[Orion27]

Just curious how many here can't wait to drop $39.99 to read Krugman, Dowd,
et.al.? I admit I enjoy the insights into the mind of the enemy provided by Krugman and Dowd but I will not pay it.

[dreilly1]

No, I will not pay, even though I'm more inclined to agree with them than you are.

I think the Times is getting it backwards. They should look to the WSJ for a good example. Practically all their content is subscription-based, except the Op-Eds. In fact, they even have a separate domain, at www.opinionjournal.com, for their op-eds. (Peggy Noonan is perhaps the only current op-ed writer that I'd pay to read, and I don't even agree with her most of the time. Her latest Op-Ed on Katrina is worth a read. Liberals should learn to write like this. )

They should look at their first-string Op-Ed writers like Dowd and Brooks (and even their not-quite-first-string like Krugman) as a way to get traffic to their site. The times has a list of their five-most-emailed articles every day, and at least one or two of them are always op-eds. How many people will bother to e-mail these articles to friends when you need a subscription just to get to them in the first place?

I'm all for putting archived op-eds in a subscription-only mode after a week or two, but I think the Times' current policy is shooting themselves in the foot.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

No, I will not pay, even though I'm more inclined to agree with them than you are.

I think the Times is getting it backwards. They should look to the WSJ for a good example. Practically all their content is subscription-based, except the Op-Eds. In fact, they even have a separate domain, at www.opinionjournal.com, for their op-eds. (Peggy Noonan is perhaps the only current op-ed writer that I'd pay to read, and I don't even agree with her most of the time. Her latest Op-Ed on Katrina is worth a read. Liberals should learn to write like this. )

They should look at their first-string Op-Ed writers like Dowd and Brooks (and even their not-quite-first-string like Krugman) as a way to get traffic to their site. The times has a list of their five-most-emailed articles every day, and at least one or two of them are always op-eds. How many people will bother to e-mail these articles to friends when you need a subscription just to get to them in the first place?

I'm all for putting archived op-eds in a subscription-only mode after a week or two, but I think the Times' current policy is shooting themselves in the foot.

I almost find it laughable the OP Ed staff still does not use supporting links in their on line pieces which is why sites like POWERLINE will continue to become more influential. At least Powerline documents sources while Krugman continues to be exposed as the hack he is. Credibility of the Times is at an all time low.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

(Peggy Noonan is perhaps the only current op-ed writer that I'd pay to read, and I don't even agree with her most of the time. Her latest Op-Ed on Katrina is worth a read. Liberals should learn to write like this. )

You mean Libs should learn to lie and obfuscate as well as she?

from said article: "Roughly half the country has been attacking President Bush for an inadequate response and roughly half the country has been defending him by pointing the finger elsewhere or parsing the federal role in local emergency response."

54% disapproval vs 43% approval is only half/half if you're clever enough to use the word "roughly" ?

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

You mean Libs should learn to lie and obfuscate as well as she?

from said article: "Roughly half the country has been attacking President Bush for an inadequate response and roughly half the country has been defending him by pointing the finger elsewhere or parsing the federal role in local emergency response."

54% disapproval vs 43% approval is only half/half if you're clever enough to use the word "roughly" ?

That wasn't her point. Read the rest of the quote:

But no one is walking around saying, "Was this his best moment or what? A triumph!" Because no one thinks it was.

Whether there are 43%, 50%, or "roughly half" defending Bush isn't the issue. Her point is that "roughly" 100% of people do not consider this the Administration's finest hour. Even his supporters don't think things were handled quite right, if you ask for their honest, no-spin opinion. somehow, I think you would have agreed with that assessment, if you weren't so busy looking for something to be offended at.

Just because someone's opinions come from a different ideaology than yours doesn't mean they're automatically lying.

[spauldingg]

I wasn't looing to be "offended" by anything. I was just pointing out that "roughly" is a generalization that she used to make it seem like it was 50/50. As the crazed lunatic "number one fan" in 'Misery' said: It just isn't
FAIR!!!!

PS: I know what you meant, just wanted to point out a minor flaw in the argument.

Carry on...

