decisions... clueless. I gave up the paper WSJ when I started the online one. It's head and shoulders over anything print can deliver with constant up2date interactive analysis stuff and video. It's only about $12/month for all that. They even write more of their own stuff. The NYT is too wire-serviced, most of which can be retrieved almost anywhere. Classic case of a foggy front windshield and a crystal clear rear view mirrow.. no idea where the car they're in is going... Mr. Magoo deja vu.
post #39 of 107
Offer free e-subscriptions to those who subscribe to the print editions as a bridge to migrating them to the e-model and at the same time charge the e-only subscribers. Publishers can then gauge what the market can bear during the transition based on e-subscriber feedback. I think the publishers may charge a lower price for basic news and a premium for interactive content. Imagine reading an auto review in USAToday Online and touching a photo of the reviewer in the driver's seat, bringing you inside the car as he's driving (without Flash? says Tekstud....Yes, when HTML5 get rolling). You could hear the engine noise, see the interior, etc. I can see that's the direction auto magazines would go, also.
You talkin' to me?
Reply
You talkin' to me?
Reply
post #40 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.

And what does print media like the NYT's cultivate? How can we trust their source? Who is their outside fact checker? It is known as the 'Paper of Record' and 'All the News that's Fit to Print' but IMO, the news section is nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for the Democrat party. They were scooped on the John Edwards story by The National Enquirer of all "papers". They were a week late to report on the ACORN scandal and yet the person who exposed the ACORN scandal was front page news ABOVE the fold, day one, when he was arrested for investigative journalism. You know the stuff "60 Minutes" used to do and if they were doing it and were dragged out they would be screaming "Freedom of the Press! Freedom of the Press!". What of the AP, they had 11 fact checkers to review for accuracy, Sarah Palin's 400+ page book and yet 2 fact checkers for the 2000+ page health care bill from Congress.

Todays print news like the NY Times is not professional investigative journalism. IT reports what it wants to, when it wants to. Nothing more. It is no longer "The Paper of Record" unless you are a politician wanting to cite it as some official source which boggles my mind and probably explains a lot as to why we are, where we are, as a country.


Quote:
If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.

You've got that right! And we are gladly paying an expensive price because too many were just too ignorant and were easily beguiled.

Oh and to be "Fair and Balanced", I wouldn't trust everything being reported from a right leaning news organization cable OR print media. It is just the sad state of affairs that the news profession has become and why I'm so skeptical. It is a shame that I am so skeptical, but I only have those "professionals" in the news media to thank!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › NYT execs struggle over iPad edition subscription pricing - rumor