Comments on: Does the New York Times Understand Blogs?

By: Easton Ellsworth

Easton Ellsworth — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:50:35 +0000

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.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:23:59 +0000

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.

By: Jason Wojciechowski

Jason Wojciechowski — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:46:11 +0000

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

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:29:46 +0000

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!

By: Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:39:13 +0000

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!

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 05:20:04 +0000

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.