<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_17_2249220</id>
	<title>NY Times To Charge For Online Content</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263725400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"New York Magazine reports that the <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/new\_york\_times\_set\_to\_mimic\_ws.html">NY Times appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website</a>, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of debate inside the paper, the choice has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system. The decision to go paid is monumental for the Times, and culminates a yearlong debate that grew contentious, people close to the talks say. Hanging over the deliberations is the fact that the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/lettertoreaders.html">Times' last experience with pay walls, TimesSelect, was deeply unsatisfying</a> and exposed a rift between Sulzberger and his roster of A-list columnists, particularly Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd, who grew frustrated at their dramatic fall-off in online readership. The argument for remaining free was based on the belief that nytimes.com is growing into an English-language global newspaper of record, with a vast audience &mdash; 20 million unique readers &mdash; that would prove lucrative as web advertising matured. But with the painful declines in advertising brought on by last year's financial crisis, the argument that online advertising might never grow big enough to sustain the paper's high-cost, ambitious journalism &mdash; gained more weight."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " New York Magazine reports that the NY Times appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website , according to people familiar with internal deliberations .
After a year of debate inside the paper , the choice has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe .
The Times seems to have settled on the metered system .
The decision to go paid is monumental for the Times , and culminates a yearlong debate that grew contentious , people close to the talks say .
Hanging over the deliberations is the fact that the Times ' last experience with pay walls , TimesSelect , was deeply unsatisfying and exposed a rift between Sulzberger and his roster of A-list columnists , particularly Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd , who grew frustrated at their dramatic fall-off in online readership .
The argument for remaining free was based on the belief that nytimes.com is growing into an English-language global newspaper of record , with a vast audience    20 million unique readers    that would prove lucrative as web advertising matured .
But with the painful declines in advertising brought on by last year 's financial crisis , the argument that online advertising might never grow big enough to sustain the paper 's high-cost , ambitious journalism    gained more weight .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "New York Magazine reports that the NY Times appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations.
After a year of debate inside the paper, the choice has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe.
The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.
The decision to go paid is monumental for the Times, and culminates a yearlong debate that grew contentious, people close to the talks say.
Hanging over the deliberations is the fact that the Times' last experience with pay walls, TimesSelect, was deeply unsatisfying and exposed a rift between Sulzberger and his roster of A-list columnists, particularly Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd, who grew frustrated at their dramatic fall-off in online readership.
The argument for remaining free was based on the belief that nytimes.com is growing into an English-language global newspaper of record, with a vast audience — 20 million unique readers — that would prove lucrative as web advertising matured.
But with the painful declines in advertising brought on by last year's financial crisis, the argument that online advertising might never grow big enough to sustain the paper's high-cost, ambitious journalism — gained more weight.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1263733080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases</p></div><p>What can I say? <i>Citation needed.</i></p><p>I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary. It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues, and it's frankly not what I'd expect of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. audience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NYT ( and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag , er , Globe ) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which do n't support their biasesWhat can I say ?
Citation needed.I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary .
It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues , and it 's frankly not what I 'd expect of the / .
audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biasesWhat can I say?
Citation needed.I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary.
It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues, and it's frankly not what I'd expect of the /.
audience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802558</id>
	<title>new media (paper) models</title>
	<author>omar.sahal</author>
	<datestamp>1263732360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>that online advertising might never grow big enough to sustain the paper's high-cost, ambitious journalis</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Inside the newsroom, the protracted talks have frustrated staffers who want clarity on where the paper is headed. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a real problem,&rdquo; one staffer explained. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s embarrassing and reflects badly on the Times that they can&rsquo;t make a decision. They&rsquo;re fighting among themselves.&rdquo;</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>What makes the decision so agonizing for Sulzberger is that it involves not just business considerations, but ultimately a self-assessment of just what Times journalism is worth to the world.</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>&ldquo;At some point we gotta charge for our product.&rdquo;</p></div>
</blockquote><p> This sounds like a bunch of desperate people. What the news industry seams to have lost track of is that the Internet is a new medium, unlike the printing press, radio stations or tv stations it not a business that
</p><ul>
<li> needs a large amount of capital to enter</li><li> is a synchronous meduim</li></ul><p>
Its seems silly to ignore these differences, and I doubt a successful business can be built, with out these issues being taken into account.
</p><p>
Perhaps some kind of low cost strategy, such as articles being written by free lancers (who would be paid on a commission/bonus only basis). There could then be a reply service which would allow another side to the story, giving the people who read the articles the two arguments to judge for them selves. Putting all of this online and allowing people to subscribe to a topic they find of interest (and delivering a individual paper) to your own home every day/week for a fee. This will give you Google like ability to profile users (address plus billing details) along with more effective targeted adverting. Its a lot more complicated than this but its a start.
</p><p> Of cause this would open up another can of worms (big media is also about control of information)
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that online advertising might never grow big enough to sustain the paper 's high-cost , ambitious journalis Inside the newsroom , the protracted talks have frustrated staffers who want clarity on where the paper is headed .
   It    s a real problem ,    one staffer explained .
   It    s embarrassing and reflects badly on the Times that they can    t make a decision .
They    re fighting among themselves.    What makes the decision so agonizing for Sulzberger is that it involves not just business considerations , but ultimately a self-assessment of just what Times journalism is worth to the world .
   At some point we got ta charge for our product.    This sounds like a bunch of desperate people .
What the news industry seams to have lost track of is that the Internet is a new medium , unlike the printing press , radio stations or tv stations it not a business that needs a large amount of capital to enter is a synchronous meduim Its seems silly to ignore these differences , and I doubt a successful business can be built , with out these issues being taken into account .
Perhaps some kind of low cost strategy , such as articles being written by free lancers ( who would be paid on a commission/bonus only basis ) .
There could then be a reply service which would allow another side to the story , giving the people who read the articles the two arguments to judge for them selves .
Putting all of this online and allowing people to subscribe to a topic they find of interest ( and delivering a individual paper ) to your own home every day/week for a fee .
This will give you Google like ability to profile users ( address plus billing details ) along with more effective targeted adverting .
Its a lot more complicated than this but its a start .
Of cause this would open up another can of worms ( big media is also about control of information )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that online advertising might never grow big enough to sustain the paper's high-cost, ambitious journalis
Inside the newsroom, the protracted talks have frustrated staffers who want clarity on where the paper is headed.
“It’s a real problem,” one staffer explained.
“It’s embarrassing and reflects badly on the Times that they can’t make a decision.
They’re fighting among themselves.”
What makes the decision so agonizing for Sulzberger is that it involves not just business considerations, but ultimately a self-assessment of just what Times journalism is worth to the world.
“At some point we gotta charge for our product.”
 This sounds like a bunch of desperate people.
What the news industry seams to have lost track of is that the Internet is a new medium, unlike the printing press, radio stations or tv stations it not a business that

 needs a large amount of capital to enter is a synchronous meduim
Its seems silly to ignore these differences, and I doubt a successful business can be built, with out these issues being taken into account.
Perhaps some kind of low cost strategy, such as articles being written by free lancers (who would be paid on a commission/bonus only basis).
There could then be a reply service which would allow another side to the story, giving the people who read the articles the two arguments to judge for them selves.
Putting all of this online and allowing people to subscribe to a topic they find of interest (and delivering a individual paper) to your own home every day/week for a fee.
This will give you Google like ability to profile users (address plus billing details) along with more effective targeted adverting.
Its a lot more complicated than this but its a start.
Of cause this would open up another can of worms (big media is also about control of information)

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803092</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Marcika</author>
	<datestamp>1263736620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts.</p></div><p>As a financial analyst, I call bullshit on that. Serious investors don't rely on the WSJ alone, exactly because it is full of brainless neocon op-eds, and gratuituos deliberate political spin even in its news articles. Anybody with a brain wouldn't rely on it for political/economic coverage, even if it often gets some basic company news right (though even there it doesn't hurt to double-check with the FT, or Bloomberg News, or the Economist or some other more reputable paper).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that .
It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news ; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts.As a financial analyst , I call bullshit on that .
Serious investors do n't rely on the WSJ alone , exactly because it is full of brainless neocon op-eds , and gratuituos deliberate political spin even in its news articles .
Anybody with a brain would n't rely on it for political/economic coverage , even if it often gets some basic company news right ( though even there it does n't hurt to double-check with the FT , or Bloomberg News , or the Economist or some other more reputable paper ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that.
It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts.As a financial analyst, I call bullshit on that.
Serious investors don't rely on the WSJ alone, exactly because it is full of brainless neocon op-eds, and gratuituos deliberate political spin even in its news articles.
Anybody with a brain wouldn't rely on it for political/economic coverage, even if it often gets some basic company news right (though even there it doesn't hurt to double-check with the FT, or Bloomberg News, or the Economist or some other more reputable paper).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30814776</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>Chowderbags</author>
	<datestamp>1263822000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that you're forgetting the part where Fox News then investigates/fabricates whatever shreds of evidence they can find in order to try to discount the "liberal elites" (regardless of merit or even whether it's a left-right issue). Then talking head spout their opinions as factual news and shout over anyone who disagrees with them while half of America laps it up and doesn't question what O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck says. Then the Daily Show has a fun time showing us all what a mockery it is, everyone has a nice laugh, and Nixon stays in office while no one does anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that you 're forgetting the part where Fox News then investigates/fabricates whatever shreds of evidence they can find in order to try to discount the " liberal elites " ( regardless of merit or even whether it 's a left-right issue ) .
Then talking head spout their opinions as factual news and shout over anyone who disagrees with them while half of America laps it up and does n't question what O'Reilly , Hannity , or Beck says .
Then the Daily Show has a fun time showing us all what a mockery it is , everyone has a nice laugh , and Nixon stays in office while no one does anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that you're forgetting the part where Fox News then investigates/fabricates whatever shreds of evidence they can find in order to try to discount the "liberal elites" (regardless of merit or even whether it's a left-right issue).
Then talking head spout their opinions as factual news and shout over anyone who disagrees with them while half of America laps it up and doesn't question what O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck says.
Then the Daily Show has a fun time showing us all what a mockery it is, everyone has a nice laugh, and Nixon stays in office while no one does anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802848</id>
	<title>Case in point ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263734460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just going to post the blurb down below on the "New York Magazine" Website.</p><p>But somehow they required a registration, which somehow didn't work immediately, so I just didn't bother to figure it out, but pasted it here.</p><p>And yes, I lost my slashdot User-Id, or rather the password, about ten years ago, and never bothered to get a new one.</p><p>So, case in point, that's why I believe it won't work out for the NYT - laziness will do them in!</p><p>-----</p><p>For more than 20 years now, I buy the same newspaper virtually every day at the newsstand, even though about 50\% of the time these days, I throw it away unread in the evening. However, I never thought about getting a subscription, because I don't like the idea of not being able to stop buying it the next day if I do not like what I read today.</p><p>I guess I'm just not a subscription guy - and it is not about the money. Even though I have been reading the NYT-online for about 10 years, I will probably stop doing so if getting at interesting content gets annoying.</p><p>Obviously, it is only fair that the NYT charges for its content - but I guess I won't be among the customers. To me, it is probably not worth the hassle to get out the credit card, type in a number, and then risk forgetting to put back my wallet in my pocket, like I once did. Other publications like WSJ, FT have been going the same route for parts of their articles, but last time I went there is months ago. I guess there is a psychological reason to this - people don't like to be subtly hinted at the fact they are freeloading. I do donate about the amount of a yearly newspaper subscription to wikipedia, but in this case, despite the Jimmy Wales blurb on top of the main page, they have succeeded to give me the impression that every reader is welcome, if he donates or not.</p><p>That is why I believe the NYT will fail in the long term with this scheme. Of course, for the staff, which has families to support, failing in the long term is much better than failing in the short term, and therefore, I wish them good luck - but I am convinced it will not take long until either a Google or a Wikipedia of newspapers emerges to make people forget the NYT in an Encyclopedia Britannica way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just going to post the blurb down below on the " New York Magazine " Website.But somehow they required a registration , which somehow did n't work immediately , so I just did n't bother to figure it out , but pasted it here.And yes , I lost my slashdot User-Id , or rather the password , about ten years ago , and never bothered to get a new one.So , case in point , that 's why I believe it wo n't work out for the NYT - laziness will do them in ! -----For more than 20 years now , I buy the same newspaper virtually every day at the newsstand , even though about 50 \ % of the time these days , I throw it away unread in the evening .
However , I never thought about getting a subscription , because I do n't like the idea of not being able to stop buying it the next day if I do not like what I read today.I guess I 'm just not a subscription guy - and it is not about the money .
Even though I have been reading the NYT-online for about 10 years , I will probably stop doing so if getting at interesting content gets annoying.Obviously , it is only fair that the NYT charges for its content - but I guess I wo n't be among the customers .
To me , it is probably not worth the hassle to get out the credit card , type in a number , and then risk forgetting to put back my wallet in my pocket , like I once did .
Other publications like WSJ , FT have been going the same route for parts of their articles , but last time I went there is months ago .
I guess there is a psychological reason to this - people do n't like to be subtly hinted at the fact they are freeloading .
I do donate about the amount of a yearly newspaper subscription to wikipedia , but in this case , despite the Jimmy Wales blurb on top of the main page , they have succeeded to give me the impression that every reader is welcome , if he donates or not.That is why I believe the NYT will fail in the long term with this scheme .
Of course , for the staff , which has families to support , failing in the long term is much better than failing in the short term , and therefore , I wish them good luck - but I am convinced it will not take long until either a Google or a Wikipedia of newspapers emerges to make people forget the NYT in an Encyclopedia Britannica way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just going to post the blurb down below on the "New York Magazine" Website.But somehow they required a registration, which somehow didn't work immediately, so I just didn't bother to figure it out, but pasted it here.And yes, I lost my slashdot User-Id, or rather the password, about ten years ago, and never bothered to get a new one.So, case in point, that's why I believe it won't work out for the NYT - laziness will do them in!-----For more than 20 years now, I buy the same newspaper virtually every day at the newsstand, even though about 50\% of the time these days, I throw it away unread in the evening.
However, I never thought about getting a subscription, because I don't like the idea of not being able to stop buying it the next day if I do not like what I read today.I guess I'm just not a subscription guy - and it is not about the money.
Even though I have been reading the NYT-online for about 10 years, I will probably stop doing so if getting at interesting content gets annoying.Obviously, it is only fair that the NYT charges for its content - but I guess I won't be among the customers.
To me, it is probably not worth the hassle to get out the credit card, type in a number, and then risk forgetting to put back my wallet in my pocket, like I once did.
Other publications like WSJ, FT have been going the same route for parts of their articles, but last time I went there is months ago.
I guess there is a psychological reason to this - people don't like to be subtly hinted at the fact they are freeloading.
I do donate about the amount of a yearly newspaper subscription to wikipedia, but in this case, despite the Jimmy Wales blurb on top of the main page, they have succeeded to give me the impression that every reader is welcome, if he donates or not.That is why I believe the NYT will fail in the long term with this scheme.
Of course, for the staff, which has families to support, failing in the long term is much better than failing in the short term, and therefore, I wish them good luck - but I am convinced it will not take long until either a Google or a Wikipedia of newspapers emerges to make people forget the NYT in an Encyclopedia Britannica way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1263730260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that .
It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news ; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts .
The NYT ( and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag , er , Globe ) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which do n't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business .
People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that.
It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts.
The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business.
People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802338</id>
	<title>Fantastic</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1263730680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I'll get a warning to get away from that garbage before I accidentally read it. Thanks NY Times!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'll get a warning to get away from that garbage before I accidentally read it .
Thanks NY Times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'll get a warning to get away from that garbage before I accidentally read it.
Thanks NY Times!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803432</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263739560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Government (i.e federal) didn't sanction the local cable monopoly, my local city hall gave Charter the cable monopoly and the state regulars the telephone company.</p><p>I used to get the local newspaper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch.  But every year it got thinner and thinner to the point where all that was in the news paper were AP stories I had already read online for free.  Especially when they cut the number of stocks/mutual funds listed.  There is nothing there I can't get from local TV news.  Instead of subscribe to the paper, I bought a subscription to The Economist and I pay for the Wall Street Journal online.</p><p>The Economist is the best publication for getting a quick overview of what is going on in the world.  Typically I read the major points on Monday and then will read some of the smaller articles through out the week.</p><p>Last thing I want is to pay another "fee" that goes to my "local" paper to just keep it alive.  If the Post Dispatch did any type of real investigative journalism, like the expose on the fire departments a few years ago, on a regular basis, then I might subscribe again.  Helen Mirran made this point years ago in her book.  The newspapers are loosing money so what do they do?  Cut the news room and print more AP stories.  Well without those local stories, more people stop subscribing, and they decide to cut the news room further.  And then suddenly they realize one day that they don't have anything people want to buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Government ( i.e federal ) did n't sanction the local cable monopoly , my local city hall gave Charter the cable monopoly and the state regulars the telephone company.I used to get the local newspaper , the St. Louis Post Dispatch .
But every year it got thinner and thinner to the point where all that was in the news paper were AP stories I had already read online for free .
Especially when they cut the number of stocks/mutual funds listed .
There is nothing there I ca n't get from local TV news .
Instead of subscribe to the paper , I bought a subscription to The Economist and I pay for the Wall Street Journal online.The Economist is the best publication for getting a quick overview of what is going on in the world .
Typically I read the major points on Monday and then will read some of the smaller articles through out the week.Last thing I want is to pay another " fee " that goes to my " local " paper to just keep it alive .
If the Post Dispatch did any type of real investigative journalism , like the expose on the fire departments a few years ago , on a regular basis , then I might subscribe again .
Helen Mirran made this point years ago in her book .
The newspapers are loosing money so what do they do ?
Cut the news room and print more AP stories .
Well without those local stories , more people stop subscribing , and they decide to cut the news room further .
And then suddenly they realize one day that they do n't have anything people want to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Government (i.e federal) didn't sanction the local cable monopoly, my local city hall gave Charter the cable monopoly and the state regulars the telephone company.I used to get the local newspaper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch.
But every year it got thinner and thinner to the point where all that was in the news paper were AP stories I had already read online for free.
Especially when they cut the number of stocks/mutual funds listed.
There is nothing there I can't get from local TV news.
Instead of subscribe to the paper, I bought a subscription to The Economist and I pay for the Wall Street Journal online.The Economist is the best publication for getting a quick overview of what is going on in the world.
Typically I read the major points on Monday and then will read some of the smaller articles through out the week.Last thing I want is to pay another "fee" that goes to my "local" paper to just keep it alive.
If the Post Dispatch did any type of real investigative journalism, like the expose on the fire departments a few years ago, on a regular basis, then I might subscribe again.
Helen Mirran made this point years ago in her book.
The newspapers are loosing money so what do they do?
Cut the news room and print more AP stories.
Well without those local stories, more people stop subscribing, and they decide to cut the news room further.
And then suddenly they realize one day that they don't have anything people want to buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804044</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>athlon02</author>
	<datestamp>1263745440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, that's where capitalism shines... if it's a sink or swim proposition, those who actually care about swimming will adapt.  And they will do it without sacrificing real journalism.  NYT has been shrinking for a long time while Fox News has record numbers.  That's just capitalism working as intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , that 's where capitalism shines... if it 's a sink or swim proposition , those who actually care about swimming will adapt .
And they will do it without sacrificing real journalism .
NYT has been shrinking for a long time while Fox News has record numbers .
That 's just capitalism working as intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, that's where capitalism shines... if it's a sink or swim proposition, those who actually care about swimming will adapt.
And they will do it without sacrificing real journalism.
NYT has been shrinking for a long time while Fox News has record numbers.
That's just capitalism working as intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802692</id>
	<title>Exposure makes their columnists superstars</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1263733200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you put their stuff behind a paywall, you severely restrict the exposure of NYT star writers. That will, in turn, severely diminish their star power. There are many other good writers waiting to take their place.</p><p>Anyone hoping to maintain a stable of opinion leaders in the internet age will have to release their stuff for free. If they live behind a paywall, that's like actors that only feature in privately-screened movies. It's no way to get a robust following!</p><p>

What's worse, many of these columnists will have a twitter feed and blog, so Dowd fans will still get their fill of Dowd musings in a way that does absolutely nothing for her employer. This is basically a plan to monetize NYT assets for a while, but in the long term, it guarantees a decline in the global relevance of the NYT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you put their stuff behind a paywall , you severely restrict the exposure of NYT star writers .
