Goodbye Krugman, Friedman, et c.
September 13, 2005 12:14 PM Subscribe

NY Times will be going pay-only for access to columns by Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and Maureen Dowd. On the 19th of Sept! And I assume the others like Herbert and Frank will drop behind the iron curtain as well. These are obviously some of the most blogged about and emailed content on the NYT site. Do you think it will be worth $49.95 year (it does come with 100 archive articles, which is admittedly pretty sweet)? Do you think that bloggers will stop linking to those columnists? Is this the end of free?
posted by zpousman (85 comments total)

I wish them luck but I won't be giving them $50 a year to read their articles.
posted by fenriq at 12:18 PM on September 13, 2005

Err wasn't this big news, in like, May?
posted by Happydaz at 12:18 PM on September 13, 2005

I could care less about the op-eds, opinion is ten a penny, but the sport and NYC sections are two I read almost daily. Nevertheless, I won't be paying for em either.
posted by jamesonandwater at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2005

Reminds me a bit of Encyclopedia Britannica deciding to charge $1000 for the CD-ROM version of the encyclopedia. I'd go for this for maybe 5 bucks a year based on how online distribution reduces their costs.
posted by MillMan at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2005

I never read those columns anyway.
posted by davy at 12:24 PM on September 13, 2005

If I hear about a column that I really want to read, I'll probably just get it off of Nexis.
posted by grouse at 12:26 PM on September 13, 2005

Is this the end of free?

No, just the end of anyone who gets their news online caring about Krugman, Friedman, Dowd, Herbert and Frank. Really, what's even the relevance of columnists and commentators in the 21st Century, especially ones who want to charge you for the privilege of listening to what they have to say? I'm willing to pay for information; I'm willing to pay for entertainment. Opinions, on the other hand... opinions really are like assholes. Everyone's got one, and they usually stink.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:26 PM on September 13, 2005

Catch Krugman here:
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/

Does this mean we won't be subjected to the idiocy of David Brooks?
posted by nofundy at 12:27 PM on September 13, 2005

>> "To sweeten the pot even further, the Times is offering a number of new services, including the ability to save and organize articles in a personal 'Times File,' an e-mail alert service, and early access to certain Sunday sections."

An old gripe, but it just seems so...backwards...to segregate content from the rest of the internets. But oh well. Never read them anyways.
posted by tpl1212 at 12:27 PM on September 13, 2005

I wrote a little about this back in May, and I don't think it's a great decision. A couple of take-away points: (1) I hope the NYT Link Generator still works. (2) Assuming that Technorati’s data is roughly accurate, New York Times articles are linked more than Wall Street Journal articles by a factor of 100. Will that remain the case after the NYT goes behind a pay wall? I doubt it. (3) The NYT digital unit netted $17.3 million on revenues of $53.1 million during the first half of 2004. The articles estimates that the digital unit will continue to grow at 30% to 40% a year, and that advertising accounts for almost all of that revenue. Why on Earth would the New York Times move its digital unit to a subscription-based model, when the advertising-based model has made the digital unit the fastest growing in the company?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:28 PM on September 13, 2005

With any luck, it'll mean fewer New York Times op-eds on the front page of Metafilter. So, this is a good thing.
posted by interrobang at 12:28 PM on September 13, 2005

I was saddened to hear this as I love Dowd and most of the other columnists. We can only hope it fails miserably.
posted by MetaJohn at 12:31 PM on September 13, 2005

Probably the NYT content is worth $50, but I'm not willing to pay $50 in advance for something I would only occasionally use.

On a side note, if the opinionist are so influential they'll be read by many and it will become very easy to find their articles..and on a tangent, if they're so famous and important why do they accept their notoriety to be priced only $50 ?
posted by elpapacito at 12:33 PM on September 13, 2005

I was thrilled to hear this as I hate Dowd and most of the other columnists. We can only hope it succeeds spectacularly.
posted by loquax at 12:33 PM on September 13, 2005

NYT will use this price as its "retail" price, then have all sorts of "promotions" whereby they offer it for $29.95, and people will swarm to it, thinking of the money they're saving.

I still think they're shooting themselves in the foot. But, after 5 years of Bush administration sof-balling, sycophancy and apologism, I would just as soon see them shoot themselves in the foot. As in fuck 'em.
posted by squirrel at 12:35 PM on September 13, 2005

Do you think that bloggers will stop linking to those columnists? Is this the end of free?

