Wednesday, May 18, 2005

NY Times to charge to read columnists online

Bye, bye, Thomas Friedman.


  1. this is what i am talking abot. what gives them the right to charge for our access to the Times?

  2. No one reads papers any more, so they are losing money. And we all know about corporate media. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end for corporate media. Who wants to pay $50 a year to read the columnists?

  3. well, i still think it should be our right to read things on the internet.

  4. here is something for you leftists to read, and it is free:


    No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

    so strong ...............

  5. Oh, I agree about reading things on the internet. I just refuse to pay $50 to read the columnists, so I won't read them.

    As for Coulter's comment, the story which Newsweek ran was not about the Quran incident. That was just MENTIONED in the story. I doubt she even read the story. As usual, righties fail to read. But then again, facts are stupid things, right?

  6. oh, i see. mentioning doesn't count?


    leftist "thought" is soooooooo fun.