The Lala Times, having seen the splendid success that the New York Times paywall has been (i.e., the NYT has gotten less than $1M worth of revenue out of it despite spending over $40M on it, and there's a *reason* to read the NYT, unlike the Lala TImes), has now decided that such a splendid success requires emulation. At which point I say, WTF? The LA Times is not a "Newspaper of Record". Their quality level has always been somewhere down around that of a major suburban newspaper. I mean, even the San Jose Murky News has better coverage of Los Angeles in many cases than the LaLa Times does! After all, they both get their news from the same place -- the AP news stringers. But the Murky doesn't chop the AP stories to confetti.
Baffling. Utterly baffling. It's like the entire newspaper industry has a death wish. At this point simply accessing AP directly would keep me better informed, because that's where all the content of the newspapers comes from anyhow, *not* chopped to shreds to fit some editor's notion that newspaper readers have the attention span of gnats (if that were true, we wouldn't buy newspapers, we'd just watch the evening news, DOH!).
Note that subscriptions have *never* covered the cost of publishing a newspaper -- at best subscriptions have defrayed the costs of delivering the newspaper to subscribers, but the actual content has always been paid for by advertising. The traditional business model of the newspaper industry is that the content's entire purpose is to bring in eyeballs to see the ads. Sort of the Google business model, now that I think about it. So why can Google execute on this, but not the newspapers, who *invented* this business model?
-- Badtux the "Brains! They need brains!" Penguin