Who cares? Anything the 'iron curtain'ed authors have to say, there are freemen who say almost the same thing or better.

The blog community will just reference them in their 'appeal to authority' is all.

Unless EVERY main stream news source and EVERY source of papers from other places go 'for pay' - bloggers will be able to keep busy. Thye just won't be as busy about what the NYT has to say.

For the NYT - being ignored is a form of death as sure as not having a cash flow.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:36 PM on September 13, 2005

If the Times is looking to make a little extra money, then they should open a CafePress store.
posted by jefbla at 12:36 PM on September 13, 2005

I'd be willing to pay $.02 per opinion.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:38 PM on September 13, 2005

I'll just buy Krugman's books.
posted by palinode at 12:39 PM on September 13, 2005

I love how everyone just expects content to be free. Newspaper and news magazine circulations continue to decline in some part because so much information is available online for free. What happens when subscriptions falter and newspapers start folding or consolidating even further because no one wants to pay for content. What happens when the AP, Reuters, AFP, etc. no longer has a sufficient client base to suppport a content stream? Guess where the majority of your online news outlets get their content?

There's a much larger picture here that those of you in the "I ain't paying for no news" camp is missing.
posted by photoslob at 12:40 PM on September 13, 2005

I love how everyone just expects content to be free.

Exactly. Like network television, or radio, or ... oh, wait. Maybe you missed my comment, photoslob, where I pointed out that the NYT digital unit was the fastest growing unit in the company, and nearly all of its revenue came from advertising. That's how you pay for content.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:44 PM on September 13, 2005

Unfortunately, crap decisions like this, which the NYT honchos undoubtedly believe make them seem more "exclusive", really just serve to reinforce the "Gray Lady" image, and not in any complimentary way.

For people calling themselves the "Times", they sure are out of touch with them.
posted by Mike D at 12:45 PM on September 13, 2005

Once the switch is made, the amount of people reading these columns will drop off dramatically. I for one won't miss people emailing me Frank Rich or Maureen Dowd content.

We'll see how long pure pay-only lasts before it is replaced with a you-must-watch-this-ad-before-you-access-the-content approach (see, Salon.com after its pay-only approach bombed and was replaced with this format).
posted by theknacker at 12:47 PM on September 13, 2005

... you-must-watch-this-ad-before-you-access-the-content approach ...

I've already noticed this on a few NYT links, although there is still a convenient "skip this ad" button. We'll see how long that lasts.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:50 PM on September 13, 2005

(it does come with 100 archive articles, which is admittedly pretty sweet)

Only? That's less than a year's worth of columns.

Since I don't read any of them, I don't care about this much at all. I do, however, agree with monju that it's a dumb move.
posted by me3dia at 12:52 PM on September 13, 2005

Bad move. Very bad move.
posted by brundlefly at 12:55 PM on September 13, 2005

There's a much larger picture here that those of you in the "I ain't paying for no news" camp is missing.
posted by photoslob at 3:40 PM EST

Are opinion columns considered news?
No, really, are they?
If so, then MeFi is definitely in the news making business friends 'cause we're all about opinions!
posted by nofundy at 12:56 PM on September 13, 2005

"I love how everyone just expects content to be free. Newspaper and news magazine circulations continue to decline in some part because so much information is available online for free."

Well welcome to 1995. The internet works by exposing writers and publications to vast audiences vs the good old days when only cranky academics in the back rooms of a library would occasionally open a back issue. The better the writing, the more people read it. And here's the hook, you see: the more people read your website, THE MORE ATTRACTIVE IT IS TO ADVERTISERS.

Take the Salon example. Twiddle your thumbs for 60 seconds while you agree to let the new Lexus commercial play across your screen, then get a day pass to read everything for free.

The really successful internet sites put everything they can up for free and pay for it from advertising revenue. And the NYT has a stable of writers that advertisers would probably stab each other in the back to underwrite.
posted by Mike D at 12:58 PM on September 13, 2005

me3dia writes "(it does come with 100 archive articles, which is admittedly pretty sweet)

"Only? That's less than a year's worth of columns.

That's 100 a month.