[Orion27]

In light of more recent develpoments it's obvious to me and most that Bush get's a pass here. Noonan has panicked and is more a reporter on media sentiment than devining the actual sentiment of the American people. The tide has turned against the the locals, Naggin and the governor. Since when has the federal government ever been quick on it's feet? And Congress has no responsiblity for creating Homeland Security mostly against the wishes of this administration? Race hustlers and the liberal media drove the initial story which has as usual turned into fiction. Liberal Democratic policies have driven the politics of Louisiana for 40yrs. Democrats are in a no win situation here. Just look at all the Dem's in Louisiana this week just crying bypartisanship. They're scared to death of being exposed as the frauds they are. Weeks before the hurricane a federal grand jury has returned two separate indictments charging three members of the State Military Department with offenses related to the obstruction of an audit of the use of federal funds for flood mitigation activities throughout Louisiana.
The two emergency management officials were senior employees of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Both were charged with conspiracy to obstruct a federal audit."
Reports of rampant corruption among Louisiana's state and local agencies have been cited in recent days to explain why officials were so ill-prepared to deal with the Katrina disaster. Where is the MSM on this story? There are $60,000,000 is missing funds.

[dreilly1]

Dude, you're proving her point. You can't say that Bush did a stupendous job, you can only say he "gets a pass" and point the finger at other levels of government (who probably deserve it, but that's besides the point.)

She's not panicking, she's assessing the situation truthfully.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

I wasn't looing to be "offended" by anything. I was just pointing out that "roughly" is a generalization that she used to make it seem like it was 50/50. As the crazed lunatic "number one fan" in 'Misery' said: It just isn't
FAIR!!!!

PS: I know what you meant, just wanted to point out a minor flaw in the argument.

Carry on...

No problem. I know many Liberals who scour the media, looking for new creative ways to be offended. You just seem to be a Math geek, which is to be commended! (Just remember that "fuzzy math" is a way of life in Politics. I would consider a 54/43 split "roughly "half-and-half after the margin of error, and the fact that nobody tells the truth on those polls anyway...)

And BTW, maybe there's something to be learned about the fact that, in this thread which was supposed to ask whether or not we'd pay to read Times editorials, we've spent most of it discussing a WSJ editorial!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

Dude, you're proving her point. You can't say that Bush did a stupendous job, you can only say he "gets a pass" and point the finger at other levels of government (who probably deserve it, but that's besides the point.)

She's not panicking, she's assessing the situation truthfully.

My point is Bush or ( fill in any incumbant here ) was constrained by statute, a politicised governor, precedant and a moribund bureaucracy. How was Bush supposed to wrestle control of the the Louisiana National Guard from the Governor? How much power are you going to take away from the states? Are we, in the future, going to send in the military at first blush of a crisis and push the locals aside and say we'll handle it? The only precedant for that was the civil war. Ergo the core of the current debate "Posse Comitatus". Bureaucracies suck at everything.

[Spliffdaddy]

word up

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Orion27

My point is Bush or ( fill in any incumbant here ) was constrained by statute, a politicised governor, precedant and a moribund bureaucracy. How was Bush supposed to wrestle control of the the Louisiana National Guard from the Governor? How much power are you going to take away from the states? Are we, in the future, going to send in the military at first blush of a crisis and push the locals aside and say we'll handle it? The only precedant for that was the civil war. Ergo the core of the current debate "Posse Comitatus". Bureaucracies suck at everything.

Well, Ms. Noonan is of the opinion that the President should have sent in the Miltary, right away, once the scope of the disaster became clear. You are right, though, the answer is not very clear cut. The only thing that is known for certain is that the response at all levels of government was not acceptable, and needs to be fixed. You can't say "The Federal planning and execution was as good as it could be, it's all the Governor and Mayor's fault". Bush has admitted as much.

[Dork.]

I just wanted to resurrect this thread to point out that currently on the Times' Most e-mailed stories list, there is only one premium story among the top 25 most E-mailed stories, Mr. Krugman's op-ed, which will likely drop from the list tomorrow. There used to be several Times op-eds on this page at one time.
This only covers the most e-mailed stories, not the stories with the most hits, but it does seem like the Times' opinion pages are not getting read nearly as widely (at least, on the Internet) as they were when they were free...