wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I like the online edition. If I am especially interested in a topic, I can immediately surf to a citation in the article mentioned as a hyperlink or as the name of an organization, and can get more comprehensive information. I can also surf to additional sites mentioned in these supplementary readings. In this way I can read primary sites, much better than a secondary one reported by the NY Times.

I love to read the physical NYT. For content the paper is unsurpassed in the US - and well worth $2 a day. I also believe the NYT has written off the prospect of increasing print circulation. Yes, there is room to improve the "classic" paper. Flabby writing aside, the paper could go a long way to become more "subway friendly" in the model of certain European broadsheets. Breaking up articles and running over the horizontal fold, all drive readers to the web for convenience. My frustration, trying to read the Times on a crowded subway or in an economy airline seat, can't be unique to me. The ability to read the paper front to back without turning back to page one would make the paper more broadly palatable.

I pick the NYT up at the newsstand several times a week but now, I'll have to subscribe. Wouldn't give it up for the online version; don't want to be glued to the screen for hours. Like the feel of a paper and the ability to reference back and forth without scrolling. Online is not the same at all.

Responding to one of the callers, I wouldn't mind supporting the NY Times with a voluntary contribution, but only if they became a nonprofit organization. I do not give voluntary contributions to for-profit corporations.

I will pay a company for a product or service if it is worth it to me, but I am not willing to make a donatation to subsidize the extended Sulzberger family in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed.

I'm not sure if I would consider myself an "older" reader, I'm only JUST 30, but if I find an article online that I really really want to digest, I print it out. I feel that reading something online is just as fleeting as my home wireless connection.

On the "feel" issue . . . our longtime local daily paper here at the north Jersey Shore, The Asbury Park Press, has gone to a more narrow format with much thinner paper and I do not like the feel at all anymore . . . the paper is so thin, it curls . . . plus the content has gone way down . . . I only read because my friend subscribes to it and it's here every day. I used to like reading the paper . . . now it is more of a chore.

Cheers!

I drove a truck at night for The Times during the 80s while going to school during the day. I remember hearing that, while the newsstand price for the Sunday edition was a buck, if there were no advertising revenue to supplement its income they would have had to have charged $13. I can only imagine the toll taken by the pressures being exerted on it today, what with the immediate economy and the internet being what they are.

I only read the Times electronically, much more convenient than paper to me. But I would gladly pay $5-10/month for an electronic subscription.
I think their current business model of charging print readers increasingly more and the online public gets it all for free will kill the Times.

I guiltily admit, I'm part of the problem -- I've been reading news online for years now -- mainly international papers, but also the Times. I'm actually thinking about buying the times -- or even subscribing -- just as a charitable contribution -- to subsidize an important resource! When print journalism dies, all media suffers. The current perilous state of print journalism in this country is so frightening -- considering how bad the mainstream media already is.

My son is three years old and loves to take our daily Times to spread on the floor and look at the pictures. I want him to associate newspaper and daily reading with a physical/tangible news source, although I am well aware that his future may render that obsolete.

If the price goes up will they switch to the ink that woun't get on your hands.

Yes I subscribe.

Most people working (if they are lucky enough to have a job) only have time to read at work online. If they would make sure everything in the print edition is in the online edition, I'd be happy to pay a fee for online edition.

Coffee Shop, I'd pay to sit and enjoy the times with a good cup of coffee, and then typically I can't chose as readily which section I get to read and when, otherwise I would have never known who was even playing in the masters this year, much less what actually went down. I don't mind reading my news a day late if it is a free paper.

My husband and I have bought the New York Times every day for over 40 years, and can't imagine a world without it. I am happy to pay the imminent increase and would pay double that amount to have the newspaper every day.

I am also devoted to the website, but it would never be a substitute for the print edition.

L. Pleven

i tis definitely worth 2 bucks a day (although I subscribe), but they should hold that price for several years. you know it was a buck like 2 years ago.

but let's put this in perspective. isn't a 20 ounce coke almost dollars? anyway the times is going for a certain demographic, obviously. other smaller papers should consider raising their prices to a dollar.

I personally don't think that the web is any kind of a substitute for the real thing.

I'm relatively young and grew up with the internet. I didn't really pick a paper until the internet era was underway. I wanted to get into the Wall St. journal but it was subscriber only so I had no choice but the NY Times. Ok, So I would have probably read both but now I am used to using Google Finance and NY Times for my news, I never think of looking at the WSJ.

In a weird way it shows time and space really are similiar because in the same way someone from a far away region has different customs you don't understand people from a different time going on about how they want a piece of dirty gray paper with 5 hours agos news in their hands every morning just seems bizarre as any custom I've seen...

You can subscribe to an internet version of the complete print version of The New York Times. The free online articles are an abridged version of the paper.