This seems like a dumb move, and since monju is right about where the money comes from, a doubly dumb move since they will reduce click-throughs on that content.
posted by OmieWise at 1:02 PM on September 13, 2005

those columns will be all over the P2P networks anyway
posted by matteo at 1:09 PM on September 13, 2005

I'll give them the $50 and consider it a charitable contribution to an important institution.
posted by alms at 1:12 PM on September 13, 2005

Screw that! For $50 a year, I can subscribe to TotalFark!
posted by NedKoppel at 1:14 PM on September 13, 2005

I'd pay quite a bit to have access to the full New York Times archive. (I'm paying $66/year for a digital New York Review of Books subscription, which gives access to its full archive going back to 1963.)
posted by russilwvong at 1:15 PM on September 13, 2005

Good thing I already subscribe to the print edition. This will be free.
posted by caddis at 1:15 PM on September 13, 2005

What happens if a column gets cut and pasted to Metafilter comments? Or what if I email it to my friends? The point being, trying to curtail open sharing of text is absurd at the point where movies are downloaded prior to their release.
posted by iamck at 1:23 PM on September 13, 2005

They learn, then they forget: the internet regards pay-for-content as damage and routes around it.
posted by mullingitover at 1:24 PM on September 13, 2005

Didn't you have to be a member and pay to watch videos on the CNN webpage? I know now they are all free to watch.
posted by Ron at 1:27 PM on September 13, 2005

I wonder how the columnists are going to feel about having their exposure and influence reduced by 90%. I wonder how they'll react to find they aren't being talked about anymore. Will they get extra money to compensate for it?
posted by dyaseen at 1:30 PM on September 13, 2005

It comes as a surprise to me that so many comments suggest this is a new venture and the net is not going to be free. In fact, the NY Times is making one pay for certain op ed writers. Compare this with so manyh other media places (ie, Salon, WSJ etc) where you pay for Everything.

I would continue to get the paper even if the hard copy had no op-ed or editorials...the paper has much more and on a daily basis. But then I live close enough to NY so that hard copy is less expensive than buying it a few states away from where it is published.

If "opinions" are like assholes, then the comment must come from an asshole, right? Not to be mean, but in fact reviews of films,plays, books are all OPINIONS too.

I know that most to the Right of Center think of the NY Times (how odd) as very liberal. That is false but sufficient reason to get the paper and cite it!
posted by Postroad at 1:33 PM on September 13, 2005

So who, besides porn sites and maybe WSJ.com are self-sufficient due to ad revenue? Who is so self-sufficient that they can bank roll investigative reporting, photo essays and other value adds that make the product that much richer?

And yes, the editorials are not "news" but this is certainly a trial balloon to see who bites in anticipation of the future of publishing on the web.
posted by photoslob at 1:39 PM on September 13, 2005

Paul Krugman Archive
posted by Zurishaddai at 1:41 PM on September 13, 2005

I got a phone call from NYT asking for subscription, because I registered to read it online. I took the opportunity to bash their journey to the right wing: Clinton bashing, Brooks, Judith Miller... My message probably went nowhere but it was exhilerating to give someone the business. I used to respect this newspaper but those days are long gone.
posted by Ber at 1:41 PM on September 13, 2005

If "opinions" are like assholes, then the comment must come from an asshole, right? Not to be mean, but in fact reviews of films,plays, books are all OPINIONS too.

Er-- I wasn't negating the value of all opinions; I was simply taking a cost-benefit view. Most of these NYT people I wouldn't bother paying attention to for free. Some people I do listen to for free. A very, very small portion of the population actually has opinions that matter to me so much that I would even be willing to pay money for them. Notice that I said that "most" opinions stink, not all of them.

Check out this nonsense I'm spouting. Would any of you bother reading what I have to say if it cost you money? I know I wouldn't.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:48 PM on September 13, 2005

So who, besides porn sites and maybe WSJ.com are self-sufficient due to ad revenue?

Um, I don't know, the NYT? As I said above: "The NYT digital unit netted $17.3 million on revenues of $53.1 million during the first half of 2004. ... [A]dvertising accounts for almost all of that revenue."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:55 PM on September 13, 2005

I've got one word for the NYT: Contentville.

It's one of those ideas that "look good on paper."
posted by clevershark at 1:55 PM on September 13, 2005

50$ will get me 10 sock puppet accts at MeFi! I can argue with myself 'til the cows come home!

