Does the New York Times Understand Blogs?

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Bruce says:

    I like the new design. It looks more newspapery, like the Washington Post, the layout of which I prefered to the old Times. The new font seems a bit harder on the eyes though.

    Re: charging for blogs, it does seem odd. But I don’t think it’s inconsistent with the definition of “blog.” (Then again, I lack a Ph.D. in philosophy.) It probably seemed weird when cable systems began offering new, non-broadcast channels that they charged a separate fee for.

  2. Dave Hoffman says:

    Dan, give the grey lady a break. I’d be slow on my feet if I were being consumed by hundreds of thousands of parasitic bloggers too!

  3. Ann Bartow says:

    I’m with Dan on the resign. It reminds me of “Weekly Readers” from childhood with a twist of “USA Today.”

    And still no comics!

  4. And I’m with Bruce on “free.” Where in the definition of “blog” does “free” come in?

  5. Frank says:

    As for TimesSelect, I’m pretty troubled by it. Somebody’s got to pay for the “paper of record” as content migrates online, but is this the way to do it? seems to me that micropayments or targeted advertising are the real key. I just hope the MSM doesn’t all move in the direction of the WSJ re access.

  6. Daniel, I echo your sentiments regarding the near-invisibility of blogs by the New York Times. I’ve run into the same problem at other newspaper websites and also at Google Finance company profile pages (where the blog post links are relegated to the bottom corner while the mainstream news links are given a top spot).

    It will be interesting to see when and if these resources make it easier for folks like us to locate their blog offerings. I think they will, but that it will come sporadically.