New York Times - Shame on You!!!

8 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2010-12-07 13:59

nycndp

A long time ago, the New York Times announced that it intended to charge for access to its news archives. The announcement said that the archives access would continue to be free for paid subscribers.

In October, my subscription renewed and I paid over $300. So far, so good.

Today, I went to use the archives and the system tried to charge me $3.95 for the article. I called up Customer Service, and was told, after being instructed five (5) times to "log in" (which I had already done, myself not being a blithering idiot), that they were switching me to "technical support". What I got was dial tone.

I called back and asked for a supervisor. I was told this was a "known issue" and that they would fix it within 24-48 hours. If it was a "known issue" doesn't that mean that the free access promise has another label; fraud? Also, why the need to place it on a "queue" for fixing? Either the New York Times knows the problem and they're responsible or they don't know the problem and they're irresponsible.

Which is it?

Tue, 2010-12-07 14:05

Le T

wow, and i thought this was going to be about the way that they lied to start a war with Iraq. or the way that they don't speak out about the wikileaks harrasment.

Tue, 2010-12-07 14:07

Stargazer

Ha, me too Le T

Tue, 2010-12-07 15:01

al-Qa'bong

I thought they were giving Judy Miller a raise.

Wed, 2011-01-05 12:29

al-Qa'bong

Nader to the Times: 'There Is Too a Left!'

Quote:

In a letter To The New York Times, Ralph Nader takes issue with the paper's editorial asserting that Tea Party victories show there is "no progressive champion" for the poor and powerless.

"Hello!" writes Nader.

"There are plenty of progressive champions lobbying, rallying, exposing, suing and organizing at the national, state and local level," he says. The problem, he says, is that the mainstream media, including The New York Times, fails to cover their efforts.

You can understand Nader's frustration, particularly as one whose efforts to champion the poor against the powerful were systematically belittled by the Times and other mainstream outlets when he ran for President from outside the corporate-dominated two-party apparatus.

I suppose it does some good to let readers of The Establishment Press know that there is a wider world beyond its tightly-controlled narrative. Every liitle bit helps.

Wed, 2011-01-05 12:35

Boom Boom

Thanks for posting that, al-Qa'bong!

Wed, 2011-01-05 16:56

thorin_bane

I guess bernie sanders from waaay off vermont was to hard to find for the good old times eh. Check out his youtube videos. Great guy.

Mon, 2011-01-10 11:51

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

Bai seemingly starts out on the mark in criticizing “Popular spokespeople like Ms. [Sarah] Palin [who] routinely drop words like ‘tyranny’ and ‘socialism’ when describing the president and his allies,” in that no serious analyst would conclude that the president is either a tyrant or a socialist. Unfortunately, Bai goes on to further take these spokespeople to task for seeming to be “blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms.” Legitimately take up arms against tyrants and socialists? Socialists are enemies of the American people against whom violence is justified? Did I just read that in the New York Times?

Now, despite the fact that it is considered this country’s “paper of record,” it may be a mistake to assume too great a level of worldly sophistication on the part of Times writers, so a quick review on this socialism thing may be in order.

Has The New York Times Gone Crazy?