And, besides, I only read the times for the articles, not the op-ed stuff... I get all my interesting opinions here at mefi,
posted by HuronBob at 1:57 PM on September 13, 2005

double post. no end to free. nothing to see here.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:08 PM on September 13, 2005

And then they all go on vacation.
posted by First Post at 2:20 PM on September 13, 2005

This is maybe the best thing to happen to Metafilter FPP quality in a while.
posted by srboisvert at 3:03 PM on September 13, 2005

dear gawd, you couldn't pay me to read thomas friedman, much less have me pay to read him.
posted by slogger at 3:08 PM on September 13, 2005

So who, besides porn sites and maybe WSJ.com are self-sufficient due to ad revenue?

Also, isn't WSJ.com for subscribers only? All of the articles I've tried to read there have been.
posted by Rictic at 3:17 PM on September 13, 2005

for those of us who routinely need articles from the NYT archives, this is a good deal. just sayin'
posted by realcountrymusic at 3:39 PM on September 13, 2005

monju, you got me. I missed that in your post. Is that a true net or does that not take in consideration how they've done over the last few years? I read the article you linked to and it didn't mention historical performance.
posted by photoslob at 3:53 PM on September 13, 2005

Get used to free stuff disappearing from the Web. The Times Online version may have turned a profit, but the Web is killing the print version. They probably need the extra cash to offset the loss in print ads.
I think we got spoiled by the dot.com boom in the late 1990s when Web sites were burning through venture capital in a chase for market share. Remember when online retailers used to sell stuff at below cost? Banner ads as a rule don't pay enough for viewership. Someone's got to foot the bill. Those who don't like it call it greed. The truth is, it's economic reality. This is what newspapers need to do to stay in business.
posted by stevefromsparks at 3:59 PM on September 13, 2005

Meh. Editorials shmeditorials. I get better editorials than the NYT from random dudes with blogs.
posted by blendor at 4:07 PM on September 13, 2005

OH NO! METAFILTER WON'T READ IT!
Man, this won't have nearly the "90%" effect that you guys are talking about. OH NOES! THE BLOGOSPHERE WON'T LINK TO US!
Do you realize what a fucking drop in the bucket douchebags with blogs are? If anything, not linking to Dowd and Krugman with a couple lines of pithy rejoiners will reduce the readership of blogs, not the papers.
But what do I know? I still subscribe to the print version.
posted by klangklangston at 4:20 PM on September 13, 2005

Friedman is going pay? Oh man, who's gonna mix my metaphors for me now?

At least I still have David Brooks, and his penchant for dualities.
posted by SweetJesus at 4:30 PM on September 13, 2005

The Times Online version may have turned a profit, but the Web is killing the print version. They probably need the extra cash to offset the loss in print ads... This is what newspapers need to do to stay in business.

Let me see if I can broaden your paradigm a bit, steve: why do consumers need newspapers to stay in business?

This isn't to say that print papers are useless--I read them all the time, love them--but it doesn't make sense to justify a charge for online content because the print paper content is losing money. Don't let your focus on the value of print papers stop you from recognizing that they are ultimately on their way out. It's an "economic reality" that it's just a matter of time. Crippling the NYT new model as a means to prop up its old model just isn't very smart, and not forward-thinking at all.

As others have pointed out, advertising revenue has made the online NYT the fastest-growing part of their business. In the long run, I forsee pay-per-play in very small increments (e.g. five cents a column) providing an alternative (or additional) revenue stream for online content providers.
posted by squirrel at 4:32 PM on September 13, 2005

NY Times ?? Is that meal ??
posted by zouhair at 4:53 PM on September 13, 2005

How about this - Thomas Friedman pays me real money to read any of his crappy articles.
posted by quadog at 5:10 PM on September 13, 2005

Is that a true net or does that not take in consideration how they've done over the last few years?

As far as I can tell that's a true net. The NYT is making a bundle from it's digital unit. Why fuck with a good thing?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:23 PM on September 13, 2005

The only one I'll miss is Krugman. Friedman isn't worth a dime, and Dowd is fun in that catty old bitch sort of way, but not very informative.

I say screw the NYT and all paid-for content.

This is a blessing in disguise.

