Given free news, I would never buy a newspaper, except to scratch an itch (4 hours in a St. Louis airport) or commemorate special events (certain people winning the world series). Given not-free news, I would never buy a newspaper, except to scratch an itch or commemorate special events. Making free news not be free any more just makes me seek my free news elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure every comic strip I read in the Globe is on-line, and, even if they are, they aren't going to be in the same place. 50 cents isn't that much of a price to pay for the entertainment value (especially because you can find it for 0.25 a lot of places).

Granted, not an issue with the Times.

I have a brownie. Well, most of one, and it's slipping fast.

I'm startled (but grateful) that newspapers give so much away for free. I'd rather pay, all told, than register. But I'm news avoidant, so I do neither, and don't look at papers unless nudged. Or if I want a crossword.

Apparently the whole Times Select thing was announced in May, but the first I heard of it was last week. (Which probably just means I wasn't paying attention back in May.) I'm just glad they're giving paper subscribers free access -- I'd be REALLY pissed if I had to pay for my Krugman twice.

They're going to be expanding the scrip-only readings, too -- to news analysis, features, and sports. Which, like, Okay, Arthur, you've effectively removed at one moment any reason I might come visit your site! Bye!

For non NYCers, PKarchive may continue to archive Paul Krugman's columsn. (They've got today's anyway.)

Arthur, you've effectively removed at one moment any reason I might come visit your site! Bye!

Were you doing them any good, though?

I just handed in 7 rolls of film to be developed. I have two more to go. Way more than a roll shot per day of picture taking.

Apparently the whole Times Select thing was announced in May, but the first I heard of it was last week. (Which probably just means I wasn't paying attention back in May.) I'm just glad they're giving paper subscribers free access -- I'd be REALLY pissed if I had to pay for my Krugman twice.

Consumer Reports of all things, does not give print subscribers complete access to the online stuff. Marvel at the irony.

From IMDB news:

Shares of Blockbuster fell nearly 10 percent Friday to a 52-week low of $4.60 amid reports that customers are shying away from traditional DVD rentals and are gravitating to online services like NetFlix or are preferring to buy DVDs at retail chains like Wal-Mart and Best Buy, which sometimes offer DVDs for sale at "loss-leader" prices. Blockbuster management has also been criticized by some investors for its policy of effectively doing away with late charges. In an interview with today's (Monday) Wall Street Journal, Blockbuster chief John Antioco conceded that the overall "rental industry is in the tank." He added, I am not trying to portray that everything is hunky-dory with the industry. It's not." Antioco told the newspaper. He primarily attributed the company's financial condition to the public's lack of interest in current movie fare. Shares in Blockbuster continued to fall today and were trading at $4.42 at midday.

and:

CBS's John Roberts, regarded as the most likely candidate to succeed Dan Rather as anchor of the CBS Evening News, told Saturday's Los Angeles Times that the disparity between what reporters saw and what officials said was "stunning." He added that in the future, "I think we'll probably be quicker to ask questions. ... I think we'll be a little bit more skeptical of pronouncements that come from the administration and other levels of government."

About the second -- am I to believe that reporters swallowed government pronouncements without doubting them much?

Adam's gay.

Actually he's been dating a woman named Suzie who works for their manager for quite a while. But you never know.

I guess I'm guessing then too. Oh well, it's all rumor unless you catch 'em in the stalls or have personal knowledge.

the disparity between what reporters saw and what officials said was "stunning."

The obvious rejoinder is that the disparity between what reporters see and what they report is stunning. They hold back to preserve access. With the access that they've been given-- lies-- it is incredible that they still try to preserve it.