That will , in turn , severely diminish their star power .
There are many other good writers waiting to take their place.Anyone hoping to maintain a stable of opinion leaders in the internet age will have to release their stuff for free .
If they live behind a paywall , that 's like actors that only feature in privately-screened movies .
It 's no way to get a robust following !
What 's worse , many of these columnists will have a twitter feed and blog , so Dowd fans will still get their fill of Dowd musings in a way that does absolutely nothing for her employer .
This is basically a plan to monetize NYT assets for a while , but in the long term , it guarantees a decline in the global relevance of the NYT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you put their stuff behind a paywall, you severely restrict the exposure of NYT star writers.
That will, in turn, severely diminish their star power.
There are many other good writers waiting to take their place.Anyone hoping to maintain a stable of opinion leaders in the internet age will have to release their stuff for free.
If they live behind a paywall, that's like actors that only feature in privately-screened movies.
It's no way to get a robust following!
What's worse, many of these columnists will have a twitter feed and blog, so Dowd fans will still get their fill of Dowd musings in a way that does absolutely nothing for her employer.
This is basically a plan to monetize NYT assets for a while, but in the long term, it guarantees a decline in the global relevance of the NYT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263733860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm playing Devil's advocate here a little, but I suppose the trouble is what happens at the latter end of the curve.</p><p>When we're down to 12 sources, what then? Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news, they might consider charging for their content. Once they do, let's say the public decides they will go get the content for free by reading blogs or aggregators, which provide handy summaries of the news, alongside helpful (if biased) interpretations. What then?</p><p>If the dying-off trend continues, all we're left with is partisan news which gets its funding from something other than doing good research and writing quality articles. Or we're reading the blog posts of the relatively-informed, and trusting them to abide by some kind of journalistic standard.</p><p>That's not really a good thing, now, is it?</p><p>Good journalism costs money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm playing Devil 's advocate here a little , but I suppose the trouble is what happens at the latter end of the curve.When we 're down to 12 sources , what then ?
Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others , so as to give us accurate and factual news , they might consider charging for their content .
Once they do , let 's say the public decides they will go get the content for free by reading blogs or aggregators , which provide handy summaries of the news , alongside helpful ( if biased ) interpretations .
What then ? If the dying-off trend continues , all we 're left with is partisan news which gets its funding from something other than doing good research and writing quality articles .
Or we 're reading the blog posts of the relatively-informed , and trusting them to abide by some kind of journalistic standard.That 's not really a good thing , now , is it ? Good journalism costs money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm playing Devil's advocate here a little, but I suppose the trouble is what happens at the latter end of the curve.When we're down to 12 sources, what then?
Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news, they might consider charging for their content.
Once they do, let's say the public decides they will go get the content for free by reading blogs or aggregators, which provide handy summaries of the news, alongside helpful (if biased) interpretations.
What then?If the dying-off trend continues, all we're left with is partisan news which gets its funding from something other than doing good research and writing quality articles.
Or we're reading the blog posts of the relatively-informed, and trusting them to abide by some kind of journalistic standard.That's not really a good thing, now, is it?Good journalism costs money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805004</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1263755100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For journalism in general: When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money?"</p><p>That's the wrong question.  The proper question is:  Can the newspapers make people pay directly for something they used to receive for free?</p><p>I think the answer is no.</p><p>Newspapers made the mistake of giving away for free (heavily subsidizing via advertising) something that was very costly and valuable (journalism) without telling their readers (product) assuming that it wouldn't change.  Subscribers (readers) were led to believe that they were paying the true cost for the paper.<br>Instead of addressing this issue from a position of strength they waited until there were plenty of adequate replacements and then threatened their loyal readers. Oops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For journalism in general : When are people going to realize that actual journalism , investigative reporting , and other well-researched pieces cost money ?
" That 's the wrong question .
The proper question is : Can the newspapers make people pay directly for something they used to receive for free ? I think the answer is no.Newspapers made the mistake of giving away for free ( heavily subsidizing via advertising ) something that was very costly and valuable ( journalism ) without telling their readers ( product ) assuming that it would n't change .
Subscribers ( readers ) were led to believe that they were paying the true cost for the paper.Instead of addressing this issue from a position of strength they waited until there were plenty of adequate replacements and then threatened their loyal readers .
Oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For journalism in general: When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money?
"That's the wrong question.
The proper question is:  Can the newspapers make people pay directly for something they used to receive for free?I think the answer is no.Newspapers made the mistake of giving away for free (heavily subsidizing via advertising) something that was very costly and valuable (journalism) without telling their readers (product) assuming that it wouldn't change.
Subscribers (readers) were led to believe that they were paying the true cost for the paper.Instead of addressing this issue from a position of strength they waited until there were plenty of adequate replacements and then threatened their loyal readers.
Oops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802404</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>MaXintosh</author>
	<datestamp>1263731040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congrats. You're the person they're hoping to catch with their pay-for scheme. However, the big question is how many people are there out there like you who value online material from NYT enough to pay some money. And I have the sneaking suspicion that people like you are an endangered species. Most people, when they make the sub-conscious mental calculation weighing (Value of NYT - cost) against (Value of free alternative) find that it's not in their economic interest to pay for content. NYT either needs some really amazing content, or some really low prices to keep their online material competitive!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats .
You 're the person they 're hoping to catch with their pay-for scheme .
However , the big question is how many people are there out there like you who value online material from NYT enough to pay some money .
And I have the sneaking suspicion that people like you are an endangered species .
Most people , when they make the sub-conscious mental calculation weighing ( Value of NYT - cost ) against ( Value of free alternative ) find that it 's not in their economic interest to pay for content .
NYT either needs some really amazing content , or some really low prices to keep their online material competitive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats.
You're the person they're hoping to catch with their pay-for scheme.
However, the big question is how many people are there out there like you who value online material from NYT enough to pay some money.
And I have the sneaking suspicion that people like you are an endangered species.
Most people, when they make the sub-conscious mental calculation weighing (Value of NYT - cost) against (Value of free alternative) find that it's not in their economic interest to pay for content.
NYT either needs some really amazing content, or some really low prices to keep their online material competitive!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803954</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1263744420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every large-ish city typically has 4-5 television stations that also have their own news departments that do journalism.</p></div><p>Oh, please. TV news is the opposite of journalism.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Every small town has a newspaper.</p></div><p>So what? The problem isn't the quantity of newspapers, it's the quality.</p><p>I live in San Jose, CA, which used to have a first rate paper. Lots of good content, a long history of award-winning winning investigative journalism, and serious coverage of the computer business. It was even profitable. Craigslist destroyed their classifieds business, which used to be their biggest profit center, but they were still doing pretty well.</p><p>Then some "activist investors" decided it wasn't profitable enough. They forced the chain that owned it to sell out completely, and this paper ended up with a chain whose main talent seems to be cost-cutting. Now the page count is down (like 2/3) the quality of the writing is down, they no longer have access to their former chain's news bureaus, and circulation is down.</p><p>Profits? What profits? For that you need subscribers. I used to subscribe and read it every day &mdash; now I rarely even bother to read it online.</p><p>Really, the decline in advertising revenue is only part of the problem, as this sad story illustrates. There's also the fact that most newspapers (including all those small town papers) belong to mammoth media companies that are run by bean counters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every large-ish city typically has 4-5 television stations that also have their own news departments that do journalism.Oh , please .
TV news is the opposite of journalism.Every small town has a newspaper.So what ?
The problem is n't the quantity of newspapers , it 's the quality.I live in San Jose , CA , which used to have a first rate paper .
Lots of good content , a long history of award-winning winning investigative journalism , and serious coverage of the computer business .
It was even profitable .
Craigslist destroyed their classifieds business , which used to be their biggest profit center , but they were still doing pretty well.Then some " activist investors " decided it was n't profitable enough .
They forced the chain that owned it to sell out completely , and this paper ended up with a chain whose main talent seems to be cost-cutting .
Now the page count is down ( like 2/3 ) the quality of the writing is down , they no longer have access to their former chain 's news bureaus , and circulation is down.Profits ?
What profits ?
For that you need subscribers .
I used to subscribe and read it every day    now I rarely even bother to read it online.Really , the decline in advertising revenue is only part of the problem , as this sad story illustrates .
There 's also the fact that most newspapers ( including all those small town papers ) belong to mammoth media companies that are run by bean counters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every large-ish city typically has 4-5 television stations that also have their own news departments that do journalism.Oh, please.
TV news is the opposite of journalism.Every small town has a newspaper.So what?
The problem isn't the quantity of newspapers, it's the quality.I live in San Jose, CA, which used to have a first rate paper.
Lots of good content, a long history of award-winning winning investigative journalism, and serious coverage of the computer business.
It was even profitable.
Craigslist destroyed their classifieds business, which used to be their biggest profit center, but they were still doing pretty well.Then some "activist investors" decided it wasn't profitable enough.
They forced the chain that owned it to sell out completely, and this paper ended up with a chain whose main talent seems to be cost-cutting.
Now the page count is down (like 2/3) the quality of the writing is down, they no longer have access to their former chain's news bureaus, and circulation is down.Profits?
What profits?
For that you need subscribers.
I used to subscribe and read it every day — now I rarely even bother to read it online.Really, the decline in advertising revenue is only part of the problem, as this sad story illustrates.
There's also the fact that most newspapers (including all those small town papers) belong to mammoth media companies that are run by bean counters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802800</id>
	<title>Temporary increase in profit ...</title>
	<author>Script Cat</author>
	<datestamp>1263733980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Temporary increase in profit at the expense or relevancy. I vaguely remember a radio talk show host. Howard something. He was very popular at one point but moved to XM radio for more money. I wonder what ever happened to him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Temporary increase in profit at the expense or relevancy .
I vaguely remember a radio talk show host .
Howard something .
He was very popular at one point but moved to XM radio for more money .
I wonder what ever happened to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Temporary increase in profit at the expense or relevancy.
I vaguely remember a radio talk show host.
Howard something.
He was very popular at one point but moved to XM radio for more money.
I wonder what ever happened to him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803908</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>bfields</author>
	<datestamp>1263744000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news.</p></div></blockquote><p>Um, never?  How did something *that* obviously false get mod'ed up to 5?</p><blockquote><div><p>The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s.</p></div></blockquote><p>According to, e.g., <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-10-22-ny-times-pulitzer\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com">this article</a> [usatoday.com], the Pulitzer was for different work by the same journalist, though the work in question was likely just as shoddy--as has been acknowledged inside and out of the Times since then.</p><p>As far as I can tell it's a reputable paper that has (not surprisingly, for a major institution with a long history) occasionally screwed up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news.Um , never ?
How did something * that * obviously false get mod'ed up to 5 ? The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s.According to , e.g. , this article [ usatoday.com ] , the Pulitzer was for different work by the same journalist , though the work in question was likely just as shoddy--as has been acknowledged inside and out of the Times since then.As far as I can tell it 's a reputable paper that has ( not surprisingly , for a major institution with a long history ) occasionally screwed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news.Um, never?
How did something *that* obviously false get mod'ed up to 5?The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s.According to, e.g., this article [usatoday.com], the Pulitzer was for different work by the same journalist, though the work in question was likely just as shoddy--as has been acknowledged inside and out of the Times since then.As far as I can tell it's a reputable paper that has (not surprisingly, for a major institution with a long history) occasionally screwed up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809478</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1263838020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I live in San Jose, CA, which used to have a first rate paper...</p> </div><p>So true.  When I left SJ last year the Merc had been reduced to nearly exclusively running AP/Reuters stories with the editorials, when not copped from the NYT or LAT, bemoaning this sorry state.  The San Francisco Chronicle had become the best newspaper in northern California.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in San Jose , CA , which used to have a first rate paper... So true .
When I left SJ last year the Merc had been reduced to nearly exclusively running AP/Reuters stories with the editorials , when not copped from the NYT or LAT , bemoaning this sorry state .
The San Francisco Chronicle had become the best newspaper in northern California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I live in San Jose, CA, which used to have a first rate paper... So true.
When I left SJ last year the Merc had been reduced to nearly exclusively running AP/Reuters stories with the editorials, when not copped from the NYT or LAT, bemoaning this sorry state.
The San Francisco Chronicle had become the best newspaper in northern California.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803002</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>rchh</author>
	<datestamp>1263735960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Citation needed. Who modded this shit +5 insightful. WSJ, or at least the editorial page, is very right wing, and have been known to spread outright <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201001150048" title="mediamatters.org" rel="nofollow">lies</a> [mediamatters.org] , <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201001150002" title="mediamatters.org" rel="nofollow">lies</a> [mediamatters.org] and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201001130004" title="mediamatters.org" rel="nofollow">more lies</a> [mediamatters.org]. The paper is owned by the "impartial" owner of Fox news, Rupert Murdoch.<p><div class="quote"><p>Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation needed .
Who modded this shit + 5 insightful .
WSJ , or at least the editorial page , is very right wing , and have been known to spread outright lies [ mediamatters.org ] , lies [ mediamatters.org ] and more lies [ mediamatters.org ] .
The paper is owned by the " impartial " owner of Fox news , Rupert Murdoch.Good luck with that .
It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news ; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts .
The NYT ( and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag , er , Globe ) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which do n't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business .
People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation needed.
Who modded this shit +5 insightful.
WSJ, or at least the editorial page, is very right wing, and have been known to spread outright lies [mediamatters.org] , lies [mediamatters.org] and more lies [mediamatters.org].
The paper is owned by the "impartial" owner of Fox news, Rupert Murdoch.Good luck with that.
It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts.
The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business.
People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802978</id>
	<title>Fletch 4: Boost in Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263735780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Fletch uncovers a plot to shutdown his plans to go on holidays and decides to investigate leading him to find a more sinister plot to shutdown his employer!</p><p>If the times diversified into the movie business, I think there will be more money to be had... They'll just have to wait until Fletch Won first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Fletch uncovers a plot to shutdown his plans to go on holidays and decides to investigate leading him to find a more sinister plot to shutdown his employer ! If the times diversified into the movie business , I think there will be more money to be had... They 'll just have to wait until Fletch Won first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Fletch uncovers a plot to shutdown his plans to go on holidays and decides to investigate leading him to find a more sinister plot to shutdown his employer!If the times diversified into the movie business, I think there will be more money to be had... They'll just have to wait until Fletch Won first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803910</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1263744000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name an important piece of investigative journalism done by the Times in the last ten years. I can't. And I'm a regular reader. It's increasingly a "lifestyle" paper. It sees its crucial missions as propping up the real estate market in NYC (with fascinating articles like the one suggesting that since banks aren't lending, maybe you young people can borrow the half-million for a starter apartment from your folks), and pretending to be liberal while propping up most of the neocon fantasies about an American new world order (even before cheerleading Iraq, it was responsible for the absurd Whitewater charges).</p><p>I like half their editorial columnists. They have a couple of good economic writers. And I'm entertained by the lifestyle and real estate fluff. Plus at least their front page is by their own writers rather than the AP - which continues a rapid descent in quality too. And some of their NYC coverage is unavailable elsewhere - although only of interest to people with lives or roots in the city.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name an important piece of investigative journalism done by the Times in the last ten years .
I ca n't .
And I 'm a regular reader .
It 's increasingly a " lifestyle " paper .
It sees its crucial missions as propping up the real estate market in NYC ( with fascinating articles like the one suggesting that since banks are n't lending , maybe you young people can borrow the half-million for a starter apartment from your folks ) , and pretending to be liberal while propping up most of the neocon fantasies about an American new world order ( even before cheerleading Iraq , it was responsible for the absurd Whitewater charges ) .I like half their editorial columnists .
They have a couple of good economic writers .
And I 'm entertained by the lifestyle and real estate fluff .
Plus at least their front page is by their own writers rather than the AP - which continues a rapid descent in quality too .
And some of their NYC coverage is unavailable elsewhere - although only of interest to people with lives or roots in the city .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name an important piece of investigative journalism done by the Times in the last ten years.
I can't.
And I'm a regular reader.
It's increasingly a "lifestyle" paper.
It sees its crucial missions as propping up the real estate market in NYC (with fascinating articles like the one suggesting that since banks aren't lending, maybe you young people can borrow the half-million for a starter apartment from your folks), and pretending to be liberal while propping up most of the neocon fantasies about an American new world order (even before cheerleading Iraq, it was responsible for the absurd Whitewater charges).I like half their editorial columnists.
They have a couple of good economic writers.
And I'm entertained by the lifestyle and real estate fluff.
Plus at least their front page is by their own writers rather than the AP - which continues a rapid descent in quality too.
And some of their NYC coverage is unavailable elsewhere - although only of interest to people with lives or roots in the city.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804472</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263748980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your suggestion implies a potential nationwide database in the UK of all mac addresses owned by UK residents.  and it doesn't sound so farfetched that the UK wouldn't dare try.  that's scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your suggestion implies a potential nationwide database in the UK of all mac addresses owned by UK residents .
and it does n't sound so farfetched that the UK would n't dare try .
that 's scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your suggestion implies a potential nationwide database in the UK of all mac addresses owned by UK residents.
and it doesn't sound so farfetched that the UK wouldn't dare try.
that's scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803320</id>
	<title>There's an error there.</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1263738480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news, they might consider charging for their content.</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem is that there the "research" is not being done in the first place.</p><p>That's why all those paper re-print the same material as every other paper.</p><p>The Daily Show is the last honest news organization and they have to sell themselves on comedy.</p><p>When was the last time that you saw the NYT do a comparison between a politician's current statements and his previous statements?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others , so as to give us accurate and factual news , they might consider charging for their content.The problem is that there the " research " is not being done in the first place.That 's why all those paper re-print the same material as every other paper.The Daily Show is the last honest news organization and they have to sell themselves on comedy.When was the last time that you saw the NYT do a comparison between a politician 's current statements and his previous statements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news, they might consider charging for their content.The problem is that there the "research" is not being done in the first place.That's why all those paper re-print the same material as every other paper.The Daily Show is the last honest news organization and they have to sell themselves on comedy.When was the last time that you saw the NYT do a comparison between a politician's current statements and his previous statements?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806478</id>
	<title>HERE COMES THE APPLE TABLET</title>
	<author>RMH101</author>
	<datestamp>1263818700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...NYT announce paywalls, Murdoch and News International announce paywalls - and everyone thinks they'r eshooting themselves in the foot.<br>These are not stupid companies.  Well, not *that* stupid, anyway.<br> <br>
What if this coincides with the Apple Tablet bringing micropayment for enhanced content?  An app store for print media, in essence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...NYT announce paywalls , Murdoch and News International announce paywalls - and everyone thinks they'r eshooting themselves in the foot.These are not stupid companies .
Well , not * that * stupid , anyway .
What if this coincides with the Apple Tablet bringing micropayment for enhanced content ?
An app store for print media , in essence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...NYT announce paywalls, Murdoch and News International announce paywalls - and everyone thinks they'r eshooting themselves in the foot.These are not stupid companies.
Well, not *that* stupid, anyway.
What if this coincides with the Apple Tablet bringing micropayment for enhanced content?
An app store for print media, in essence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198</id>
	<title>What are they doing to cut costs?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1263729660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I honestly don't know what they are doing to cut costs - but if they believe they are becoming a "global newspaper of record" - then maybe they ought to cut ties with New York.  I'm sure doing business in NYC ain't cheap - do they really need an entire building in midtown Manhattan?  I could see an office - something like what they presumably have in DC - as a place for reporters who are literally on the local beat to do officey type things.   But I'm willing to bet that the <i>business</i> of running the paper could be done just as well from the booneys as in the middle of the big apple for a whole lot less.  Sure. you'd lose some die-hard manhattanite employees, but nobody's irreplaceable - especially when the world is changing as fast as the publishing world is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't know what they are doing to cut costs - but if they believe they are becoming a " global newspaper of record " - then maybe they ought to cut ties with New York .