It will give lesser-known but just as toothy bloggers more of an audience.
posted by rougy at 6:08 PM on September 13, 2005

I'm not sure what I will do. If some kind of special offer shows up, I might go for it at $30, especiallly since it's a business deduction. But I suspect the model won't last. Also, I suspect there's an ulterior motive behind hit; just not sure which.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:33 PM on September 13, 2005

Oh, wait. It's just those horrid columnists? FORGET IT. I thought it was the whole paper. Maybe this sounds semi-compelling in the hinterlands, but here in NYC, if I "need" to barf and read Krugman or Dowd, I can go down the street to the Newstand, or get a "scrap paper" at the local cafe.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:39 PM on September 13, 2005

Even though I will sign up for this as a print subscriber, I don't think it is any great loss. The editorials are probably the weakest part of the Times. I am pretty liberal, yet more likely to read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal than in the New York Times. Perhaps it's because as someone said earlier, MeFi gives me lots of liberal editorials, probably better than in the Times. Maureen Dowd is almost as looney as Ann Coulter. The only opeds I really ever liked regularly were Safire and Krugman and now Safire is gone. Krugman is pretty wacko too, but often has a deep insight. A significant number of people I went to college with are now NYT reporters. They are all great, and there are so many great news reporters at this rag that it defines excellence. That is still going to be available, it seems. If not, the Washington Post is probably just as good (frequently better, especially on politics) and it remains totally free. A lot of my classmates are journalists there too. Where did I go wrong? (I would love to be a journalist, although I am probably too shy.) I wish the Times was not doing this, but I understand their desire to stay profitable. The great news machines of network TV are now shadows of their former selves - broken, embittered, and in some cases embarrassed. I hope the newspapers don't follow, but the trend is there.
posted by caddis at 6:48 PM on September 13, 2005

Caddis: well said.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:05 PM on September 13, 2005

The Times is hurting. Badly.

The Washington Post lost approx 10% of it's circulation last year alone. The Times stayed flat because of a huge push to sell nationally. You are witnessing the beginning of the end of print journalism unless some online models start to work.

In focus groups the most common issue with subscribing to the Times is that people feel guilty about wasting the paper. The second most common issue was that the website was easier to manage than the print edition. So here you go: $30 gets you the digial paper + $3500 worth of archive lookups (in case you needed that) + other perks.

This is what the people want.

Oh and btw: $25 mil in revenue for the online group is not a lot of money. The Times regularly clears $750 million in revenue. The wesite's numbers also are oriented such that they do not pay for the content. So they have free content and sell that much in ads. If the paper edition stopped publishing the organization would be spending more than $300 million a year more than they earn.

I just urge people to think things through. What will happen when the only papers left are the rags? Will you reconsider your anti 'establishment journalism' stance then? Maybe you don't think you will, but I'm thinking you will.
posted by n9 at 9:11 PM on September 13, 2005

It will give lesser-known but just as toothy bloggers more of an audience.

do you happen to recall several big huge GIANT scandals in the newspaper industry in the last few years? Where reporters lied? Reporters that are paid and have oversight lied? Bloggers lie all the time. Some kind of trustworthy media will grow out of bloggers and bloggers certainly get stories going, but without the umph that a corporate news organization has many stories will be missed (as in not covered) and many more will be missed (as in no one reads about them, no public reaction is generated.)

Removing the press would leave us in a world where the masses are very easily manipulated and the crooks will take over. No, I mean even more than now.
posted by n9 at 9:17 PM on September 13, 2005

Information and opinion are two things the internet has an over-abundance of.

Trying to monetize either one seems like a terrible mistake to me.

Also, people will pay for information they can't get elsewhere.

I'm not so sure people will pay for opinion pieces. Is it considered entertainment?

They would probably have better luck reading the columns aloud and selling them on iTunes.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:15 PM on September 13, 2005

Krugman is one of the sterling voices of our times.

I'll miss reading him.

The right wing hates him for popping their balloons.

He's anything but loony.

The really loony fuckwads are obviously on Fox News and 90% of A.M. radio.

