# New York Times online is completely free

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-online-is-completely-free/419722>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [September 19, 2007, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-online-is-completely-free/419722 "2007-09-19T08:44:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2007, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-online-is-completely-free/419722/1 "2007-09-19T08:44:58Z")

</div>

Paris has been out for a while and while there is no word on the latest OJ shenanigans, [TimesSelect is now free](http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/lettertoreaders.html). While other papers have allowed access to archived material, the New York Times charged for that and certain material and columnists.

[It’s said that](http://www.nypost.com/seven/08072007/business/timesselect_content_freed_business_holly_m__sanders.htm) the number of subscribers were falling

> [@](#):
>
> The number of Web-only subscribers who pay $7.95 a month or $49.95 a year fell to just over 221,000 in June, down from more than 224,000 in April.

or at least static, and they felt they could get increased revenue from advertising, especially since an increased percentage of reader were coming from search engines.

Cool.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2007, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-online-is-completely-free/419722/2 "2007-09-19T13:01:30Z")

</div>

I’m very glad they did this. I was actually a subscriber, but I hated it. I couldn’t email articles to anyone; it was like it all existed in a black hole. It was a dumb idea anyway. Maureen Dowd isn’t really very good, certainly not worth paying for.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2007, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-times-online-is-completely-free/419722/3 "2007-09-19T15:44:37Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]  
I’m very glad they did this. I was actually a subscriber, but I hated it. I couldn’t email articles to anyone; it was like it all existed in a black hole. It was a dumb idea anyway. Maureen Dowd isn’t really very good, certainly not worth paying for.  
[/QUOTE]

Oh wow. I thought I was the only person on the planet who hated Ms. Dowd. A poor woman’s pretentious Anna Quindlen. Thank you!

The free version will save us $45 a year so I am happy.