I 'm sure doing business in NYC ai n't cheap - do they really need an entire building in midtown Manhattan ?
I could see an office - something like what they presumably have in DC - as a place for reporters who are literally on the local beat to do officey type things .
But I 'm willing to bet that the business of running the paper could be done just as well from the booneys as in the middle of the big apple for a whole lot less .
Sure. you 'd lose some die-hard manhattanite employees , but nobody 's irreplaceable - especially when the world is changing as fast as the publishing world is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't know what they are doing to cut costs - but if they believe they are becoming a "global newspaper of record" - then maybe they ought to cut ties with New York.
I'm sure doing business in NYC ain't cheap - do they really need an entire building in midtown Manhattan?
I could see an office - something like what they presumably have in DC - as a place for reporters who are literally on the local beat to do officey type things.
But I'm willing to bet that the business of running the paper could be done just as well from the booneys as in the middle of the big apple for a whole lot less.
Sure. you'd lose some die-hard manhattanite employees, but nobody's irreplaceable - especially when the world is changing as fast as the publishing world is...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802720</id>
	<title>Failure 2.0</title>
	<author>m509272</author>
	<datestamp>1263733440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It didn't work the first time and it won't work this time.  The paper is a political rag now anyways.  I used to love it for all of the other sections but when their "news" became a day-to-day political agenda that was it for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It did n't work the first time and it wo n't work this time .
The paper is a political rag now anyways .
I used to love it for all of the other sections but when their " news " became a day-to-day political agenda that was it for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It didn't work the first time and it won't work this time.
The paper is a political rag now anyways.
I used to love it for all of the other sections but when their "news" became a day-to-day political agenda that was it for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</id>
	<title>The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263732420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I don't think it's entirely out of greed. The simple truth is that you can't pay columnists, reporters and other staff unless you have sufficient revenue. If people are abandoning the print version of the paper, and advertisers don't see the return they expect from ads, you lose a lot of per-copy revenue and ad revenue.</p><p>The truth is that the old model of "sell a paper for $1.00 a day, collect $XM in ad revenue per year, and your profit is that less your employment and other costs" is going away. Now, <b>quality</b> media outlets are faced with a tough choice. (Yes, I know, we can debate quality, but I happen to like the Times.) They have to choose to provide their content free, while only recouping part of their costs from ad sales, or charging for content and hoping enough people like the paper enough to pay.</p><p>I see this causing two problems:</p><p><b>For journalism in general</b>: When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money? Call me an old fogey if you want, but I think this transition we're going through is going to make it much tougher to get well-written, well-research, less-biased content. Look at how CNN has jumped in with both feet on the whole Web 2.0/Twitter/Facebook user-generated content. Some of the well-written stuff actually makes the television news, but the vast majority of it is a garbage dump compared to a legitimate news organization. Can you imagine the historical record of the Haitian earthquake filled with stuff like "OMG OMG teh quakez suX0rz dude" ? That's overblown, but you get the idea... Same thing goes for the reporting of both sides of an issue. Would you rather have a news organization making some attempt to neutrally report, or would you rather have the Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh blogs against the ACORN and ELF blogs? Investigative reporting is even more important, and I'm not talking about papparazzi stalking celebrities. Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it?</p><p><b>For employment</b>: I've seen this kind of rationalization of every single penny of cost happening over the last few years. Outside of journalism, it happens every day...a software developer in India is 10\% the cost of a US one, or we can eliminate this raft of manual processes by automating the whole thing. Some of this is good...I'm glad I'm not a file clerk at a huge insurance company, for example. But, it has to stop somewhere. There are some people who need mundane work. Manufacturing used to provide that, now it's gone. Not everyone can be a manager, or sell things, or manage projects. If you eliminate everyone's job, especially those at the low end of the skill spectrum, you're going to have a lot of unemployed consumers who can't buy your product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I do n't think it 's entirely out of greed .
The simple truth is that you ca n't pay columnists , reporters and other staff unless you have sufficient revenue .
If people are abandoning the print version of the paper , and advertisers do n't see the return they expect from ads , you lose a lot of per-copy revenue and ad revenue.The truth is that the old model of " sell a paper for $ 1.00 a day , collect $ XM in ad revenue per year , and your profit is that less your employment and other costs " is going away .
Now , quality media outlets are faced with a tough choice .
( Yes , I know , we can debate quality , but I happen to like the Times .
) They have to choose to provide their content free , while only recouping part of their costs from ad sales , or charging for content and hoping enough people like the paper enough to pay.I see this causing two problems : For journalism in general : When are people going to realize that actual journalism , investigative reporting , and other well-researched pieces cost money ?
Call me an old fogey if you want , but I think this transition we 're going through is going to make it much tougher to get well-written , well-research , less-biased content .
Look at how CNN has jumped in with both feet on the whole Web 2.0/Twitter/Facebook user-generated content .
Some of the well-written stuff actually makes the television news , but the vast majority of it is a garbage dump compared to a legitimate news organization .
Can you imagine the historical record of the Haitian earthquake filled with stuff like " OMG OMG teh quakez suX0rz dude " ?
That 's overblown , but you get the idea... Same thing goes for the reporting of both sides of an issue .
Would you rather have a news organization making some attempt to neutrally report , or would you rather have the Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh blogs against the ACORN and ELF blogs ?
Investigative reporting is even more important , and I 'm not talking about papparazzi stalking celebrities .
Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it ? For employment : I 've seen this kind of rationalization of every single penny of cost happening over the last few years .
Outside of journalism , it happens every day...a software developer in India is 10 \ % the cost of a US one , or we can eliminate this raft of manual processes by automating the whole thing .
Some of this is good...I 'm glad I 'm not a file clerk at a huge insurance company , for example .
But , it has to stop somewhere .
There are some people who need mundane work .
Manufacturing used to provide that , now it 's gone .
Not everyone can be a manager , or sell things , or manage projects .
If you eliminate everyone 's job , especially those at the low end of the skill spectrum , you 're going to have a lot of unemployed consumers who ca n't buy your product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I don't think it's entirely out of greed.
The simple truth is that you can't pay columnists, reporters and other staff unless you have sufficient revenue.
If people are abandoning the print version of the paper, and advertisers don't see the return they expect from ads, you lose a lot of per-copy revenue and ad revenue.The truth is that the old model of "sell a paper for $1.00 a day, collect $XM in ad revenue per year, and your profit is that less your employment and other costs" is going away.
Now, quality media outlets are faced with a tough choice.
(Yes, I know, we can debate quality, but I happen to like the Times.
) They have to choose to provide their content free, while only recouping part of their costs from ad sales, or charging for content and hoping enough people like the paper enough to pay.I see this causing two problems:For journalism in general: When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money?
Call me an old fogey if you want, but I think this transition we're going through is going to make it much tougher to get well-written, well-research, less-biased content.
Look at how CNN has jumped in with both feet on the whole Web 2.0/Twitter/Facebook user-generated content.
Some of the well-written stuff actually makes the television news, but the vast majority of it is a garbage dump compared to a legitimate news organization.
Can you imagine the historical record of the Haitian earthquake filled with stuff like "OMG OMG teh quakez suX0rz dude" ?
That's overblown, but you get the idea... Same thing goes for the reporting of both sides of an issue.
Would you rather have a news organization making some attempt to neutrally report, or would you rather have the Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh blogs against the ACORN and ELF blogs?
Investigative reporting is even more important, and I'm not talking about papparazzi stalking celebrities.
Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it?For employment: I've seen this kind of rationalization of every single penny of cost happening over the last few years.
Outside of journalism, it happens every day...a software developer in India is 10\% the cost of a US one, or we can eliminate this raft of manual processes by automating the whole thing.
Some of this is good...I'm glad I'm not a file clerk at a huge insurance company, for example.
But, it has to stop somewhere.
There are some people who need mundane work.
Manufacturing used to provide that, now it's gone.
Not everyone can be a manager, or sell things, or manage projects.
If you eliminate everyone's job, especially those at the low end of the skill spectrum, you're going to have a lot of unemployed consumers who can't buy your product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805338</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1263845640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>For employment</b>: I've seen this kind of rationalization of every single penny of cost happening over the last few years. Outside of journalism, it happens every day...a software developer in India is 10\% the cost of a US one, or we can eliminate this raft of manual processes by automating the whole thing. Some of this is good...I'm glad I'm not a file clerk at a huge insurance company, for example. But, it has to stop somewhere. There are some people who need mundane work. Manufacturing used to provide that, now it's gone. Not everyone can be a manager, or sell things, or manage projects. If you eliminate everyone's job, especially those at the low end of the skill spectrum, you're going to have a lot of unemployed consumers who can't buy your product.</p></div><p>
Please read my sig.  This is old news.  In 1924 C. H. Douglas, a true visionary, analyzed exactly the problem you are describing, and then proceeded to design a system of government whose economic infrastructure would solve this and many other problems.  Of course the beneficiaries of the current system take steps to frame the debate as "Capitalism vs. Communism" so the average person never gets to consider any alternatives.  Pretty much the same scam they run with the "Liberal vs. Conservative" hokum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For employment : I 've seen this kind of rationalization of every single penny of cost happening over the last few years .
Outside of journalism , it happens every day...a software developer in India is 10 \ % the cost of a US one , or we can eliminate this raft of manual processes by automating the whole thing .
Some of this is good...I 'm glad I 'm not a file clerk at a huge insurance company , for example .
But , it has to stop somewhere .
There are some people who need mundane work .
Manufacturing used to provide that , now it 's gone .
Not everyone can be a manager , or sell things , or manage projects .
If you eliminate everyone 's job , especially those at the low end of the skill spectrum , you 're going to have a lot of unemployed consumers who ca n't buy your product .
Please read my sig .
This is old news .
In 1924 C. H. Douglas , a true visionary , analyzed exactly the problem you are describing , and then proceeded to design a system of government whose economic infrastructure would solve this and many other problems .
Of course the beneficiaries of the current system take steps to frame the debate as " Capitalism vs. Communism " so the average person never gets to consider any alternatives .
Pretty much the same scam they run with the " Liberal vs. Conservative " hokum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> For employment: I've seen this kind of rationalization of every single penny of cost happening over the last few years.
Outside of journalism, it happens every day...a software developer in India is 10\% the cost of a US one, or we can eliminate this raft of manual processes by automating the whole thing.
Some of this is good...I'm glad I'm not a file clerk at a huge insurance company, for example.
But, it has to stop somewhere.
There are some people who need mundane work.
Manufacturing used to provide that, now it's gone.
Not everyone can be a manager, or sell things, or manage projects.
If you eliminate everyone's job, especially those at the low end of the skill spectrum, you're going to have a lot of unemployed consumers who can't buy your product.
Please read my sig.
This is old news.
In 1924 C. H. Douglas, a true visionary, analyzed exactly the problem you are describing, and then proceeded to design a system of government whose economic infrastructure would solve this and many other problems.
Of course the beneficiaries of the current system take steps to frame the debate as "Capitalism vs. Communism" so the average person never gets to consider any alternatives.
Pretty much the same scam they run with the "Liberal vs. Conservative" hokum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802856</id>
	<title>Oh well....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263734520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By by New York Times, you'll be missed dearly.....For about 5 minutes....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By by New York Times , you 'll be missed dearly.....For about 5 minutes... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By by New York Times, you'll be missed dearly.....For about 5 minutes....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803872</id>
	<title>Heh - maybe they should try a different idea</title>
	<author>novar21</author>
	<datestamp>1263743640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Allow subscribers to post comments to each article and advertisement, but everyone else who don't subscribe suffer with the fact that they cannot reply/correct comments that are in error or silly.  Also subscribers have an option of turning off comments and advertising.  Also those that want certain advertising and are subscribers the ability to pick only that type of advertising.  Just ideas rambling in a very old mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow subscribers to post comments to each article and advertisement , but everyone else who do n't subscribe suffer with the fact that they can not reply/correct comments that are in error or silly .
Also subscribers have an option of turning off comments and advertising .
Also those that want certain advertising and are subscribers the ability to pick only that type of advertising .
Just ideas rambling in a very old mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow subscribers to post comments to each article and advertisement, but everyone else who don't subscribe suffer with the fact that they cannot reply/correct comments that are in error or silly.
Also subscribers have an option of turning off comments and advertising.
Also those that want certain advertising and are subscribers the ability to pick only that type of advertising.
Just ideas rambling in a very old mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804252</id>
	<title>No big deal</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1263747120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't purchased an edition of the New York Times for at least 25 years.  I won't be buying their online content either.</p><p>No problem here to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't purchased an edition of the New York Times for at least 25 years .
I wo n't be buying their online content either.No problem here to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't purchased an edition of the New York Times for at least 25 years.
I won't be buying their online content either.No problem here to solve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803268</id>
	<title>old age</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263738120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone remember why we did this free news thing to begin with??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone remember why we did this free news thing to begin with ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone remember why we did this free news thing to begin with?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803602</id>
	<title>wait and see</title>
	<author>glebovitz</author>
	<datestamp>1263741180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am also interested in seeing the results of this experiment. Unfortunately, I won't be able to participate as I already pay to much for the Sun and Enquirer. Now that's news worth the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am also interested in seeing the results of this experiment .
Unfortunately , I wo n't be able to participate as I already pay to much for the Sun and Enquirer .
Now that 's news worth the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am also interested in seeing the results of this experiment.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to participate as I already pay to much for the Sun and Enquirer.
Now that's news worth the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803146</id>
	<title>Re:Another View</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1263737100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I'll just go somewhere else where the news is free"...<br>News has always been free, especially for big events such as what happened in Haiti. What has been harder to come by is interesting, worthwhile local news. You know, to find out what friends and neighbors are up to? That is the reason we still subscribe to a paper edition of our hometown newspaper. Getting the special ads for local supermarkets is quite useful at times as well. There are also usually coupons for even bigger savings.</p><p>I have never, even once, surfed to a big-city newspaper site other than through Google. If the NYT can no longer be accessed this way for free, they will lose a large number of readers. There will always be free access to big important news events. There will also always be plenty of commentary on news and current events, more than I have time to read anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'll just go somewhere else where the news is free " ...News has always been free , especially for big events such as what happened in Haiti .
What has been harder to come by is interesting , worthwhile local news .
You know , to find out what friends and neighbors are up to ?
That is the reason we still subscribe to a paper edition of our hometown newspaper .
Getting the special ads for local supermarkets is quite useful at times as well .
There are also usually coupons for even bigger savings.I have never , even once , surfed to a big-city newspaper site other than through Google .
If the NYT can no longer be accessed this way for free , they will lose a large number of readers .
There will always be free access to big important news events .
There will also always be plenty of commentary on news and current events , more than I have time to read anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'll just go somewhere else where the news is free"...News has always been free, especially for big events such as what happened in Haiti.
What has been harder to come by is interesting, worthwhile local news.
You know, to find out what friends and neighbors are up to?
That is the reason we still subscribe to a paper edition of our hometown newspaper.
Getting the special ads for local supermarkets is quite useful at times as well.
There are also usually coupons for even bigger savings.I have never, even once, surfed to a big-city newspaper site other than through Google.
If the NYT can no longer be accessed this way for free, they will lose a large number of readers.
There will always be free access to big important news events.
There will also always be plenty of commentary on news and current events, more than I have time to read anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803090</id>
	<title>And then there were none</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1263736560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Every small town has a newspaper. Most larger ones have several.</i> </p><p>This is simply not true.</p><p>The <i>Courier Express</i> folded in 1982.</p><p> The Buffalo News [owned by  Warren Buffet] has been the only daily newspaper worth a damn in Western New York for twenty-eight years.</p><p>The one newspaper city has become the norm. The major city without a daily newspaper is a very close at hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every small town has a newspaper .
Most larger ones have several .
This is simply not true.The Courier Express folded in 1982 .
The Buffalo News [ owned by Warren Buffet ] has been the only daily newspaper worth a damn in Western New York for twenty-eight years.The one newspaper city has become the norm .
The major city without a daily newspaper is a very close at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every small town has a newspaper.
Most larger ones have several.
This is simply not true.The Courier Express folded in 1982.
The Buffalo News [owned by  Warren Buffet] has been the only daily newspaper worth a damn in Western New York for twenty-eight years.The one newspaper city has become the norm.
The major city without a daily newspaper is a very close at hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809328</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1263837300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The better question is why do we even need newspapers anymore?  Yes, we still need Journalists to report news; however we no longer need the newspaper as an aggregator.  Journalists should be able to make a living on the web as independent contractors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The better question is why do we even need newspapers anymore ?
Yes , we still need Journalists to report news ; however we no longer need the newspaper as an aggregator .
Journalists should be able to make a living on the web as independent contractors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The better question is why do we even need newspapers anymore?
Yes, we still need Journalists to report news; however we no longer need the newspaper as an aggregator.
Journalists should be able to make a living on the web as independent contractors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804584</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263750240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unemployed consumers who can't buy your products are a drain on society.  They are to be ignored until they go away.</p><p>Right?</p><p>That's what capitalism has taught me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unemployed consumers who ca n't buy your products are a drain on society .
They are to be ignored until they go away.Right ? That 's what capitalism has taught me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unemployed consumers who can't buy your products are a drain on society.
They are to be ignored until they go away.Right?That's what capitalism has taught me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803000</id>
	<title>Re:Why should people pay them?</title>
	<author>andy1307</author>
	<datestamp>1263735960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how are they going to convince us about their objectivity?</p></div><p>Objectivity is subjective. The TimeSelect thing failed because people didn't want to pay for opinion. The NYT does some good reporting and I might be willing to pay for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how are they going to convince us about their objectivity ? Objectivity is subjective .
The TimeSelect thing failed because people did n't want to pay for opinion .
The NYT does some good reporting and I might be willing to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how are they going to convince us about their objectivity?Objectivity is subjective.
The TimeSelect thing failed because people didn't want to pay for opinion.
The NYT does some good reporting and I might be willing to pay for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803754</id>
	<title>Deja vu</title>
	<author>gak001</author>
	<datestamp>1263742440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't they try this a few years ago and it failed miserably so they made their online content free again with a log-in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't they try this a few years ago and it failed miserably so they made their online content free again with a log-in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't they try this a few years ago and it failed miserably so they made their online content free again with a log-in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803790</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>PapayaSF</author>
	<datestamp>1263742860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases</p></div></blockquote><p>

What can I say? Citation needed.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are many, many examples, but here's a personal favorite: back in 2002/2003, <a href="http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2003/04/mark-steyn-looks-at-protests-against.html" title="blogspot.com">the Times ran 95 stories in nine months</a> [blogspot.com] on the supposedly big controversy involving the Augusta National Golf Club, which didn't admit women as members. When the time came for the big demonstration against the club, about 40 people showed up. I humbly suggest that so many stories about such a minor controversy is good evidence of a political agenda driving news coverage.</p><p>As for ignoring stories that don't fit their biases, readers of the Times were probably surprised when Van Jones resigned, because until then there hadn't been any coverage of the controversy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NYT ( and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag , er , Globe ) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which do n't support their biases What can I say ?
Citation needed.There are many , many examples , but here 's a personal favorite : back in 2002/2003 , the Times ran 95 stories in nine months [ blogspot.com ] on the supposedly big controversy involving the Augusta National Golf Club , which did n't admit women as members .
When the time came for the big demonstration against the club , about 40 people showed up .
I humbly suggest that so many stories about such a minor controversy is good evidence of a political agenda driving news coverage.As for ignoring stories that do n't fit their biases , readers of the Times were probably surprised when Van Jones resigned , because until then there had n't been any coverage of the controversy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases

What can I say?
Citation needed.There are many, many examples, but here's a personal favorite: back in 2002/2003, the Times ran 95 stories in nine months [blogspot.com] on the supposedly big controversy involving the Augusta National Golf Club, which didn't admit women as members.
When the time came for the big demonstration against the club, about 40 people showed up.
