The Old Reliable

Agree, grudgingly. Although, I really don't want to. The greedy bastards put out barf-bags full of suck that occasionally, after wading through thickets of sports coverage, might contain some information relative to keeping my democracy healthy. I waver back and forth -- cancel, no, wait, don't cancel; fuck it, cancel. I think I'll go with one more go-around. Perhaps, like you, it's just some wasted wish that somehow, if I click my heels three times, I'll get a real newspaper on my doorstep tomorrow. But, Jesus, N&O, please, get your shit together.

You listen...
You change your mind...
You change your mind publicly, the hardest way possible...

We're discussing a very serious issue: how to pay for the kind of reporting that we need. There are interesting experiments. Here's one that I know of, for example, but it feels as if we're a long ways from a good answer.

I'm particularly worried about rumors that the NY Times is in serious trouble.

To show how much I appreciate what you've done, I'm going to follow your example. About six months ago, I unsubscribed to the Sunday edition of the NY Times. I did it because it is pretty expensive and really doesn't contain much for the price. I'm going to add it back to prove that I listen to you, too, my friend.

-- ge

taking on unnecessary debt that creates no value for anyone other than a small group of shareholders. Meanwhile, the reporters and editors who do the real work have been screwed in the crossfire.

This is why I can't see what a campaign to raise subscription by (say) 8% or 12% will amount to a hill of beans, when the problem is the corporate parent saddled with massive debt (and in Raleigh's case - a higher percentage of poor performing revenue from other markets).

I wish this wasn't the case, but this a much bigger structural problem than a subscription revenue bump can bridge.

I don't understand why this isn't seen like the zombie bank problem. Kill it and rebuild it from the usable pieces, or just let it die.

I have to say that MM's magnanimous support of jimb of Moorewatch was eye opening. Michael's gift of $12,000.00 paid off the medical bills of Mrs. Jimb's illness and was sent anonymously. Moore did this because jimb was going to shut the site down due to the overwhelming bills. Moore wanted to make a point that medical bills should not shut down someone's right to speak out, even if it was against him.

Although the conservatives have taken the MSM over and complain that it's the evil liberal media, we still need to support free speech and freedom of the press. Our fourth estate may be lost in the desert right now but with our support and lots of lte's, perhaps they will come back one day.

I already have too many journal/periodical/magazine subscriptions. I just can't take another bit of paper delivered to my house.

I would like to see the papers get creative with online subscriptions. They could still have the free subscriptions to keep the numbers up, but could offer an attractive archive access or other special features for online subscribers. I'm sure every paper is different , and I admit I haven't checked the CharO recently, but you have to have a separate archive account and the cost is atrocious. Plus, you buy the article and get it emailed to you or download a pdf. There has got to be a way that the Observer could allow users with paid online subscriptions to access the archives in a way that advertisers are shown on those pages. They are missing nice number of page views that could be sold to advertisers.

I think many/most of the online journals have archives available to subscribers. The Monroe newspaper has an online only subscription with archive access. If they can do it the Observer can do it. Since both the N&O and the CharO are owned by McClatchy they could probably offer a package deal on both online accounts.

I want access to archives. I don't mind paying for it, but it has to be easier to use then the current method and a little less expensive.

Check out some of the comments too.

Another round