As for the Times having "really fine reporters" I think that's a hoot - a bunch of Ivy League pansies with a talent for family ties hardly merits bulldog journalism.
posted by rougy at 12:55 AM on September 14, 2005

Fascinating rougy. In the real world the Times has one of the most diverse newsrooms in the world. Go watch The Killing Fields or read some books. Perhaps your ability to write something and feel that makes it so has compromised your ability to evaluate journalists.
posted by n9 at 4:11 AM on September 14, 2005

Information wants to be free.
posted by nofundy at 10:04 AM on September 14, 2005

The NYT has uncharacteristically buried the lead here:

If you already pay for the New York Times-- undoubtedly the best newspaper in the United States-- to be delivered to your house every morning, then starting on Monday you will have access to every article in their archives back to 1981 at no extra charge. And they're working on delivering their archive going back to 1851. And you can download the text of up to 1,200 of those articles per year. For no more money than you were already willing to pay for the daily paper.

That is news. That is cool. That is a good reason to get home delivery. God bless the New York Times.
posted by juggernautco at 10:43 AM on September 14, 2005

N9: Let me guess, you work at the New York Times, right?
posted by SweetJesus at 11:10 AM on September 14, 2005

has one of the most diverse newsrooms in the world.
posted by matteo at 1:21 PM on September 14, 2005

God bless the New York Times.

Amen
posted by caddis at 4:49 PM on September 14, 2005

"Perhaps your ability to write something and feel that makes it so has compromised your ability to evaluate journalists."

Well, at least you 're not reaching too far back in time with your "Killing Fields" reference.

The NYT is filled with about the same kind reporters in all of our country's newsrooms: self-impressed sell-outs.

They're nothing but modern-day hired guns working for the establishment.

Paper of record?

Thank-you Judith Miller.
posted by rougy at 6:51 PM on September 14, 2005

So rougy, where do you feel you get the best information about the world?
posted by caddis at 7:12 PM on September 14, 2005

You're missing even more than you think, photoslob.

General-audience websites that tried to charge readers found their readership and revenue evaporated, and they returned to charging advertisers instead of readers. The Wall Street Journal is famously the only major mass-market newspaper that made paid online subscriptions work. (Pornography is a different business, deriving revenue from charging for content, not ads, as always, in all media.)

So you probably meant to ask not "...who, besides porn sites and maybe WSJ.com are self-sufficient due to [sic] ad revenue?" but rather, What sites besides porno and (definitely) WSJ.com support themselves on PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS? The answer, "few or none," would have made your point, whatever it was exactly.

But so what? Newspapers' revenue isn't from "circulation" (the quarter you pay for the paper) but from ads. Howzit alarming or surprising that the same model works for their online versions?

Your precious wire services are wholesalers. They sell to retailers, to wit, news publishers. The revenue mix of the New York Times Co. et alia--dead trees vs. web, or ads vs. subscriptions--doesn't matter at all to them. Larger-picture-wise, I mean.
posted by clicktosubmit at 10:51 PM on September 14, 2005

If they remove content from the free Internet then they will only make themselves less visible and less relevant. More and more we're seeing that the way to be successful, both financially and culturally, is to have as much mind-share as possible. When you lock up your content and wall it off from the masses you're removing any possibility that that information will propagate to new, uninfected individuals.

Information is like a virus and they're quarantining their most popular vectors.
posted by bshort at 9:27 AM on September 15, 2005

"Meh. Editorials shmeditorials. I get better editorials than the NYT from random dudes with blogs."

Also my feelings exactly. I used to kinda enjoy the Sunday TImes my parents had lying around on sunday Morn, but even then knew this was hokey: taking a current phenomenon and making Cultural Sense out of it in broad , highbrow/middlebrow strokes. Aaron Brown the Preppy guy on TV does this too ... passe'.

fuck em
posted by celerystick at 9:29 PM on September 15, 2005

"If they remove content from the free Internet then they will only make themselves less visible and less relevant. "

That's fucking beautiful, man. Pardon my wholesale cut and paste, but...you said it well.

The NYT isn't written in stone and handed down to some wild-eyed copy editor.

I'll miss Krugman. Dowd, too, but for different reasons. And Herbert. The rest? Brooks? David Brooks?

That man is evil.

Friedman!

Ta. Ta ta.

We've got truer and better out here in the netherworld.
posted by rougy at 1:19 AM on September 16, 2005

Whoops - scuse'
posted by rougy at 1:22 AM on September 16, 2005

« Older Beyond the Pale: The History of Jews in Russia.... | I love any weblog that feature... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Goodbye Krugman, Friedman, et c. September 13, 2005 12:14 PM Subscribe

Goodbye Krugman, Friedman, et c.
September 13, 2005 12:14 PM Subscribe