I humbly suggest that so many stories about such a minor controversy is good evidence of a political agenda driving news coverage.As for ignoring stories that don't fit their biases, readers of the Times were probably surprised when Van Jones resigned, because until then there hadn't been any coverage of the controversy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802802</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263734040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, what newspaper do you work for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , what newspaper do you work for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, what newspaper do you work for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802228</id>
	<title>Redux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263729840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't they try that before.<br>They built it and nobody came.<br>I didn't bother reading it until it was free.<br>Reading for a fee, I'll skip it again.<br>There is more than enough free content and they aren't producing enough interesting content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't they try that before.They built it and nobody came.I did n't bother reading it until it was free.Reading for a fee , I 'll skip it again.There is more than enough free content and they are n't producing enough interesting content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't they try that before.They built it and nobody came.I didn't bother reading it until it was free.Reading for a fee, I'll skip it again.There is more than enough free content and they aren't producing enough interesting content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803286</id>
	<title>When web advertising matures ...</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1263738180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been hearing about how wonderful everything will be when web advertising matures.  How it will manage to pay for everything on the web and all us all of have whatever we want without paying for it.  Of course, we're just in the early stages of that yet, so it will take some more time.  But we are right at the brink and it will be just a little while longer...</p><p>Yes, we have all been hearing this for a long long time.  It hasn't happened yet.  It is extremely unlikely to ever happen.  Anyone that waits for it is simply being foolish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been hearing about how wonderful everything will be when web advertising matures .
How it will manage to pay for everything on the web and all us all of have whatever we want without paying for it .
Of course , we 're just in the early stages of that yet , so it will take some more time .
But we are right at the brink and it will be just a little while longer...Yes , we have all been hearing this for a long long time .
It has n't happened yet .
It is extremely unlikely to ever happen .
Anyone that waits for it is simply being foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been hearing about how wonderful everything will be when web advertising matures.
How it will manage to pay for everything on the web and all us all of have whatever we want without paying for it.
Of course, we're just in the early stages of that yet, so it will take some more time.
But we are right at the brink and it will be just a little while longer...Yes, we have all been hearing this for a long long time.
It hasn't happened yet.
It is extremely unlikely to ever happen.
Anyone that waits for it is simply being foolish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803478</id>
	<title>Re:What are they doing to cut costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263739980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they have a very large building in midtown, but the majority of it is leased out to other firms - law and tech, advertising, etc. I know, because work in the building, and do NOT work for the NY Times.<br>I</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they have a very large building in midtown , but the majority of it is leased out to other firms - law and tech , advertising , etc .
I know , because work in the building , and do NOT work for the NY Times.I</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they have a very large building in midtown, but the majority of it is leased out to other firms - law and tech, advertising, etc.
I know, because work in the building, and do NOT work for the NY Times.I</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263737580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I' Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news, </p></div><p>The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news. The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s. The reason that the NYT and other newspapers are having a problem is because they are failing to provide the service that they claim to be in business to provide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ' Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others , so as to give us accurate and factual news , The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news .
The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s .
The reason that the NYT and other newspapers are having a problem is because they are failing to provide the service that they claim to be in business to provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I' Supposing they need to drum up revenue to support doing the research once done by thousands of others, so as to give us accurate and factual news, The problem is that the NYT has never given us accurate and factual news.
The NYT is a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize for stories that said there was no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s.
The reason that the NYT and other newspapers are having a problem is because they are failing to provide the service that they claim to be in business to provide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803244</id>
	<title>I hope this works for them</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1263737880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>People have developed this odd belief that anything you see on the internet only took an upload to produce.  News has a cost and if papers can't make money, they're going to stop doing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have developed this odd belief that anything you see on the internet only took an upload to produce .
News has a cost and if papers ca n't make money , they 're going to stop doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have developed this odd belief that anything you see on the internet only took an upload to produce.
News has a cost and if papers can't make money, they're going to stop doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804474</id>
	<title>Re:existential question</title>
	<author>[ Nighthawk ]</author>
	<datestamp>1263749040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thread over - you win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thread over - you win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thread over - you win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803780</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1263742740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it?</p></div> </blockquote><p>In today's world, W. Mark Felt would have had an anonymous identity and leaked good information to Firedoglake or Daily Kos.  The blogs would have picked up on it.  The information would have sounded credible and so a Rachel Maddow would have started to cover it in detail and the whole thing breaks a year earlier than it did under the Washington Post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it ?
In today 's world , W. Mark Felt would have had an anonymous identity and leaked good information to Firedoglake or Daily Kos .
The blogs would have picked up on it .
The information would have sounded credible and so a Rachel Maddow would have started to cover it in detail and the whole thing breaks a year earlier than it did under the Washington Post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it?
In today's world, W. Mark Felt would have had an anonymous identity and leaked good information to Firedoglake or Daily Kos.
The blogs would have picked up on it.
The information would have sounded credible and so a Rachel Maddow would have started to cover it in detail and the whole thing breaks a year earlier than it did under the Washington Post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805280</id>
	<title>There has to be a happy medium.</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1263844860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there doesn't have to be a happy medium.  There really really doesn't.  When it's time to go on the cart, you go on the cart.  There is no middle ground between alive and dead.  When it's time for carriage makers and buggy whip manufacturers to shuffle off this mortal coil, to vanish into the (history of) pages of wikihistory, then it's time.  There's no way you can wish some alternative course into being, any more than you can pray a dead relative back to life.
</p><p>They had their day in the sun, and now it's done.  Their day is over and there is nothing they can do about it.  The best they can hope for is to shuffle off the stage with grace before they fall over, embarrassing both themselves and their audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there does n't have to be a happy medium .
There really really does n't .
When it 's time to go on the cart , you go on the cart .
There is no middle ground between alive and dead .
When it 's time for carriage makers and buggy whip manufacturers to shuffle off this mortal coil , to vanish into the ( history of ) pages of wikihistory , then it 's time .
There 's no way you can wish some alternative course into being , any more than you can pray a dead relative back to life .
They had their day in the sun , and now it 's done .
Their day is over and there is nothing they can do about it .
The best they can hope for is to shuffle off the stage with grace before they fall over , embarrassing both themselves and their audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there doesn't have to be a happy medium.
There really really doesn't.
When it's time to go on the cart, you go on the cart.
There is no middle ground between alive and dead.
When it's time for carriage makers and buggy whip manufacturers to shuffle off this mortal coil, to vanish into the (history of) pages of wikihistory, then it's time.
There's no way you can wish some alternative course into being, any more than you can pray a dead relative back to life.
They had their day in the sun, and now it's done.
Their day is over and there is nothing they can do about it.
The best they can hope for is to shuffle off the stage with grace before they fall over, embarrassing both themselves and their audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802308</id>
	<title>Bad decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263730500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chalk this up to the same bad management decisions that got <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson\_Blair" title="wikipedia.org">Jayson Blair</a> [wikipedia.org] bylines in the paper. On the Internet, people seem to be largely unwilling to pay for access to content. They figure they pay their ISP already, so they should have access to whatever they want. Whether this is a valid argument or not is up for debate. But the bottom line is, if content providers like the New York Times aren't willing to offer their access to their content for free (usually via an ad-supported model), there's always a dozen other content providers that <b>are</b> willing to provide free access to equivalent services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chalk this up to the same bad management decisions that got Jayson Blair [ wikipedia.org ] bylines in the paper .
On the Internet , people seem to be largely unwilling to pay for access to content .
They figure they pay their ISP already , so they should have access to whatever they want .
Whether this is a valid argument or not is up for debate .
But the bottom line is , if content providers like the New York Times are n't willing to offer their access to their content for free ( usually via an ad-supported model ) , there 's always a dozen other content providers that are willing to provide free access to equivalent services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chalk this up to the same bad management decisions that got Jayson Blair [wikipedia.org] bylines in the paper.
On the Internet, people seem to be largely unwilling to pay for access to content.
They figure they pay their ISP already, so they should have access to whatever they want.
Whether this is a valid argument or not is up for debate.
But the bottom line is, if content providers like the New York Times aren't willing to offer their access to their content for free (usually via an ad-supported model), there's always a dozen other content providers that are willing to provide free access to equivalent services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802298</id>
	<title>Why should people pay them?</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1263730380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if they now will be behind a paywall, while other media are free, how are they going to convince us about their objectivity? Or why should people pay them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if they now will be behind a paywall , while other media are free , how are they going to convince us about their objectivity ?
Or why should people pay them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if they now will be behind a paywall, while other media are free, how are they going to convince us about their objectivity?
Or why should people pay them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802554</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1263732300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really want to donate money to a good cause, keeping alive newspapers that do actual journalism isn't the worst thing to do, but it is also far from the best. Seriously, NYT is never going away. Their worst case scenario is letting go of several of their superstar columnists. The world would barely notice.</p><p>

I've heard of many people saying that they want to prop up newspapers with their own money as an act of charity. I always ask them whether they think that this is the most effective destination for their charity, or whether they think they would get more bang for their charity buck if they sent their money elsewhere. Just about everybody who thinks about it eventually says that the most deserving charity - the one that does the most good per dollar donated - is OXFAM. I tend to agree. Something seems strange about people who would use their spare resources to save newspapers rather than lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really want to donate money to a good cause , keeping alive newspapers that do actual journalism is n't the worst thing to do , but it is also far from the best .
Seriously , NYT is never going away .
Their worst case scenario is letting go of several of their superstar columnists .
The world would barely notice .
I 've heard of many people saying that they want to prop up newspapers with their own money as an act of charity .
I always ask them whether they think that this is the most effective destination for their charity , or whether they think they would get more bang for their charity buck if they sent their money elsewhere .
Just about everybody who thinks about it eventually says that the most deserving charity - the one that does the most good per dollar donated - is OXFAM .
I tend to agree .
Something seems strange about people who would use their spare resources to save newspapers rather than lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really want to donate money to a good cause, keeping alive newspapers that do actual journalism isn't the worst thing to do, but it is also far from the best.
Seriously, NYT is never going away.
Their worst case scenario is letting go of several of their superstar columnists.
The world would barely notice.
I've heard of many people saying that they want to prop up newspapers with their own money as an act of charity.
I always ask them whether they think that this is the most effective destination for their charity, or whether they think they would get more bang for their charity buck if they sent their money elsewhere.
Just about everybody who thinks about it eventually says that the most deserving charity - the one that does the most good per dollar donated - is OXFAM.
I tend to agree.
Something seems strange about people who would use their spare resources to save newspapers rather than lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1263731400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC's site may always remain free. Perhaps it's not really an issue these days but if they were to charge those outside of the UK then they would have to ensure that their GeoIP code works flawlessly and should they be able to charge licence fee holders purely because they went to France on holiday and want to check the news or  because their mobile phone contract may have been purchased from a neighbouring country?
<br> <br>
I would imagine it's easier for the to keep it as is and if everyone else does a pay wall then that's just more business they'll get looking at their ads on the international versions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC 's site may always remain free .
Perhaps it 's not really an issue these days but if they were to charge those outside of the UK then they would have to ensure that their GeoIP code works flawlessly and should they be able to charge licence fee holders purely because they went to France on holiday and want to check the news or because their mobile phone contract may have been purchased from a neighbouring country ?
I would imagine it 's easier for the to keep it as is and if everyone else does a pay wall then that 's just more business they 'll get looking at their ads on the international versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC's site may always remain free.
Perhaps it's not really an issue these days but if they were to charge those outside of the UK then they would have to ensure that their GeoIP code works flawlessly and should they be able to charge licence fee holders purely because they went to France on holiday and want to check the news or  because their mobile phone contract may have been purchased from a neighbouring country?
I would imagine it's easier for the to keep it as is and if everyone else does a pay wall then that's just more business they'll get looking at their ads on the international versions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803374</id>
	<title>traditional news media is too freighted</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263739140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with all sorts of expenses</p><p>why couldn't the existing columnists at the nyt just pull a nikke finke?:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki\_Finke" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki\_Finke</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>what do they lose? they may make more money via online advertising than their current salaries. and if they don't, who cares? the life style is: a laptop. thats it. that's your expense for reaching the same audience you did with the new york times</p><p>all of the old big media organizations are just going to be dissolved anad atomized by the web. news and reproting will still continue, but your relationships will be with individual trusted reporters, not organizations. its a superior model</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with all sorts of expenseswhy could n't the existing columnists at the nyt just pull a nikke finke ?
: http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki \ _Finke [ wikipedia.org ] what do they lose ?
they may make more money via online advertising than their current salaries .
and if they do n't , who cares ?
the life style is : a laptop .
thats it .
that 's your expense for reaching the same audience you did with the new york timesall of the old big media organizations are just going to be dissolved anad atomized by the web .
news and reproting will still continue , but your relationships will be with individual trusted reporters , not organizations .
its a superior model</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with all sorts of expenseswhy couldn't the existing columnists at the nyt just pull a nikke finke?
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki\_Finke [wikipedia.org]what do they lose?
they may make more money via online advertising than their current salaries.
and if they don't, who cares?
the life style is: a laptop.
thats it.
that's your expense for reaching the same audience you did with the new york timesall of the old big media organizations are just going to be dissolved anad atomized by the web.
news and reproting will still continue, but your relationships will be with individual trusted reporters, not organizations.
its a superior model</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802784</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>CrazyJim1</author>
	<datestamp>1263733860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're on to something here.  We may have needed one newspaper for every town when there was distribution limits.  But now everyone has access to any newspaper, so there is a lot of redundant news out there.  We don't need redundancy, so some should go extinct.  The funny thing is that the ones who are free are less likely to go extinct because they'll have more readership and ad revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're on to something here .
We may have needed one newspaper for every town when there was distribution limits .
But now everyone has access to any newspaper , so there is a lot of redundant news out there .
We do n't need redundancy , so some should go extinct .
The funny thing is that the ones who are free are less likely to go extinct because they 'll have more readership and ad revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're on to something here.
We may have needed one newspaper for every town when there was distribution limits.
But now everyone has access to any newspaper, so there is a lot of redundant news out there.
We don't need redundancy, so some should go extinct.
The funny thing is that the ones who are free are less likely to go extinct because they'll have more readership and ad revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803950</id>
	<title>Goodbye NY Times</title>
	<author>moxsam</author>
	<datestamp>1263744300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that was that. What news' next,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that was that .
What news ' next , / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that was that.
What news' next, /.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802288</id>
	<title>a modest suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263730320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers should edit their own stories twice, once for the hardcopy paper and pay-online and once for free on-line.  Every story should be available online for free, but in cropped form.  If you visit without registering or paying, you can still get substantial story, but if you want sidebars with historical context, graphs, useful links, and additional quotes and reporting, you need to log in as a paying user or buy it on the newstand.  In other words, between 50 and 65 percent of the useful content should be free for all comers, the rest should be premium content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers should edit their own stories twice , once for the hardcopy paper and pay-online and once for free on-line .
Every story should be available online for free , but in cropped form .
If you visit without registering or paying , you can still get substantial story , but if you want sidebars with historical context , graphs , useful links , and additional quotes and reporting , you need to log in as a paying user or buy it on the newstand .
In other words , between 50 and 65 percent of the useful content should be free for all comers , the rest should be premium content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers should edit their own stories twice, once for the hardcopy paper and pay-online and once for free on-line.
Every story should be available online for free, but in cropped form.
If you visit without registering or paying, you can still get substantial story, but if you want sidebars with historical context, graphs, useful links, and additional quotes and reporting, you need to log in as a paying user or buy it on the newstand.
In other words, between 50 and 65 percent of the useful content should be free for all comers, the rest should be premium content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804326</id>
	<title>Have the pricing make sense</title>
	<author>proxima</author>
	<datestamp>1263747840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now the NYT's pricing model is really strange.  The website is available freely (with ads not much worse than when I dropped my subscription to the WSJ years ago).  The iphone app is free, and I've heard it's pretty good.  The Kindle version isn't complete and is $14/mo (it was supposed to drop to $10/mo for DX users, but that hasn't happened yet).  Until just a few days ago, the nook price was an unbelievable $25/mo (now matched $14/mo).  Sure, you pay for the convenience of it delivered to you "free" via the cell networks, but the iphone/ipod touch vs. Kindle pricing is really strange.</p><p>The WSJ is also strange.  Online only is $2/week, print is $2.30/week, and both is $2.70/week.  The online-only price seems pretty expensive relative to the cost of delivering a copy to me 6 days a week.  Are print ads just that much more lucrative than online ads?  I quit my subscription years back because I was tired of paying ~$100/yr for content with just as much ads as the NYT where the news was always free.  The Kindle version is $15/mo - more expensive than the online and print subscription!</p><p>It's too bad TFA indicates the NYTimes is probably not going with the metered approach of X free articles before being asked to subscribe.  Outside linking seems crucial to keeping your market share, and I've seen a small fraction of WSJ links compared to NYTimes links over the years.  Offering a small number of ad-supported articles before needing to subscribe guarantees that the casual reader will still be able to get content and perhaps view relatively more ads, while more regular readers (and the hope that casual readers decide to become regular readers) subscribe and get unrestricted access.  Bonus points for offering some amenities - reduced ads (how about text only?  That'd be awesome).  A substantial discount on ebook versions would be nice too.  $14/mo is too high, especially for ebook versions which can't display all content due to the eink tech as it stands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now the NYT 's pricing model is really strange .
The website is available freely ( with ads not much worse than when I dropped my subscription to the WSJ years ago ) .
The iphone app is free , and I 've heard it 's pretty good .
The Kindle version is n't complete and is $ 14/mo ( it was supposed to drop to $ 10/mo for DX users , but that has n't happened yet ) .
Until just a few days ago , the nook price was an unbelievable $ 25/mo ( now matched $ 14/mo ) .
Sure , you pay for the convenience of it delivered to you " free " via the cell networks , but the iphone/ipod touch vs. Kindle pricing is really strange.The WSJ is also strange .
Online only is $ 2/week , print is $ 2.30/week , and both is $ 2.70/week .
The online-only price seems pretty expensive relative to the cost of delivering a copy to me 6 days a week .
Are print ads just that much more lucrative than online ads ?
I quit my subscription years back because I was tired of paying ~ $ 100/yr for content with just as much ads as the NYT where the news was always free .
The Kindle version is $ 15/mo - more expensive than the online and print subscription ! It 's too bad TFA indicates the NYTimes is probably not going with the metered approach of X free articles before being asked to subscribe .
Outside linking seems crucial to keeping your market share , and I 've seen a small fraction of WSJ links compared to NYTimes links over the years .
Offering a small number of ad-supported articles before needing to subscribe guarantees that the casual reader will still be able to get content and perhaps view relatively more ads , while more regular readers ( and the hope that casual readers decide to become regular readers ) subscribe and get unrestricted access .
Bonus points for offering some amenities - reduced ads ( how about text only ?
That 'd be awesome ) .
A substantial discount on ebook versions would be nice too .
$ 14/mo is too high , especially for ebook versions which ca n't display all content due to the eink tech as it stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now the NYT's pricing model is really strange.
The website is available freely (with ads not much worse than when I dropped my subscription to the WSJ years ago).
The iphone app is free, and I've heard it's pretty good.
The Kindle version isn't complete and is $14/mo (it was supposed to drop to $10/mo for DX users, but that hasn't happened yet).
Until just a few days ago, the nook price was an unbelievable $25/mo (now matched $14/mo).
Sure, you pay for the convenience of it delivered to you "free" via the cell networks, but the iphone/ipod touch vs. Kindle pricing is really strange.The WSJ is also strange.
Online only is $2/week, print is $2.30/week, and both is $2.70/week.
The online-only price seems pretty expensive relative to the cost of delivering a copy to me 6 days a week.
Are print ads just that much more lucrative than online ads?
I quit my subscription years back because I was tired of paying ~$100/yr for content with just as much ads as the NYT where the news was always free.
The Kindle version is $15/mo - more expensive than the online and print subscription!It's too bad TFA indicates the NYTimes is probably not going with the metered approach of X free articles before being asked to subscribe.
Outside linking seems crucial to keeping your market share, and I've seen a small fraction of WSJ links compared to NYTimes links over the years.
Offering a small number of ad-supported articles before needing to subscribe guarantees that the casual reader will still be able to get content and perhaps view relatively more ads, while more regular readers (and the hope that casual readers decide to become regular readers) subscribe and get unrestricted access.
Bonus points for offering some amenities - reduced ads (how about text only?
That'd be awesome).
A substantial discount on ebook versions would be nice too.