I buy the paper before getting on the NJ transit train most mornings.

Finding 8 quarters each morning is going to be a problem.

I will reduce the number of days I buy the paper.

I love reading the actual paper, rather than reading it online. Nonetheless when NYT went to $1.50, I swore I wouldn't buy it in print anymore. (A home subscription doesn't work well for me because I live in a tenement, and the paper just gets thrown near the building, sometimes getting stolen, etc.)

But thinking again, I realized there might remain only a short time of having the luxury of having a physical newspaper. So, I started buying it again. While I still can.

Suggestion to NYT: Why not make it an option for online readers to view the newspaper as it looks in print? That would be a more satisfying online read for those of us who love the print version.

The NY Times crippled itself by spending over $3 BILLION over the past 6 years buying back stock, and paying dividends. Much of the benefit of this dumb spending accrued to the Sulzberger family.

So any discussion of what is happening to the paper should begin with a thorough housecleaning of the fools running the company.

And, just fyi, I read it free on the web, and would not pay for that.

People think nothing of paying $2 a day for their coffee - at least your NYTimes $2 provides actual information, good journalism and we get the priviledge of reading from pulitzer prize winning writers.

I have been reading the NYT on the web because the news is "newer". I agree that there is not enough New York metro news. I have never been able to get satisfactory home delivery so the price hike doesn't affect me. I work in a library so if I need a hard copy there's no problem!

I would gladly pay $2 for the Times, if I couldn't get it for free online!

Oddly enough, I have started to buy the print version more often, because I feel I should support the paper. I would feel terrible if the Times were to go the way of so many other papers across the country. Print news provides a vaulable serice to the country -- relying on web news only is, well, not always that reliable. A govt bail-out for the national newspapers? I would rather see the money go there that to the banks. Yes, I will pay $5 or $6 for the Sunday Times

You can take your transparent information and a vigorous press and... just keep the papers away from our bailout $$!

I read online to save paper. I maybe would subscribe, but I travel for work and it gets complicated. I would pay for online reading however. I enjoy The Times and read it online wherever I am.

I would gladly pay $2 for the New York Times--if I couldn't get it for free!

Is the Sunday paper going up?

Who needs the New York Times with free Google news?

Plus there is no doubt Craig Newmark from Craigslist will start publishing local news by its members for free! Craig is our friend.

The only thing I'm willing to pay for in the NYT is the crossword puzzle, which I subscribe to online.

I hope that the New York Times will go nonprofit -- It provides an invaluable service similar to NPR and it looks like it won't be making a profit any more, anyway. I would be happy to be a contributing member of the newyorktimes.org

You need a subscription to the print version to obtain "free" access to all of the NYT archives, and that's why we retain our print subscription. The Times probably can't charge for ordinary access, because it would be competing with all the other dailies (world-wide) to which access is free.

it was worth it at 25 cents, haven't read one since unless a particular article was pointed out to me. For all the hype it gets, I find it disappointing mostly.

As an investor and a citizen seeking valuable, insightful information, I would pay ten or twenty times current prices for newspapers fitting that bill.

Unfortunately, most local newspapers -- at least Gannett -- and also the WSJ have been reducing the quality and value of their products so that buying them rather than skimming them online to make sure you didn't miss anything relevant or smart is just a waste of a quarter or buck and the minute it takes to skim them.

NYT still usually holds up as does FT and the NYP. I also still like USA Today for their consumer investigations.

The New York Times should charge for its on-line version. I read it every day on-line. I used to read the print edition every day. It is just more convenient.

I would gladly pay to read it on-line.

Our New York Times saga:

When we lived in Manhattan, we were daily subscribers. Our mornings began with the reassuring "thump" of the Times being dropped at our front door, at 6 a.m., by a member of the building staff.

We moved to Westchester in 2005. No one wanted to get up, walk across the lawn, and pick up the paper from the snow, in the middle of January, particularly when the Times was easily available on-line. So we became
weekend subscribers only.

Then, two years ago, our family expanded to include a second dog. She eats newspapers. Each Saturday, we race the dog for the paper, and the dog usually wins. My husband suggests that we keep the weekend subscription to ensure free on-line access, but have the actual newspaper delivered to the local senior center.

So far, I'm holding out - but I can tell you that my 20 year-old son would send the print edition to the old folks home in a nanosecond.

I'm a home subscriber of The Times, so I believe the cover price increases will not apply, but I'm still considering cancelling my subscription.

*** There is simply not enough New York news in the New York Times! ***

Yes I appreciate in-depth articles and coverage of foreign affairs, but I'd rather trim these and have more local coverage.

Also the NY Times still holds the belief of why bothering with 50 words when 100 will do. Tighter reporting please for those without all morning free to digest the contents!