$14/mo is too high, especially for ebook versions which can't display all content due to the eink tech as it stands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803350</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>schnablebg</author>
	<datestamp>1263738840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>An Economist subscription also adds tremendous value.  They offer the entire magazine--every single word--in audio each week to subscribers, and it is fantastic.  All this for a year for the cost of what most people pay for a single month of cable.  Talk about distorted priorities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An Economist subscription also adds tremendous value .
They offer the entire magazine--every single word--in audio each week to subscribers , and it is fantastic .
All this for a year for the cost of what most people pay for a single month of cable .
Talk about distorted priorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Economist subscription also adds tremendous value.
They offer the entire magazine--every single word--in audio each week to subscribers, and it is fantastic.
All this for a year for the cost of what most people pay for a single month of cable.
Talk about distorted priorities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803730</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1263742260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have been around a while.  I don't think the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd is being anti-intellectual in their attack on journalism they are simply presenting a fairly uniform position:</p><p>1)  High quality journalism means doing substantial research and papers don't provide that at all.<br>2)  Mid quality journalism means doing lots of research quickly.<br>3)  Low quality journalism is summarizing and presenting common information.</p><p>The web completely does the low part using aggregation.    That's the bulk of what newspapers do today.  Papers like the WSJ do mid quality work and they are being treated supportively.  For political news though the blogsphere also does a good job.   I don't see evidence that most of what is in the NYTimes meets the mid quality standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have been around a while .
I do n't think the / .
crowd is being anti-intellectual in their attack on journalism they are simply presenting a fairly uniform position : 1 ) High quality journalism means doing substantial research and papers do n't provide that at all.2 ) Mid quality journalism means doing lots of research quickly.3 ) Low quality journalism is summarizing and presenting common information.The web completely does the low part using aggregation .
That 's the bulk of what newspapers do today .
Papers like the WSJ do mid quality work and they are being treated supportively .
For political news though the blogsphere also does a good job .
I do n't see evidence that most of what is in the NYTimes meets the mid quality standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have been around a while.
I don't think the /.
crowd is being anti-intellectual in their attack on journalism they are simply presenting a fairly uniform position:1)  High quality journalism means doing substantial research and papers don't provide that at all.2)  Mid quality journalism means doing lots of research quickly.3)  Low quality journalism is summarizing and presenting common information.The web completely does the low part using aggregation.
That's the bulk of what newspapers do today.
Papers like the WSJ do mid quality work and they are being treated supportively.
For political news though the blogsphere also does a good job.
I don't see evidence that most of what is in the NYTimes meets the mid quality standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802896</id>
	<title>go ahead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263734940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch me never read the nytimes again. I mean it's a pretty good paper but honestly, do you think we can't get the same crap else where? Not to mention the non-stop anti-chinese hysteria they print is getting really annoying. We are all adults, trying to scare us about the "wicked chinamen" is kind of insulting really. Unfortunately most other American papers are written around the 8th grade level so it's a bit light. But there's always BBC and the London papers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch me never read the nytimes again .
I mean it 's a pretty good paper but honestly , do you think we ca n't get the same crap else where ?
Not to mention the non-stop anti-chinese hysteria they print is getting really annoying .
We are all adults , trying to scare us about the " wicked chinamen " is kind of insulting really .
Unfortunately most other American papers are written around the 8th grade level so it 's a bit light .
But there 's always BBC and the London papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch me never read the nytimes again.
I mean it's a pretty good paper but honestly, do you think we can't get the same crap else where?
Not to mention the non-stop anti-chinese hysteria they print is getting really annoying.
We are all adults, trying to scare us about the "wicked chinamen" is kind of insulting really.
Unfortunately most other American papers are written around the 8th grade level so it's a bit light.
But there's always BBC and the London papers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802728</id>
	<title>Smaller audience for Friedman and Dowd?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263733500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huzzah!</p><p>Seriously though, it seems that the management's earlier lesson didn't sink in too well:<br><a href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/17/new-york-times-figures-out-the-web-its-free/" title="antiwar.com">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/17/new-york-times-figures-out-the-web-its-free/</a> [antiwar.com]</p><p>I get the "good journalism costs money" argument. However, what this shows is that while it is possible for businesses to make money off internet advertising, the Times couldn't figure out how to do it.</p><p>While I doubt we'll ever know, my guess is that their revenue from subscription will be less than that from advertising. If their top tier talent hang around, they will bleed money until they are bought by someone with deeper pockets (who will reverse this dumb-ass decision and start some serious cost cutting). If they walk, then the value of the business will shrink making them an unlikely target. My guess is the latter. The talent will walk. An "indie" Krugman/Friedman/Dowd blog could probably earn enough advertising revenue to support them. The rest will disappear.</p><p>If that happens then there will be a REAL shakeup in the old-school media franchises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huzzah ! Seriously though , it seems that the management 's earlier lesson did n't sink in too well : http : //www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/17/new-york-times-figures-out-the-web-its-free/ [ antiwar.com ] I get the " good journalism costs money " argument .
However , what this shows is that while it is possible for businesses to make money off internet advertising , the Times could n't figure out how to do it.While I doubt we 'll ever know , my guess is that their revenue from subscription will be less than that from advertising .
If their top tier talent hang around , they will bleed money until they are bought by someone with deeper pockets ( who will reverse this dumb-ass decision and start some serious cost cutting ) .
If they walk , then the value of the business will shrink making them an unlikely target .
My guess is the latter .
The talent will walk .
An " indie " Krugman/Friedman/Dowd blog could probably earn enough advertising revenue to support them .
The rest will disappear.If that happens then there will be a REAL shakeup in the old-school media franchises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huzzah!Seriously though, it seems that the management's earlier lesson didn't sink in too well:http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/17/new-york-times-figures-out-the-web-its-free/ [antiwar.com]I get the "good journalism costs money" argument.
However, what this shows is that while it is possible for businesses to make money off internet advertising, the Times couldn't figure out how to do it.While I doubt we'll ever know, my guess is that their revenue from subscription will be less than that from advertising.
If their top tier talent hang around, they will bleed money until they are bought by someone with deeper pockets (who will reverse this dumb-ass decision and start some serious cost cutting).
If they walk, then the value of the business will shrink making them an unlikely target.
My guess is the latter.
The talent will walk.
An "indie" Krugman/Friedman/Dowd blog could probably earn enough advertising revenue to support them.
The rest will disappear.If that happens then there will be a REAL shakeup in the old-school media franchises.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803364</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1263739080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases</p></div><p>What can I say? <i>Citation needed.</i> </p><p>I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary. It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues, and it's frankly not what I'd expect of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. audience.</p></div><p>And on that note, the wonderful thing about NYT opinion pieces (which are clearly labeled as such), is that they involve lucid argumentation and reasonable discussion.  They're not meant to be propaganda and they would be very ineffective as such, because tend they argue an issue rather than asserting a point.  Most people look for evidence to support, rather than shape, their beliefs.  If you're in the rational minority, intelligent discussion is always useful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NYT ( and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag , er , Globe ) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which do n't support their biasesWhat can I say ?
Citation needed .
I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary .
It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues , and it 's frankly not what I 'd expect of the / .
audience.And on that note , the wonderful thing about NYT opinion pieces ( which are clearly labeled as such ) , is that they involve lucid argumentation and reasonable discussion .
They 're not meant to be propaganda and they would be very ineffective as such , because tend they argue an issue rather than asserting a point .
Most people look for evidence to support , rather than shape , their beliefs .
If you 're in the rational minority , intelligent discussion is always useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biasesWhat can I say?
Citation needed.
I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary.
It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues, and it's frankly not what I'd expect of the /.
audience.And on that note, the wonderful thing about NYT opinion pieces (which are clearly labeled as such), is that they involve lucid argumentation and reasonable discussion.
They're not meant to be propaganda and they would be very ineffective as such, because tend they argue an issue rather than asserting a point.
Most people look for evidence to support, rather than shape, their beliefs.
If you're in the rational minority, intelligent discussion is always useful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804694</id>
	<title>Useless "fat cat execs'" CO$T TOO MUCH MONEY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263751200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good journalism co$t$ money? Fat cat useless executives co$t WAY TOO MUCH MONEY is more like it. Would anyone like to bet against me when I say I severely doubt that their pay was not cut whatsoever &amp; that actual useful production staff got cut or outsourced instead to "save money"? Who's money is "saved" there?? That of the useless executives is whose "money was saved", and that is about it. They're hilarious. I mean, do they think that "they're the only game in town"? Beg to differ: They have PLENTY of competition who will gain by their "genius move" here is all, &amp; that's typical of their "intelligence" in these matters (look at the results of their "fine business leadership" in the USA for the past decade now for instance).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good journalism co $ t $ money ?
Fat cat useless executives co $ t WAY TOO MUCH MONEY is more like it .
Would anyone like to bet against me when I say I severely doubt that their pay was not cut whatsoever &amp; that actual useful production staff got cut or outsourced instead to " save money " ?
Who 's money is " saved " there ? ?
That of the useless executives is whose " money was saved " , and that is about it .
They 're hilarious .
I mean , do they think that " they 're the only game in town " ?
Beg to differ : They have PLENTY of competition who will gain by their " genius move " here is all , &amp; that 's typical of their " intelligence " in these matters ( look at the results of their " fine business leadership " in the USA for the past decade now for instance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good journalism co$t$ money?
Fat cat useless executives co$t WAY TOO MUCH MONEY is more like it.
Would anyone like to bet against me when I say I severely doubt that their pay was not cut whatsoever &amp; that actual useful production staff got cut or outsourced instead to "save money"?
Who's money is "saved" there??
That of the useless executives is whose "money was saved", and that is about it.
They're hilarious.
I mean, do they think that "they're the only game in town"?
Beg to differ: They have PLENTY of competition who will gain by their "genius move" here is all, &amp; that's typical of their "intelligence" in these matters (look at the results of their "fine business leadership" in the USA for the past decade now for instance).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804492</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263749280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CRU being hacked and proven to provide false data, never reported by NYT.</p><p>Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered, never reported by NYT.</p><p>The list is COUNTLESS, you just don't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CRU being hacked and proven to provide false data , never reported by NYT.Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered , never reported by NYT.The list is COUNTLESS , you just do n't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CRU being hacked and proven to provide false data, never reported by NYT.Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered, never reported by NYT.The list is COUNTLESS, you just don't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803888</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263743760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes.</p></div><p>With the  exception of the World Service the  BBC is not supported by tax revenue. It is supported by an excise in the form of a television license fee. I for example am a British tax-payer but (with the aforementioned exception of the World Service) do not contribute to the running costs of the BBC (despite the fact I make extensive use of its radio and on-line services) because I choose not to own a television.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all well and good , but the BBC is supported by British taxes.With the exception of the World Service the BBC is not supported by tax revenue .
It is supported by an excise in the form of a television license fee .
I for example am a British tax-payer but ( with the aforementioned exception of the World Service ) do not contribute to the running costs of the BBC ( despite the fact I make extensive use of its radio and on-line services ) because I choose not to own a television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes.With the  exception of the World Service the  BBC is not supported by tax revenue.
It is supported by an excise in the form of a television license fee.
I for example am a British tax-payer but (with the aforementioned exception of the World Service) do not contribute to the running costs of the BBC (despite the fact I make extensive use of its radio and on-line services) because I choose not to own a television.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802240</id>
	<title>not too suprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263729900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can understand the problem.<br>Most people will read online, but at the same<br>time few (if any) will click on online ads to<br>support the sites they view.</p><p>I think a time will come when there will be no or<br>very few full-time journalists, they will all be<br>part time (the other half will be spent working a 2nd job)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand the problem.Most people will read online , but at the sametime few ( if any ) will click on online ads tosupport the sites they view.I think a time will come when there will be no orvery few full-time journalists , they will all bepart time ( the other half will be spent working a 2nd job )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand the problem.Most people will read online, but at the sametime few (if any) will click on online ads tosupport the sites they view.I think a time will come when there will be no orvery few full-time journalists, they will all bepart time (the other half will be spent working a 2nd job)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803284</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1263738180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WSJ can be business expensed by a lot of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WSJ can be business expensed by a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WSJ can be business expensed by a lot of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803720</id>
	<title>Paywall, Paywall, thy name is blackout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263742200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paywall, paywall, thy name is blackout.  Put up a barrier to your news, even in the name of "we want money" and I will go somewhere else for that news.  Sure the spin might not be as pretty, but the content is still there.  There are 10,000 places on the net to get news.  The BBC offers RSS feeds of all the big stories, as do 10,000 other sites on the net.  Oh, I will miss the fine prose of the NYT, but other journalists have pretty good prose too, and if I really want more prose, I will read celebrated authors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paywall , paywall , thy name is blackout .
Put up a barrier to your news , even in the name of " we want money " and I will go somewhere else for that news .
Sure the spin might not be as pretty , but the content is still there .
There are 10,000 places on the net to get news .
The BBC offers RSS feeds of all the big stories , as do 10,000 other sites on the net .
Oh , I will miss the fine prose of the NYT , but other journalists have pretty good prose too , and if I really want more prose , I will read celebrated authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paywall, paywall, thy name is blackout.
Put up a barrier to your news, even in the name of "we want money" and I will go somewhere else for that news.
Sure the spin might not be as pretty, but the content is still there.
There are 10,000 places on the net to get news.
The BBC offers RSS feeds of all the big stories, as do 10,000 other sites on the net.
Oh, I will miss the fine prose of the NYT, but other journalists have pretty good prose too, and if I really want more prose, I will read celebrated authors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263729600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then.  I will read
www.bbc.co.uk
or www.telegraph.co.uk
or theregister.co.uk
or www.zeit.de
or cnn.com
or slashdot.org
or www.dailymail.co.uk
or and the list goes on.</p></div><p>This is the whole problem, of course - the more sites go paywalled, the more incentive there is for the others to stay free. Very few media sources I've found actually provide a significantly better service than many other sources, so it simply doesn't make sense for me as a consumer to pay for product I can get for free. Of course, there are those that say that my way of thinking will kill journalism / music / whatever, but I'll pay as soon as there is significant incentive to (ie. if they actually start dying off).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh well , I just wo n't bother reading it then .
I will read www.bbc.co.uk or www.telegraph.co.uk or theregister.co.uk or www.zeit.de or cnn.com or slashdot.org or www.dailymail.co.uk or and the list goes on.This is the whole problem , of course - the more sites go paywalled , the more incentive there is for the others to stay free .
Very few media sources I 've found actually provide a significantly better service than many other sources , so it simply does n't make sense for me as a consumer to pay for product I can get for free .
Of course , there are those that say that my way of thinking will kill journalism / music / whatever , but I 'll pay as soon as there is significant incentive to ( ie .
if they actually start dying off ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then.
I will read
www.bbc.co.uk
or www.telegraph.co.uk
or theregister.co.uk
or www.zeit.de
or cnn.com
or slashdot.org
or www.dailymail.co.uk
or and the list goes on.This is the whole problem, of course - the more sites go paywalled, the more incentive there is for the others to stay free.
Very few media sources I've found actually provide a significantly better service than many other sources, so it simply doesn't make sense for me as a consumer to pay for product I can get for free.
Of course, there are those that say that my way of thinking will kill journalism / music / whatever, but I'll pay as soon as there is significant incentive to (ie.
if they actually start dying off).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802676</id>
	<title>Print subscriber</title>
	<author>BartlebyScrivener</author>
	<datestamp>1263733140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Well I'm the only one left taking the print edition, so I bet they give me free admission to the site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'm the only one left taking the print edition , so I bet they give me free admission to the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Well I'm the only one left taking the print edition, so I bet they give me free admission to the site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803206</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1263737580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money?</p></div><p>The newspapers always knew this, which is why they attempt minimize it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are people going to realize that actual journalism , investigative reporting , and other well-researched pieces cost money ? The newspapers always knew this , which is why they attempt minimize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money?The newspapers always knew this, which is why they attempt minimize it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803302</id>
	<title>What I think the NYTimes is hoping for...</title>
	<author>JasonB</author>
	<datestamp>1263738360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is my best guess:</p><p>1: Paywall goes up.<br>2: Pageviews and visit stats drop like a rock.<br>3. [weeks/months later] Consumers realize that the NYTimes content is in fact higher quality than what they can access for free elsewhere.<br>4. Some percent of their pre-paywall consumers purchase online subscriptions.<br>5. Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is my best guess : 1 : Paywall goes up.2 : Pageviews and visit stats drop like a rock.3 .
[ weeks/months later ] Consumers realize that the NYTimes content is in fact higher quality than what they can access for free elsewhere.4 .
Some percent of their pre-paywall consumers purchase online subscriptions.5 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is my best guess:1: Paywall goes up.2: Pageviews and visit stats drop like a rock.3.
[weeks/months later] Consumers realize that the NYTimes content is in fact higher quality than what they can access for free elsewhere.4.
Some percent of their pre-paywall consumers purchase online subscriptions.5.
Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802394</id>
	<title>My good friend Adblock Plus says.....</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1263730980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That your splash screen "JOIN NOW to read the page behind me" script is easily disabled</htmltext>
<tokenext>That your splash screen " JOIN NOW to read the page behind me " script is easily disabled</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That your splash screen "JOIN NOW to read the page behind me" script is easily disabled</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802852</id>
	<title>EPIC win?</title>
	<author>DaRanged</author>
	<datestamp>1263734520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A while back, there was a video called EPIC (which has been updated -&gt; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQDBhg60UNI ) which talked about the end of NYT online... I wonder if this is the beginning?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back , there was a video called EPIC ( which has been updated - &gt; http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = OQDBhg60UNI ) which talked about the end of NYT online... I wonder if this is the beginning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back, there was a video called EPIC (which has been updated -&gt; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQDBhg60UNI ) which talked about the end of NYT online... I wonder if this is the beginning?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803438</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1263739620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My father has had subscriptions to the Economist, Christian Science Monitor, and the New Yorker going back almost as long as I can remember.  I'm also a member of NPR.  I think many people are willing to pay for content, whether it's written or online or over radio, if the content is high quality.  People will pay for quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My father has had subscriptions to the Economist , Christian Science Monitor , and the New Yorker going back almost as long as I can remember .
I 'm also a member of NPR .
I think many people are willing to pay for content , whether it 's written or online or over radio , if the content is high quality .
People will pay for quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father has had subscriptions to the Economist, Christian Science Monitor, and the New Yorker going back almost as long as I can remember.
I'm also a member of NPR.
I think many people are willing to pay for content, whether it's written or online or over radio, if the content is high quality.
People will pay for quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</id>
	<title>How to do this right?</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1263731940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The three posts I'm seeing so far all assume this will be the death knell of the <i>Times.</i> But the alternative if nothing changes is for the <i>Times</i> to piss all its money away until it closes its doors in bankruptcy. There has to be a happy medium. Somebody has to try to find it, and that's what the <i>New York Times</i> is doing now.</p><p>mrphoton says he'll read www.bbc.co.uk instead. That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes, while the <i>New York Times</i> is a private newspaper. There's a strong tradition of separation of media and government in the U.S. and it isn't likely to ever change. But some have proposed operating newspapers as nonprofit organizations, which may be a close compromise. In that arrangement, newspapers would essentially be relying on government to leave them alone, by not charging them taxes. Where their operating expenses would come from, however, remains an open question.</p><p>To me, charging subscription fees for access to content makes a lot of sense. One of my favorite publications, <i>The Economist,</i> has always had a pay-wall around most of its content. And while advertising rates for magazines have been dropping across the board, subscriptions to <i>The Economist</i> have actually been climbing in the last few years. Why? Cynics say it's because people want to look intellectual by carrying around a copy of <i>The Economist</i> that they actually never read. People who subscribe to <i>The Economist</i> say they do so because of the marked differences between it and other, more traditional newspapers: <i>The Economist</i> prints zero celebrity gossip, and it never fiddles around with stories about car crashes or green gardening. It has a global focus. Its stories are well-researched, thorough, and not dumbed-down. In other words, if I'm going to pay to have someone deliver a stack of printed pages to my mailbox every week, <i>The Economist</i> will bring me far less wasted paper.</p><p>It's also mentioning that <i>The Economist does not print any bylines for its articles.</i> So to Tom Friedman's complaints, cry me a river. Do I subscribe to the <i>New York Times</i> because I want an informative, timely, in-depth news resource, or do I subscribe because I like to read so-called rock star columnists? Personally, I don't even read Tom Friedman's column, because his books have been massive disappointments. Talk about overrated. So should a guy like Tom Friedman be allowed to hold an entire news gathering organization hostage to his own ego? Tell you what, Tom: If you're such a public treasure, start a blog. Surely the people will flock to it. Or could it be that the only reason anybody read your column at all was because of the <i>New York Times,</i> and not the other way around?</p><p>The success of a subscription program for the <i>Times'</i> Web site will probably all depend on the price they charge for it. Certainly there will have to be opportunities to get stuff for free, as Salon.com has done. Even <i>The Economist</i> offers a 14-day free trial. Even then, the idea that anyone will pay even a fraction of the cost of a subscription to the <i>New York Times</i> just to read one or two articles a week -- or one or two articles a month -- is nuts. Somebody needs to do the hard research to figure out a realistic rate of payment for the content that people actually read. A monthly or yearly subscription fee, when nothing is showing up in the mailbox and you never remember to go and look at the site, isn't going to work.</p><p>At the same time, I worry about the concept of newspapers as a <i>public good.</i> Everyone, no matter their income level, is entitled to know what's going on in their government and the world at large. If newspapers close themselves off only to paying subscribers, you force the economically disadvantaged to venues such as TV news. On the one hand, local TV news has been turned over almost entirely to fluff. On the other, cable outlets like Fox News look increasingly like propaganda weapons.</p><p>So what to do? I've long tho</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The three posts I 'm seeing so far all assume this will be the death knell of the Times .
But the alternative if nothing changes is for the Times to piss all its money away until it closes its doors in bankruptcy .
There has to be a happy medium .
Somebody has to try to find it , and that 's what the New York Times is doing now.mrphoton says he 'll read www.bbc.co.uk instead .
That 's all well and good , but the BBC is supported by British taxes , while the New York Times is a private newspaper .
There 's a strong tradition of separation of media and government in the U.S. and it is n't likely to ever change .
But some have proposed operating newspapers as nonprofit organizations , which may be a close compromise .
In that arrangement , newspapers would essentially be relying on government to leave them alone , by not charging them taxes .
Where their operating expenses would come from , however , remains an open question.To me , charging subscription fees for access to content makes a lot of sense .
One of my favorite publications , The Economist , has always had a pay-wall around most of its content .
And while advertising rates for magazines have been dropping across the board , subscriptions to The Economist have actually been climbing in the last few years .
Why ? Cynics say it 's because people want to look intellectual by carrying around a copy of The Economist that they actually never read .
People who subscribe to The Economist say they do so because of the marked differences between it and other , more traditional newspapers : The Economist prints zero celebrity gossip , and it never fiddles around with stories about car crashes or green gardening .
It has a global focus .
Its stories are well-researched , thorough , and not dumbed-down .
In other words , if I 'm going to pay to have someone deliver a stack of printed pages to my mailbox every week , The Economist will bring me far less wasted paper.It 's also mentioning that The Economist does not print any bylines for its articles .
So to Tom Friedman 's complaints , cry me a river .
Do I subscribe to the New York Times because I want an informative , timely , in-depth news resource , or do I subscribe because I like to read so-called rock star columnists ?
Personally , I do n't even read Tom Friedman 's column , because his books have been massive disappointments .
Talk about overrated .
So should a guy like Tom Friedman be allowed to hold an entire news gathering organization hostage to his own ego ?
Tell you what , Tom : If you 're such a public treasure , start a blog .
Surely the people will flock to it .
Or could it be that the only reason anybody read your column at all was because of the New York Times , and not the other way around ? The success of a subscription program for the Times ' Web site will probably all depend on the price they charge for it .
Certainly there will have to be opportunities to get stuff for free , as Salon.com has done .
Even The Economist offers a 14-day free trial .
Even then , the idea that anyone will pay even a fraction of the cost of a subscription to the New York Times just to read one or two articles a week -- or one or two articles a month -- is nuts .
Somebody needs to do the hard research to figure out a realistic rate of payment for the content that people actually read .
A monthly or yearly subscription fee , when nothing is showing up in the mailbox and you never remember to go and look at the site , is n't going to work.At the same time , I worry about the concept of newspapers as a public good .
Everyone , no matter their income level , is entitled to know what 's going on in their government and the world at large .
If newspapers close themselves off only to paying subscribers , you force the economically disadvantaged to venues such as TV news .
On the one hand , local TV news has been turned over almost entirely to fluff .
On the other , cable outlets like Fox News look increasingly like propaganda weapons.So what to do ?
I 've long tho</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The three posts I'm seeing so far all assume this will be the death knell of the Times.
But the alternative if nothing changes is for the Times to piss all its money away until it closes its doors in bankruptcy.
There has to be a happy medium.
Somebody has to try to find it, and that's what the New York Times is doing now.mrphoton says he'll read www.bbc.co.uk instead.
That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes, while the New York Times is a private newspaper.
There's a strong tradition of separation of media and government in the U.S. and it isn't likely to ever change.
But some have proposed operating newspapers as nonprofit organizations, which may be a close compromise.
In that arrangement, newspapers would essentially be relying on government to leave them alone, by not charging them taxes.
Where their operating expenses would come from, however, remains an open question.To me, charging subscription fees for access to content makes a lot of sense.
One of my favorite publications, The Economist, has always had a pay-wall around most of its content.
And while advertising rates for magazines have been dropping across the board, subscriptions to The Economist have actually been climbing in the last few years.
Why? Cynics say it's because people want to look intellectual by carrying around a copy of The Economist that they actually never read.
People who subscribe to The Economist say they do so because of the marked differences between it and other, more traditional newspapers: The Economist prints zero celebrity gossip, and it never fiddles around with stories about car crashes or green gardening.
It has a global focus.
Its stories are well-researched, thorough, and not dumbed-down.
In other words, if I'm going to pay to have someone deliver a stack of printed pages to my mailbox every week, The Economist will bring me far less wasted paper.It's also mentioning that The Economist does not print any bylines for its articles.
So to Tom Friedman's complaints, cry me a river.
Do I subscribe to the New York Times because I want an informative, timely, in-depth news resource, or do I subscribe because I like to read so-called rock star columnists?
Personally, I don't even read Tom Friedman's column, because his books have been massive disappointments.
Talk about overrated.
So should a guy like Tom Friedman be allowed to hold an entire news gathering organization hostage to his own ego?
Tell you what, Tom: If you're such a public treasure, start a blog.
Surely the people will flock to it.
Or could it be that the only reason anybody read your column at all was because of the New York Times, and not the other way around?The success of a subscription program for the Times' Web site will probably all depend on the price they charge for it.
Certainly there will have to be opportunities to get stuff for free, as Salon.com has done.
Even The Economist offers a 14-day free trial.
Even then, the idea that anyone will pay even a fraction of the cost of a subscription to the New York Times just to read one or two articles a week -- or one or two articles a month -- is nuts.
Somebody needs to do the hard research to figure out a realistic rate of payment for the content that people actually read.
A monthly or yearly subscription fee, when nothing is showing up in the mailbox and you never remember to go and look at the site, isn't going to work.At the same time, I worry about the concept of newspapers as a public good.
Everyone, no matter their income level, is entitled to know what's going on in their government and the world at large.
If newspapers close themselves off only to paying subscribers, you force the economically disadvantaged to venues such as TV news.
On the one hand, local TV news has been turned over almost entirely to fluff.
On the other, cable outlets like Fox News look increasingly like propaganda weapons.So what to do?
I've long tho</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124</id>
	<title>Oh well</title>
	<author>mrphoton</author>
	<datestamp>1263729240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then.  I will read
www.bbc.co.uk
or www.telegraph.co.uk
or theregister.co.uk
or www.zeit.de
or cnn.com
or slashdot.org
or www.dailymail.co.uk
or and the list goes on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh well , I just wo n't bother reading it then .
I will read www.bbc.co.uk or www.telegraph.co.uk or theregister.co.uk or www.zeit.de or cnn.com or slashdot.org or www.dailymail.co.uk or and the list goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then.
I will read
www.bbc.co.uk
or www.telegraph.co.uk
or theregister.co.uk
or www.zeit.de
or cnn.com
or slashdot.org
or www.dailymail.co.uk
or and the list goes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803546</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>levicivita</author>
	<datestamp>1263740700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You Sir are spot on: it is only fair that people should be compensated for their work.  However I think you are presenting a false choice.  The choice is not 1) the 'incredibly valuable service' of the NYT and 2) 'crappy blogers that can't spell.'  <br> <br> There are plenty of high quality sources of information that are still available for free online, including most major newspapers and media companies.  Fortunately there are also quite a few blogs who are a good source of information, opinions, and independent research, and whose authors are quite well versed in their field, and include Nobel prize winners.  For example, on economics and finance you have <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/" title="calculatedriskblog.com" rel="nofollow">Calculated Risk</a> [calculatedriskblog.com], <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Greg Mankiw's blog</a> [blogspot.com], <a href="http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/" title="typepad.com" rel="nofollow">Becker and Posner</a> [typepad.com], <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/" title="zerohedge.com" rel="nofollow">Zero Hedge</a> [zerohedge.com].  Really, when you think about it, NYT does not have an especially compelling offer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Sir are spot on : it is only fair that people should be compensated for their work .
However I think you are presenting a false choice .
The choice is not 1 ) the 'incredibly valuable service ' of the NYT and 2 ) 'crappy blogers that ca n't spell .
' There are plenty of high quality sources of information that are still available for free online , including most major newspapers and media companies .
Fortunately there are also quite a few blogs who are a good source of information , opinions , and independent research , and whose authors are quite well versed in their field , and include Nobel prize winners .
For example , on economics and finance you have Calculated Risk [ calculatedriskblog.com ] , Greg Mankiw 's blog [ blogspot.com ] , Becker and Posner [ typepad.com ] , Zero Hedge [ zerohedge.com ] .
Really , when you think about it , NYT does not have an especially compelling offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Sir are spot on: it is only fair that people should be compensated for their work.
However I think you are presenting a false choice.
The choice is not 1) the 'incredibly valuable service' of the NYT and 2) 'crappy blogers that can't spell.
'    There are plenty of high quality sources of information that are still available for free online, including most major newspapers and media companies.
Fortunately there are also quite a few blogs who are a good source of information, opinions, and independent research, and whose authors are quite well versed in their field, and include Nobel prize winners.
For example, on economics and finance you have Calculated Risk [calculatedriskblog.com], Greg Mankiw's blog [blogspot.com], Becker and Posner [typepad.com], Zero Hedge [zerohedge.com].
Really, when you think about it, NYT does not have an especially compelling offer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803054</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>forand</author>
	<datestamp>1263736320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you been reading the WSJ recently? It is full of sensationalized articles that seem clearly intended to push a political agenda. Case in point was their recent article entitled something about how our military drones were 'hacked' by terrorists, a statement which was directly contradicted in the article body. There have been quite a few such articles in the recent past a fact that has caused some die hard WSJ fans I know to reconsider their subscription. Unfortunately you are correct in that they ALSO publish invaluable business news which is what their readers are paying for. However your assertion that the WSJ is somehow about the standard of other new papers in terms of 'op-ed rants being passed off as news' you are sorely mistaken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been reading the WSJ recently ?
It is full of sensationalized articles that seem clearly intended to push a political agenda .
Case in point was their recent article entitled something about how our military drones were 'hacked ' by terrorists , a statement which was directly contradicted in the article body .
There have been quite a few such articles in the recent past a fact that has caused some die hard WSJ fans I know to reconsider their subscription .
Unfortunately you are correct in that they ALSO publish invaluable business news which is what their readers are paying for .
However your assertion that the WSJ is somehow about the standard of other new papers in terms of 'op-ed rants being passed off as news ' you are sorely mistaken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been reading the WSJ recently?
It is full of sensationalized articles that seem clearly intended to push a political agenda.
Case in point was their recent article entitled something about how our military drones were 'hacked' by terrorists, a statement which was directly contradicted in the article body.
There have been quite a few such articles in the recent past a fact that has caused some die hard WSJ fans I know to reconsider their subscription.
Unfortunately you are correct in that they ALSO publish invaluable business news which is what their readers are paying for.
However your assertion that the WSJ is somehow about the standard of other new papers in terms of 'op-ed rants being passed off as news' you are sorely mistaken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802642</id>
	<title>Bah... look elsewhere.... they don't have a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263732960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything worth reading in the NYT or any other paper, is rewritten/syndicated/copied or covered independently by someone else who does *not* have a paywall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything worth reading in the NYT or any other paper , is rewritten/syndicated/copied or covered independently by someone else who does * not * have a paywall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything worth reading in the NYT or any other paper, is rewritten/syndicated/copied or covered independently by someone else who does *not* have a paywall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803620</id>
	<title>Re:What are they doing to cut costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That means losing the theater and restaurant sections, the book review, the arts sections. It in short means killing the best parts of the times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That means losing the theater and restaurant sections , the book review , the arts sections .
It in short means killing the best parts of the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That means losing the theater and restaurant sections, the book review, the arts sections.
It in short means killing the best parts of the times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802272</id>
	<title>Another View</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263730260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really read the NYTs, but I'll take a different view just to keep things lively.  So, I know everything on the internet is supposed to be free.  But...don't you think it's fair for the journalists to get paid for the work they've done?  The sentiment so far has been "great, thanks NYT.  I'll just go somewhere else where the news is free".  That's fine, but I think eventually you will get what you pay for.  So what if all the major papers switch to a paywall?  Will we be left with only cheap reporting or rehashing of other's stories?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really read the NYTs , but I 'll take a different view just to keep things lively .
So , I know everything on the internet is supposed to be free .
But...do n't you think it 's fair for the journalists to get paid for the work they 've done ?
The sentiment so far has been " great , thanks NYT .
I 'll just go somewhere else where the news is free " .
That 's fine , but I think eventually you will get what you pay for .
So what if all the major papers switch to a paywall ?
Will we be left with only cheap reporting or rehashing of other 's stories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really read the NYTs, but I'll take a different view just to keep things lively.
So, I know everything on the internet is supposed to be free.
But...don't you think it's fair for the journalists to get paid for the work they've done?
The sentiment so far has been "great, thanks NYT.
I'll just go somewhere else where the news is free".
That's fine, but I think eventually you will get what you pay for.
So what if all the major papers switch to a paywall?
Will we be left with only cheap reporting or rehashing of other's stories?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802430</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1263731220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they came for the free news sites and I said nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for the free news sites and I said nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for the free news sites and I said nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803798</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1263742920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not as if the <i>New York Times</i> has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/us/pulitzer-board-won-t-void-32-award-to-times-writer.html" title="nytimes.com">remained silent on this issue.</a> [nytimes.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The Times, said in a statement: ''We respect and commend the Pulitzer board for its decision on this complex and sensitive issue. All of us at The Times are fully aware of the many defects in Walter Duranty's journalism, as we have and will continue to acknowledge. We regret his lapses, and we join the Pulitzer board in extending sympathy to those who suffered as a result of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine.''</p></div><p>Since then, the coverage from the <i>Times</i> has been much more sensitive to the issue. (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/world/europe/16kiev.html" title="nytimes.com">Random article</a> [nytimes.com].)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as if the New York Times has remained silent on this issue .
[ nytimes.com ] Arthur Sulzberger Jr. , publisher of The Times , said in a statement : ''We respect and commend the Pulitzer board for its decision on this complex and sensitive issue .
All of us at The Times are fully aware of the many defects in Walter Duranty 's journalism , as we have and will continue to acknowledge .
We regret his lapses , and we join the Pulitzer board in extending sympathy to those who suffered as a result of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine .
''Since then , the coverage from the Times has been much more sensitive to the issue .
( Random article [ nytimes.com ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as if the New York Times has remained silent on this issue.
[nytimes.com] Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The Times, said in a statement: ''We respect and commend the Pulitzer board for its decision on this complex and sensitive issue.
All of us at The Times are fully aware of the many defects in Walter Duranty's journalism, as we have and will continue to acknowledge.
We regret his lapses, and we join the Pulitzer board in extending sympathy to those who suffered as a result of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine.
''Since then, the coverage from the Times has been much more sensitive to the issue.
(Random article [nytimes.com].
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803326</id>
	<title>if they build community, it might work</title>
	<author>Harlan879</author>
	<datestamp>1263738600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People, at least some people, are happy to pay for news services, especially if they're non-profit news services like National Public Radio. (Which, at least prior to the recession, was growing rapidly!) If journalism as a whole can put itself into a realm where people feel like they're supporting something they participate in and believe in, it can succeed in the Internet era. I wrote about this a couple of months ago: <a href="http://www.harlan.harris.name/2009/10/online-publishing-micropayments-and-warm-fuzzy-feelings/" title="harris.name" rel="nofollow">http://www.harlan.harris.name/2009/10/online-publishing-micropayments-and-warm-fuzzy-feelings/</a> [harris.name]

<br>Excerpt:<blockquote><div><p>But I think there&rsquo;s a way that might work, a way that leverages human psychology. People like to feel like they&rsquo;re in control, and they like to feel like they have a voice in the system. Micropayment systems that require you to pay 10 cents to read an article, based on a headline or a link, or subscription systems that take your money and give you something you can get elsewhere for free, just make you resentful. So instead, design the system so that you associate feeling good about what you have just read with giving money to the people who produced the content.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People , at least some people , are happy to pay for news services , especially if they 're non-profit news services like National Public Radio .
( Which , at least prior to the recession , was growing rapidly !
) If journalism as a whole can put itself into a realm where people feel like they 're supporting something they participate in and believe in , it can succeed in the Internet era .
I wrote about this a couple of months ago : http : //www.harlan.harris.name/2009/10/online-publishing-micropayments-and-warm-fuzzy-feelings/ [ harris.name ] Excerpt : But I think there    s a way that might work , a way that leverages human psychology .
People like to feel like they    re in control , and they like to feel like they have a voice in the system .
Micropayment systems that require you to pay 10 cents to read an article , based on a headline or a link , or subscription systems that take your money and give you something you can get elsewhere for free , just make you resentful .
So instead , design the system so that you associate feeling good about what you have just read with giving money to the people who produced the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, at least some people, are happy to pay for news services, especially if they're non-profit news services like National Public Radio.
(Which, at least prior to the recession, was growing rapidly!
) If journalism as a whole can put itself into a realm where people feel like they're supporting something they participate in and believe in, it can succeed in the Internet era.
I wrote about this a couple of months ago: http://www.harlan.harris.name/2009/10/online-publishing-micropayments-and-warm-fuzzy-feelings/ [harris.name]

Excerpt:But I think there’s a way that might work, a way that leverages human psychology.
People like to feel like they’re in control, and they like to feel like they have a voice in the system.
Micropayment systems that require you to pay 10 cents to read an article, based on a headline or a link, or subscription systems that take your money and give you something you can get elsewhere for free, just make you resentful.
So instead, design the system so that you associate feeling good about what you have just read with giving money to the people who produced the content.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803788</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263742800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>mrphoton says he'll read www.bbc.co.uk instead. That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes, while the New York Times is a private newspaper. There's a strong tradition of separation of media and government in the U.S. and it isn't likely to ever change.</p></div><p>You seem to be missing the point that the BBC often has better coverage of U.S. news than U.S. newspapers (specifically including the NYT) and by better I mean <em>less chock-full of bullshit and sensationalism</em>. Not that those things aren't in plenty of evidence over at the beeb &mdash; they certainly are. The LA Times is twice the paper the NYT <em>ever</em> was, and it blows too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>mrphoton says he 'll read www.bbc.co.uk instead .
That 's all well and good , but the BBC is supported by British taxes , while the New York Times is a private newspaper .
There 's a strong tradition of separation of media and government in the U.S. and it is n't likely to ever change.You seem to be missing the point that the BBC often has better coverage of U.S. news than U.S. newspapers ( specifically including the NYT ) and by better I mean less chock-full of bullshit and sensationalism .
Not that those things are n't in plenty of evidence over at the beeb    they certainly are .
The LA Times is twice the paper the NYT ever was , and it blows too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mrphoton says he'll read www.bbc.co.uk instead.
That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes, while the New York Times is a private newspaper.
There's a strong tradition of separation of media and government in the U.S. and it isn't likely to ever change.You seem to be missing the point that the BBC often has better coverage of U.S. news than U.S. newspapers (specifically including the NYT) and by better I mean less chock-full of bullshit and sensationalism.
Not that those things aren't in plenty of evidence over at the beeb — they certainly are.
The LA Times is twice the paper the NYT ever was, and it blows too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802702</id>
	<title>Good luck to them.</title>
	<author>No. 24601</author>
	<datestamp>1263733320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they succeed, then I'm sure others (obviously not everyone) will follow.  If they don't, well they will be back to square one and have even less money time to come up with a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they succeed , then I 'm sure others ( obviously not everyone ) will follow .
If they do n't , well they will be back to square one and have even less money time to come up with a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they succeed, then I'm sure others (obviously not everyone) will follow.
If they don't, well they will be back to square one and have even less money time to come up with a solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803228</id>
	<title>Don't Let the Door Hit You in the Ass...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1263737760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well , their suicide sets a good example for a dated corrupt media. A good idea defended by the founding fathers and others was reduced to a shallow meaningless lie of propaganda for government, liberal causes and big business. What doesn't evolve as necessary, dies as superfluous tripe. It won't be missed.<br>Now to take down the major networks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , their suicide sets a good example for a dated corrupt media .
A good idea defended by the founding fathers and others was reduced to a shallow meaningless lie of propaganda for government , liberal causes and big business .
What does n't evolve as necessary , dies as superfluous tripe .
It wo n't be missed.Now to take down the major networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well , their suicide sets a good example for a dated corrupt media.
A good idea defended by the founding fathers and others was reduced to a shallow meaningless lie of propaganda for government, liberal causes and big business.
What doesn't evolve as necessary, dies as superfluous tripe.
It won't be missed.Now to take down the major networks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802674</id>
	<title>I'm sorry.</title>
	<author>phreakincool</author>
	<datestamp>1263733140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The New York Times?  What's that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The New York Times ?
What 's that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The New York Times?
What's that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802928</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1263735240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I don't mean my title to sound flippant.  It's just that I stopped reading the NYT years ago and don't really miss any of their content.  There are plenty of other online news sources where I can get my news.  Not to mention that their articles are verbose and have a decidedly liberal bent.  Even as a liberal, I don't always appreciate that.   </p><p>If they don't want to offer ad-supported online news, they should stick to their printed newspaper.  They do that well.  Charging for online content isn't going to work for them in the long run and the debate over how to deal with it is just going to consume them and detract from them being the best news source they can be. </p><p>And another thought, maybe they aren't as epic as they think they are.  CNN and BBC are able to provide free content.  I know they are larger news companies that provide multiple media outputs.  But it seems to be working for them... </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't mean my title to sound flippant .
It 's just that I stopped reading the NYT years ago and do n't really miss any of their content .
There are plenty of other online news sources where I can get my news .
Not to mention that their articles are verbose and have a decidedly liberal bent .
Even as a liberal , I do n't always appreciate that .
If they do n't want to offer ad-supported online news , they should stick to their printed newspaper .
They do that well .
Charging for online content is n't going to work for them in the long run and the debate over how to deal with it is just going to consume them and detract from them being the best news source they can be .
And another thought , maybe they are n't as epic as they think they are .
CNN and BBC are able to provide free content .
I know they are larger news companies that provide multiple media outputs .
But it seems to be working for them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't mean my title to sound flippant.
It's just that I stopped reading the NYT years ago and don't really miss any of their content.
There are plenty of other online news sources where I can get my news.
Not to mention that their articles are verbose and have a decidedly liberal bent.
Even as a liberal, I don't always appreciate that.
If they don't want to offer ad-supported online news, they should stick to their printed newspaper.
They do that well.
Charging for online content isn't going to work for them in the long run and the debate over how to deal with it is just going to consume them and detract from them being the best news source they can be.
And another thought, maybe they aren't as epic as they think they are.
CNN and BBC are able to provide free content.
I know they are larger news companies that provide multiple media outputs.
But it seems to be working for them... </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802560</id>
	<title>NY Times to close website</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1263732360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is what the heading should have been.</p><p>Pay for content? You are having a laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is what the heading should have been.Pay for content ?
You are having a laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is what the heading should have been.Pay for content?
You are having a laugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802860</id>
	<title>nytimes announce during steve jobs tablet keynote?</title>
	<author>WheresMyDingo</author>
	<datestamp>1263734520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>notice that the launch date is january 27... same day as the rumored apple tablet unveiling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>notice that the launch date is january 27... same day as the rumored apple tablet unveiling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>notice that the launch date is january 27... same day as the rumored apple tablet unveiling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809528</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263838200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, I watched the San Jose paper fall apart over the years.</p><p>Now I'm in Phoenix, the main newspaper here is about five pages on a good day, I kid you not, and for all practical purposes, there is no local coverage. The television news shows are 90\% advertising, movie and celebrity news, tabloid crap, and the local news websites all have the exact same stories.</p><p>State and local governments are cutting things that would make your hair turn white, and that gets a sentence or two, Avatar gets a full segment.</p><p>New technology always seems to make things more convenient, but there always seems to be a negative trade off.</p><p>Monocultures are bad things, and the shrinking world of news is a monoculture. People who say they won't pay for news, let it die, don't know what they're giving up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I watched the San Jose paper fall apart over the years.Now I 'm in Phoenix , the main newspaper here is about five pages on a good day , I kid you not , and for all practical purposes , there is no local coverage .
The television news shows are 90 \ % advertising , movie and celebrity news , tabloid crap , and the local news websites all have the exact same stories.State and local governments are cutting things that would make your hair turn white , and that gets a sentence or two , Avatar gets a full segment.New technology always seems to make things more convenient , but there always seems to be a negative trade off.Monocultures are bad things , and the shrinking world of news is a monoculture .
People who say they wo n't pay for news , let it die , do n't know what they 're giving up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I watched the San Jose paper fall apart over the years.Now I'm in Phoenix, the main newspaper here is about five pages on a good day, I kid you not, and for all practical purposes, there is no local coverage.
The television news shows are 90\% advertising, movie and celebrity news, tabloid crap, and the local news websites all have the exact same stories.State and local governments are cutting things that would make your hair turn white, and that gets a sentence or two, Avatar gets a full segment.New technology always seems to make things more convenient, but there always seems to be a negative trade off.Monocultures are bad things, and the shrinking world of news is a monoculture.
People who say they won't pay for news, let it die, don't know what they're giving up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802650</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>SnapShot</author>
	<datestamp>1263733020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good.  IMHO, the content of the NY Times is valuable and deserves to be supported.   I've been looking into ways to pay for the content at the NYTimes for years. I was Times Select subscriber and was disappointed to see it go.    I've tried paying for a few issues through my Nook (please excuse the gadget name drop) but I found the experience slow, difficult to navigate, and unsatisfying.  I'd subscribe to the paper edition, but I really don't want to have to recycle 30lbs of paper a week.  I really like the web experience and am looking forward to supporting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good .
IMHO , the content of the NY Times is valuable and deserves to be supported .
I 've been looking into ways to pay for the content at the NYTimes for years .
I was Times Select subscriber and was disappointed to see it go .
I 've tried paying for a few issues through my Nook ( please excuse the gadget name drop ) but I found the experience slow , difficult to navigate , and unsatisfying .
I 'd subscribe to the paper edition , but I really do n't want to have to recycle 30lbs of paper a week .
I really like the web experience and am looking forward to supporting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good.
IMHO, the content of the NY Times is valuable and deserves to be supported.
I've been looking into ways to pay for the content at the NYTimes for years.
I was Times Select subscriber and was disappointed to see it go.
I've tried paying for a few issues through my Nook (please excuse the gadget name drop) but I found the experience slow, difficult to navigate, and unsatisfying.
I'd subscribe to the paper edition, but I really don't want to have to recycle 30lbs of paper a week.
I really like the web experience and am looking forward to supporting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803436</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1263739620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old system we have now is a paid propaganda controlled by advertisers and their interests.  At least we get a diversity of interests.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing\_Consent" title="wikipedia.org">Manufacturing Consent</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old system we have now is a paid propaganda controlled by advertisers and their interests .
At least we get a diversity of interests .
Manufacturing Consent [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old system we have now is a paid propaganda controlled by advertisers and their interests.
At least we get a diversity of interests.
Manufacturing Consent [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804402</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1263748440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll sign up, and pay, if they provide paid subscribers with <b>NO ADVERTISING</b>. I use PRIVOXY to block 99.999\% of web ads anyway, but it's the principle - if I'm picking up the tab, cut the ads. Otherwise, there's no incentive to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll sign up , and pay , if they provide paid subscribers with NO ADVERTISING .
I use PRIVOXY to block 99.999 \ % of web ads anyway , but it 's the principle - if I 'm picking up the tab , cut the ads .
Otherwise , there 's no incentive to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll sign up, and pay, if they provide paid subscribers with NO ADVERTISING.
I use PRIVOXY to block 99.999\% of web ads anyway, but it's the principle - if I'm picking up the tab, cut the ads.
Otherwise, there's no incentive to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809356</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1263837420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Necessity is the mother of invention.  If there is no factual source for news, someone will see an opportunity and create one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Necessity is the mother of invention .
If there is no factual source for news , someone will see an opportunity and create one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Necessity is the mother of invention.
If there is no factual source for news, someone will see an opportunity and create one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802340</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263730740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I'll have to start reading FoxNews.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'll have to start reading FoxNews.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'll have to start reading FoxNews.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803994</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263744780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about running ads that don't require you to enable a suspicious amount of scripts? Like single line text links to relevant or interesting information. Oh, and how about making sure the links open in a new tab or window so you don't lose the article you were reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about running ads that do n't require you to enable a suspicious amount of scripts ?
Like single line text links to relevant or interesting information .
Oh , and how about making sure the links open in a new tab or window so you do n't lose the article you were reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about running ads that don't require you to enable a suspicious amount of scripts?
Like single line text links to relevant or interesting information.
Oh, and how about making sure the links open in a new tab or window so you don't lose the article you were reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806152</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1263814860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes, while the <i>New York Times</i> is a private newspaper.</p></div><p>Sort of true. The BBC is paid for by a mandatory television license fee. If you have a TV you must pay the BBC. From this they also run numerous radio stations and their website. It seems to be a common misconception by Americans that the BBC is run by the government - it's not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all well and good , but the BBC is supported by British taxes , while the New York Times is a private newspaper.Sort of true .
The BBC is paid for by a mandatory television license fee .
If you have a TV you must pay the BBC .
From this they also run numerous radio stations and their website .
It seems to be a common misconception by Americans that the BBC is run by the government - it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes, while the New York Times is a private newspaper.Sort of true.
The BBC is paid for by a mandatory television license fee.
If you have a TV you must pay the BBC.
From this they also run numerous radio stations and their website.
It seems to be a common misconception by Americans that the BBC is run by the government - it's not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803520</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1263740460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if they were to charge those outside of the UK then they would have to ensure that their GeoIP code works flawlessly</i></p><p>They already do this for serving adverts, and restricting Iplayer to UK only people. It doesn't work flawlessly (I get ads when I view from work), so as far as I can tell, if you're a licence payer who can't see it, tough. OTOH, non-licence payers who live in the UK can see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if they were to charge those outside of the UK then they would have to ensure that their GeoIP code works flawlesslyThey already do this for serving adverts , and restricting Iplayer to UK only people .
It does n't work flawlessly ( I get ads when I view from work ) , so as far as I can tell , if you 're a licence payer who ca n't see it , tough .
OTOH , non-licence payers who live in the UK can see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they were to charge those outside of the UK then they would have to ensure that their GeoIP code works flawlesslyThey already do this for serving adverts, and restricting Iplayer to UK only people.
It doesn't work flawlessly (I get ads when I view from work), so as far as I can tell, if you're a licence payer who can't see it, tough.
OTOH, non-licence payers who live in the UK can see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803692</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263741960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Economist does not have a paywall around its content. I'm a subscriber, and the economist thankfully understands that if they have a paywall their relevance (one of their most important features) will go down. I'd unsubscribe if they set up a paywall. You can read all of the economist for free online, if one couldn't do this, I never would even have dreamt of subscribing.</p><p>The only content you need to pay for if you're not a subscriber is content over a year old (or so, don't remember the actual length of time).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Economist does not have a paywall around its content .
I 'm a subscriber , and the economist thankfully understands that if they have a paywall their relevance ( one of their most important features ) will go down .
I 'd unsubscribe if they set up a paywall .
You can read all of the economist for free online , if one could n't do this , I never would even have dreamt of subscribing.The only content you need to pay for if you 're not a subscriber is content over a year old ( or so , do n't remember the actual length of time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Economist does not have a paywall around its content.
I'm a subscriber, and the economist thankfully understands that if they have a paywall their relevance (one of their most important features) will go down.
I'd unsubscribe if they set up a paywall.
You can read all of the economist for free online, if one couldn't do this, I never would even have dreamt of subscribing.The only content you need to pay for if you're not a subscriber is content over a year old (or so, don't remember the actual length of time).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802794</id>
	<title>Hey, Tom Friedman!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263733920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your readership is flat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your readership is flat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your readership is flat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30807136</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1263825060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> The other benefit is that it could encourage more competition from private ISPs. Right now, ISPs are competing on raw pipe. </i></p><p>And I like it that way.  What you go on to describe sounds like the cell phone nightmare in the US.  I DON'T NEED MORE OF THAT!!!!!</p><p>Look, keep the ISP as a basic pipe.</p><p>What you're essentially doing is mandating that anybody who buys internet access also buy news - it isn't like the ISP isn't going to pass that cost along.  So, why not just cut out the middleman.  Every US citizen has to list news subscription receipts totaling $100 on their tax forms or they have to pay $100 in extra taxes.  Now everybody can buy their bandwidth from whoever they want, and they can buy their news from whoever they want.  Maybe just give a tax credit of up to $100 for subscription receipts - it is the same thing but people don't get penalized as directly for not claiming the credit.</p><p>Note that I'm not really a proponent of this - I'd rather leave news buying up to individuals and not force it.</p><p>But, if you absolutely have to have mandatory purchase of news, at least let people choose the best provider of each.  The reason we have so little ISP choice in the US is due to the sprawling US population - most people only have two ISP choices, and many have only one.  What if you're a NYC hippie who has moved to Texas - do you want to have to pay an extra $15 per month for your internet connection to one of the two ISPs who both only offer FOX News for free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other benefit is that it could encourage more competition from private ISPs .
Right now , ISPs are competing on raw pipe .
And I like it that way .
What you go on to describe sounds like the cell phone nightmare in the US .
I DO N'T NEED MORE OF THAT ! ! ! !
! Look , keep the ISP as a basic pipe.What you 're essentially doing is mandating that anybody who buys internet access also buy news - it is n't like the ISP is n't going to pass that cost along .
So , why not just cut out the middleman .
Every US citizen has to list news subscription receipts totaling $ 100 on their tax forms or they have to pay $ 100 in extra taxes .
Now everybody can buy their bandwidth from whoever they want , and they can buy their news from whoever they want .
Maybe just give a tax credit of up to $ 100 for subscription receipts - it is the same thing but people do n't get penalized as directly for not claiming the credit.Note that I 'm not really a proponent of this - I 'd rather leave news buying up to individuals and not force it.But , if you absolutely have to have mandatory purchase of news , at least let people choose the best provider of each .
The reason we have so little ISP choice in the US is due to the sprawling US population - most people only have two ISP choices , and many have only one .
What if you 're a NYC hippie who has moved to Texas - do you want to have to pay an extra $ 15 per month for your internet connection to one of the two ISPs who both only offer FOX News for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The other benefit is that it could encourage more competition from private ISPs.
Right now, ISPs are competing on raw pipe.
And I like it that way.
What you go on to describe sounds like the cell phone nightmare in the US.
I DON'T NEED MORE OF THAT!!!!
!Look, keep the ISP as a basic pipe.What you're essentially doing is mandating that anybody who buys internet access also buy news - it isn't like the ISP isn't going to pass that cost along.
So, why not just cut out the middleman.
Every US citizen has to list news subscription receipts totaling $100 on their tax forms or they have to pay $100 in extra taxes.
Now everybody can buy their bandwidth from whoever they want, and they can buy their news from whoever they want.
Maybe just give a tax credit of up to $100 for subscription receipts - it is the same thing but people don't get penalized as directly for not claiming the credit.Note that I'm not really a proponent of this - I'd rather leave news buying up to individuals and not force it.But, if you absolutely have to have mandatory purchase of news, at least let people choose the best provider of each.
The reason we have so little ISP choice in the US is due to the sprawling US population - most people only have two ISP choices, and many have only one.
What if you're a NYC hippie who has moved to Texas - do you want to have to pay an extra $15 per month for your internet connection to one of the two ISPs who both only offer FOX News for free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802734</id>
	<title>linux is for dick smokers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263733500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>those poor fags can't even afford a real computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>those poor fags ca n't even afford a real computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those poor fags can't even afford a real computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802524</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1263731880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wall Street Journal is a great alternative with much less bias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wall Street Journal is a great alternative with much less bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wall Street Journal is a great alternative with much less bias.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802924</id>
	<title>Does that mean no more advertisements?</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1263735240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get it... I never believed that Google's ad model worked, but their stock price says differently. So the ad model works for Google and all other news providers online... but not for the nyt or wsj? What is the obsession in charging the end user? Just pass the cost to the advertisers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it... I never believed that Google 's ad model worked , but their stock price says differently .
So the ad model works for Google and all other news providers online... but not for the nyt or wsj ?
What is the obsession in charging the end user ?
Just pass the cost to the advertisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it... I never believed that Google's ad model worked, but their stock price says differently.
So the ad model works for Google and all other news providers online... but not for the nyt or wsj?
What is the obsession in charging the end user?
Just pass the cost to the advertisers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803876</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1263743640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Every small town has a newspaper."</p><p>Apparently the little small town papers are doing just as well as they ever have.  Nobody ever subscribed to them for anything but local news, and local news is what they cover.</p><p>Agreed some of the biggies will die off though.  They do have competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every small town has a newspaper .
" Apparently the little small town papers are doing just as well as they ever have .
Nobody ever subscribed to them for anything but local news , and local news is what they cover.Agreed some of the biggies will die off though .
They do have competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every small town has a newspaper.
"Apparently the little small town papers are doing just as well as they ever have.
Nobody ever subscribed to them for anything but local news, and local news is what they cover.Agreed some of the biggies will die off though.
They do have competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802538</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>jayemcee</author>
	<datestamp>1263732000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being that their actual newstand price is $2.00 up here one county north of the Bronx, I'm sure I'll get used to life without it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being that their actual newstand price is $ 2.00 up here one county north of the Bronx , I 'm sure I 'll get used to life without it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being that their actual newstand price is $2.00 up here one county north of the Bronx, I'm sure I'll get used to life without it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802500</id>
	<title>existential question</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1263731700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would pay money to read Tom Freidman, the Mustache of Understanding?</p><p>Tell you what, though, I get the Sunday NYT delivered to my door every week.  I almost quit when they stopped having a separate Books section, but I knew I'd miss the puzzles too much.</p><p>Anyway, how else would I get my subliminal liberal marching orders from Comrade Soros?  I tried watching Fox News for a while but found myself gaining weight and wanting to do oxycontin.  When I asked my wife to wear hairspray and librarian glasses and say "you betcha!" during sex, I knew I had to do something about it.  Fortunately, there are liberal re-education camps called "libraries" where you can learn to break the Fox News habit.</p><p>After I stopped watching Fox News I lost the weight, and my wife was willing to sleep with me again, but hell, I still want to do me some of that hillbilly heroin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would pay money to read Tom Freidman , the Mustache of Understanding ? Tell you what , though , I get the Sunday NYT delivered to my door every week .
I almost quit when they stopped having a separate Books section , but I knew I 'd miss the puzzles too much.Anyway , how else would I get my subliminal liberal marching orders from Comrade Soros ?
I tried watching Fox News for a while but found myself gaining weight and wanting to do oxycontin .
When I asked my wife to wear hairspray and librarian glasses and say " you betcha !
" during sex , I knew I had to do something about it .
Fortunately , there are liberal re-education camps called " libraries " where you can learn to break the Fox News habit.After I stopped watching Fox News I lost the weight , and my wife was willing to sleep with me again , but hell , I still want to do me some of that hillbilly heroin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would pay money to read Tom Freidman, the Mustache of Understanding?Tell you what, though, I get the Sunday NYT delivered to my door every week.
I almost quit when they stopped having a separate Books section, but I knew I'd miss the puzzles too much.Anyway, how else would I get my subliminal liberal marching orders from Comrade Soros?
I tried watching Fox News for a while but found myself gaining weight and wanting to do oxycontin.
When I asked my wife to wear hairspray and librarian glasses and say "you betcha!
" during sex, I knew I had to do something about it.
Fortunately, there are liberal re-education camps called "libraries" where you can learn to break the Fox News habit.After I stopped watching Fox News I lost the weight, and my wife was willing to sleep with me again, but hell, I still want to do me some of that hillbilly heroin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803816</id>
	<title>Re:The Times has its reasons for doing this...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263743160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june09/reporting\_04-20.html" title="pbs.org">DEBORAH NELSON</a> [pbs.org]: It takes time. It takes resources. It doesn't necessarily take a lot of money, but it does take time.</p><p>You know, I've done investigative projects with six-figure budgets. I've also done them when the travel budget was a, you know, roll of subway tokens. It doesn't take a lot of money, but it does take a commitment to letting reporters spend the time it takes to ferret out facts.</p></div></blockquote><p>Investigative reporting will change, but it will not go away. Stop being so melodramatic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DEBORAH NELSON [ pbs.org ] : It takes time .
It takes resources .
It does n't necessarily take a lot of money , but it does take time.You know , I 've done investigative projects with six-figure budgets .
I 've also done them when the travel budget was a , you know , roll of subway tokens .
It does n't take a lot of money , but it does take a commitment to letting reporters spend the time it takes to ferret out facts.Investigative reporting will change , but it will not go away .
Stop being so melodramatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> DEBORAH NELSON [pbs.org]: It takes time.
It takes resources.
It doesn't necessarily take a lot of money, but it does take time.You know, I've done investigative projects with six-figure budgets.
I've also done them when the travel budget was a, you know, roll of subway tokens.
It doesn't take a lot of money, but it does take a commitment to letting reporters spend the time it takes to ferret out facts.Investigative reporting will change, but it will not go away.
Stop being so melodramatic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803852</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>UnderCoverPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1263743460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every small town has a newspaper.  Most larger ones have several.... In reality, rather than thousands, we really only need a few dozen traditional news sites.  I don't care how much they fight it out and die until we whittle down to an appropriate amount.</p></div><p>I wish my small town had one. We used to. Now we don't even rate a paragraph in the nearby big city's paper/news site - unless there's a big, ugly crime or really salacious scandal.</p><p>Except for bad news, there's almost no local news. (Yes, there's still the events calendar, but listings in that are paid for.)</p><p>We are getting too little news from far too few sources. Sadly, too few peope seem to care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every small town has a newspaper .
Most larger ones have several.... In reality , rather than thousands , we really only need a few dozen traditional news sites .
I do n't care how much they fight it out and die until we whittle down to an appropriate amount.I wish my small town had one .
We used to .
Now we do n't even rate a paragraph in the nearby big city 's paper/news site - unless there 's a big , ugly crime or really salacious scandal.Except for bad news , there 's almost no local news .
( Yes , there 's still the events calendar , but listings in that are paid for .
) We are getting too little news from far too few sources .
Sadly , too few peope seem to care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every small town has a newspaper.
Most larger ones have several.... In reality, rather than thousands, we really only need a few dozen traditional news sites.
I don't care how much they fight it out and die until we whittle down to an appropriate amount.I wish my small town had one.
We used to.
Now we don't even rate a paragraph in the nearby big city's paper/news site - unless there's a big, ugly crime or really salacious scandal.Except for bad news, there's almost no local news.
(Yes, there's still the events calendar, but listings in that are paid for.
)We are getting too little news from far too few sources.
Sadly, too few peope seem to care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804046</id>
	<title>They're not cutting useless "fat cat execs'" pay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263745440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above: It's one of the BIGGEST PROBLEMS there is worldwide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above : It 's one of the BIGGEST PROBLEMS there is worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above: It's one of the BIGGEST PROBLEMS there is worldwide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30808818</id>
	<title>Re:Redux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263835200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Burma Shave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Burma Shave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burma Shave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803216</id>
	<title>Never going to pay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263737640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I'm never going to pay for news.  I find the fact that newspapers sell advertising all over the paper, toss in a few articles, AND then charge me for the paper to be especially distasteful.  I can't remember the last time I've bought a newspaper, and don't subscribe because it's all ads...  I want news - not ads.</p><p>As for the online - you have LESS costs than with the paper route.  No transportation, no printing, no union machinists, etc...  You can have a smaller building, or hell - NO building - let your reporters work from their own houses (or *gasp* on the street where the stories are).</p><p>So you need LESS money to operate - just figure out how to do it.  Yes, you'll make less money.  Oh well.  At least you're still doing it.  And you can have special issues or stories that are sponsored by XYZ company and make some additional revenue that way.</p><p>But me pay for news? Nope.  Sorry, never gonna happen.  Someone, somewhere is going to reprint it - and everyone else will get for free what us few suckers paid for.  I refuse to be a sucker.</p><p>If that mans the NYT goes under - then good riddance.  They've been a PITA ever since trying to enforce that asinine sign up to see the story scheme....  Haven't read their tripe since the inception of that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I 'm never going to pay for news .
I find the fact that newspapers sell advertising all over the paper , toss in a few articles , AND then charge me for the paper to be especially distasteful .
I ca n't remember the last time I 've bought a newspaper , and do n't subscribe because it 's all ads... I want news - not ads.As for the online - you have LESS costs than with the paper route .
No transportation , no printing , no union machinists , etc... You can have a smaller building , or hell - NO building - let your reporters work from their own houses ( or * gasp * on the street where the stories are ) .So you need LESS money to operate - just figure out how to do it .
Yes , you 'll make less money .
Oh well .
At least you 're still doing it .
And you can have special issues or stories that are sponsored by XYZ company and make some additional revenue that way.But me pay for news ?
Nope. Sorry , never gon na happen .
Someone , somewhere is going to reprint it - and everyone else will get for free what us few suckers paid for .
I refuse to be a sucker.If that mans the NYT goes under - then good riddance .
They 've been a PITA ever since trying to enforce that asinine sign up to see the story scheme.... Have n't read their tripe since the inception of that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I'm never going to pay for news.
I find the fact that newspapers sell advertising all over the paper, toss in a few articles, AND then charge me for the paper to be especially distasteful.
I can't remember the last time I've bought a newspaper, and don't subscribe because it's all ads...  I want news - not ads.As for the online - you have LESS costs than with the paper route.
No transportation, no printing, no union machinists, etc...  You can have a smaller building, or hell - NO building - let your reporters work from their own houses (or *gasp* on the street where the stories are).So you need LESS money to operate - just figure out how to do it.
Yes, you'll make less money.
Oh well.
At least you're still doing it.
And you can have special issues or stories that are sponsored by XYZ company and make some additional revenue that way.But me pay for news?
Nope.  Sorry, never gonna happen.
Someone, somewhere is going to reprint it - and everyone else will get for free what us few suckers paid for.
I refuse to be a sucker.If that mans the NYT goes under - then good riddance.
They've been a PITA ever since trying to enforce that asinine sign up to see the story scheme....  Haven't read their tripe since the inception of that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802438</id>
	<title>It's only the Americans who worry ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263731280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about the death of MSMs.</p><p>The rest of the world has been taking its news from blogs and SIGs for years now.</p><p>Is it because the Americans believe their newspapers are somehow part of their constitution? I have some news for them - written constitutions don't last more than a few hundred years before society changes so much it makes them irrelevant...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about the death of MSMs.The rest of the world has been taking its news from blogs and SIGs for years now.Is it because the Americans believe their newspapers are somehow part of their constitution ?
I have some news for them - written constitutions do n't last more than a few hundred years before society changes so much it makes them irrelevant.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about the death of MSMs.The rest of the world has been taking its news from blogs and SIGs for years now.Is it because the Americans believe their newspapers are somehow part of their constitution?
I have some news for them - written constitutions don't last more than a few hundred years before society changes so much it makes them irrelevant...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803356</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1263738960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... sort of like how you buy a bundle of "premium" channels from the cable company....</p><p>Oh I hope that they never implement your suggestion. I have quit our cable provider, because they charge a flat rate for a bundle of hundreds of channels which I never watch. They refused to sell only the half dozen or so I would watch for a reasonable price. Now you want to extend that same crummy business model to the Internet.</p><p>(...Right now, ISPs are competing on raw pipe....)</p><p>That is the way it should be. That's how the telephone works. The telephone company doesn't charge extra for me to talk to people who don't have some sort of a special deal with my telephone company. ISPs should not have the remotest connection with the content that travels over their wires. They should be a common carrier, just like the phone company. Long before the Internet, there was only one phone company in a given locality. I just cannot understand why the Internet should be treated any differently. Just as phone companies are regulated as common carriers, so it should be with ISPs.<br>Large content providers need fat pipes to the Internet. They pay for these to the carriers, the folks who own the wires. Why should the people that own the wires make more or less money, depending on what the bits represent that travel over their wires? In my estimation, bits are bits are bits are bits are bits and there is no way to tell one bit from another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... sort of like how you buy a bundle of " premium " channels from the cable company....Oh I hope that they never implement your suggestion .
I have quit our cable provider , because they charge a flat rate for a bundle of hundreds of channels which I never watch .
They refused to sell only the half dozen or so I would watch for a reasonable price .
Now you want to extend that same crummy business model to the Internet .
( ...Right now , ISPs are competing on raw pipe.... ) That is the way it should be .
That 's how the telephone works .
The telephone company does n't charge extra for me to talk to people who do n't have some sort of a special deal with my telephone company .
ISPs should not have the remotest connection with the content that travels over their wires .
They should be a common carrier , just like the phone company .
Long before the Internet , there was only one phone company in a given locality .
I just can not understand why the Internet should be treated any differently .
Just as phone companies are regulated as common carriers , so it should be with ISPs.Large content providers need fat pipes to the Internet .
They pay for these to the carriers , the folks who own the wires .
Why should the people that own the wires make more or less money , depending on what the bits represent that travel over their wires ?
In my estimation , bits are bits are bits are bits are bits and there is no way to tell one bit from another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... sort of like how you buy a bundle of "premium" channels from the cable company....Oh I hope that they never implement your suggestion.
I have quit our cable provider, because they charge a flat rate for a bundle of hundreds of channels which I never watch.
They refused to sell only the half dozen or so I would watch for a reasonable price.
Now you want to extend that same crummy business model to the Internet.
(...Right now, ISPs are competing on raw pipe....)That is the way it should be.
That's how the telephone works.
The telephone company doesn't charge extra for me to talk to people who don't have some sort of a special deal with my telephone company.
ISPs should not have the remotest connection with the content that travels over their wires.
They should be a common carrier, just like the phone company.
Long before the Internet, there was only one phone company in a given locality.
I just cannot understand why the Internet should be treated any differently.
Just as phone companies are regulated as common carriers, so it should be with ISPs.Large content providers need fat pipes to the Internet.
They pay for these to the carriers, the folks who own the wires.
Why should the people that own the wires make more or less money, depending on what the bits represent that travel over their wires?
In my estimation, bits are bits are bits are bits are bits and there is no way to tell one bit from another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804162</id>
	<title>Re:What are they doing to cut costs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263746460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because companies like the NYT rely on getting top-notch staff.</p><p>It's very hard to convince staff to work in the boondocks, and the money you save in rent may well  be negated by the cost of the enlarged salaries you have to offer people.</p><p>This happened to the OECD's statistics office in London. They moved to Cardiff to save money, and promptly lost most of their best staff to other agencies. No one wants to live in Cardiff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because companies like the NYT rely on getting top-notch staff.It 's very hard to convince staff to work in the boondocks , and the money you save in rent may well be negated by the cost of the enlarged salaries you have to offer people.This happened to the OECD 's statistics office in London .
They moved to Cardiff to save money , and promptly lost most of their best staff to other agencies .
No one wants to live in Cardiff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because companies like the NYT rely on getting top-notch staff.It's very hard to convince staff to work in the boondocks, and the money you save in rent may well  be negated by the cost of the enlarged salaries you have to offer people.This happened to the OECD's statistics office in London.
They moved to Cardiff to save money, and promptly lost most of their best staff to other agencies.
No one wants to live in Cardiff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802428</id>
	<title>Re:I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>lfd</author>
	<datestamp>1263731220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I also enjoy reading the NYT from time to time. But I left the US 6 years ago and I'm not gonna sign up for a paid up subscription. The occasional curiosity about what's going on in Jersey does not justify a business case.</p><p>I guess I'll have to revert to more open options like the Star-Ledger. Is USA Today still free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I also enjoy reading the NYT from time to time .
But I left the US 6 years ago and I 'm not gon na sign up for a paid up subscription .
The occasional curiosity about what 's going on in Jersey does not justify a business case.I guess I 'll have to revert to more open options like the Star-Ledger .
Is USA Today still free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I also enjoy reading the NYT from time to time.
But I left the US 6 years ago and I'm not gonna sign up for a paid up subscription.
The occasional curiosity about what's going on in Jersey does not justify a business case.I guess I'll have to revert to more open options like the Star-Ledger.
Is USA Today still free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802464</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1263731460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Very few media sources I've found actually provide a significantly better service than many other sources, so it simply doesn't make sense for me as a consumer to pay for product I can get for free.</p></div><p>Since the majority of what these sites offer are opinion pieces I have to agree with you. For me to pay to read such material it would have to have a constant and significant quality, and if I could find that from a particular writer I wouldn't mind paying that person directly to read only their material (on a blog or personal site or whatever). One could argue for paying for news but if I was going to subscribe to a site delivering news it would have to be purely that; new events of significance (and not what so and so celebrity did over the weekend), reported matter of factly and as objectively as possible. <br> <br>
The product these sites are trying to sell us is quite frankly, in my opinion, of little value (taken as a whole) with only a few articles of interest now and again. Maybe they'll be able to carve out their niche over time, but I seriously doubt anything near "20 million unique readers" will bother paying for this type of thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very few media sources I 've found actually provide a significantly better service than many other sources , so it simply does n't make sense for me as a consumer to pay for product I can get for free.Since the majority of what these sites offer are opinion pieces I have to agree with you .
For me to pay to read such material it would have to have a constant and significant quality , and if I could find that from a particular writer I would n't mind paying that person directly to read only their material ( on a blog or personal site or whatever ) .
One could argue for paying for news but if I was going to subscribe to a site delivering news it would have to be purely that ; new events of significance ( and not what so and so celebrity did over the weekend ) , reported matter of factly and as objectively as possible .
The product these sites are trying to sell us is quite frankly , in my opinion , of little value ( taken as a whole ) with only a few articles of interest now and again .
Maybe they 'll be able to carve out their niche over time , but I seriously doubt anything near " 20 million unique readers " will bother paying for this type of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very few media sources I've found actually provide a significantly better service than many other sources, so it simply doesn't make sense for me as a consumer to pay for product I can get for free.Since the majority of what these sites offer are opinion pieces I have to agree with you.
For me to pay to read such material it would have to have a constant and significant quality, and if I could find that from a particular writer I wouldn't mind paying that person directly to read only their material (on a blog or personal site or whatever).
One could argue for paying for news but if I was going to subscribe to a site delivering news it would have to be purely that; new events of significance (and not what so and so celebrity did over the weekend), reported matter of factly and as objectively as possible.
The product these sites are trying to sell us is quite frankly, in my opinion, of little value (taken as a whole) with only a few articles of interest now and again.
Maybe they'll be able to carve out their niche over time, but I seriously doubt anything near "20 million unique readers" will bother paying for this type of thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218</id>
	<title>I'll probably sign up for this</title>
	<author>Brietech</author>
	<datestamp>1263729780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It obviously depends how much they try to charge, but I'll probably sign up for this. I really like reading the NYT (I actually live in NYC) - they provide an incredibly valuable service, which at the moment they basically give away. Realistically, though, I don't really buy the things they advertise. Half the time when I'm reading their site, it's on a computer with adblock installed so I don't even *see* the ads they have up. I was all about the "everything should be free" movement when I was a student, but now that I have a job, I don't mind compensating people for their work. Especially if the alternative is a world where the only 'news' comes from crappy bloggers that can't spell or do legitimate research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It obviously depends how much they try to charge , but I 'll probably sign up for this .
I really like reading the NYT ( I actually live in NYC ) - they provide an incredibly valuable service , which at the moment they basically give away .
Realistically , though , I do n't really buy the things they advertise .
Half the time when I 'm reading their site , it 's on a computer with adblock installed so I do n't even * see * the ads they have up .
I was all about the " everything should be free " movement when I was a student , but now that I have a job , I do n't mind compensating people for their work .
Especially if the alternative is a world where the only 'news ' comes from crappy bloggers that ca n't spell or do legitimate research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It obviously depends how much they try to charge, but I'll probably sign up for this.
I really like reading the NYT (I actually live in NYC) - they provide an incredibly valuable service, which at the moment they basically give away.
Realistically, though, I don't really buy the things they advertise.
Half the time when I'm reading their site, it's on a computer with adblock installed so I don't even *see* the ads they have up.
I was all about the "everything should be free" movement when I was a student, but now that I have a job, I don't mind compensating people for their work.
Especially if the alternative is a world where the only 'news' comes from crappy bloggers that can't spell or do legitimate research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802878</id>
	<title>Let Them Try</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1263734700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Newspapers are losing money.  They're trying to figure out how to get "this Internet thing" to work for them.  I know a lot of you have ideas and think that they're good but, to be honest, I doubt most of us here knows the intricacies of newspapers.  It's their trade and their business.  Let them try and figure it out how to make it work.  That's what capitalism is all about after all.  Good ideas live and bad ideas die off.  Their current business model is apparently not working.  Something has to change.  If it works, then good for them.  If you don't like it, don't pay for it.  Not everything that has a price is bad.  Until they go around suing people for inflated sums of money, I have no objections to what they're doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers are losing money .
They 're trying to figure out how to get " this Internet thing " to work for them .
I know a lot of you have ideas and think that they 're good but , to be honest , I doubt most of us here knows the intricacies of newspapers .
It 's their trade and their business .
Let them try and figure it out how to make it work .
That 's what capitalism is all about after all .
Good ideas live and bad ideas die off .
Their current business model is apparently not working .
Something has to change .
If it works , then good for them .
If you do n't like it , do n't pay for it .
Not everything that has a price is bad .
Until they go around suing people for inflated sums of money , I have no objections to what they 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers are losing money.
They're trying to figure out how to get "this Internet thing" to work for them.
I know a lot of you have ideas and think that they're good but, to be honest, I doubt most of us here knows the intricacies of newspapers.
It's their trade and their business.
Let them try and figure it out how to make it work.
That's what capitalism is all about after all.
Good ideas live and bad ideas die off.
Their current business model is apparently not working.
Something has to change.
If it works, then good for them.
If you don't like it, don't pay for it.
Not everything that has a price is bad.
Until they go around suing people for inflated sums of money, I have no objections to what they're doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802546</id>
	<title>A-list columnists like ... Thomas Friedman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263732180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Friedman is famous for his terrible writing style (see "Flathead": <a href="http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html" title="nypress.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html</a> [nypress.com]).

He does not make any sense. In his book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" he presents Toyota as an example of the efficiency of the free market. Nevermind that Toyota got massive subsidies from the Japanese Government for decades, which makes it an excellent example of the protectionist infant industry argument (as Ha-Joon Chang points out in his book "Bad Samaritans").

He also was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. This guy's perception of reality is so wrong that you can basically count on the opposite of his predictions to happen.

Hmm. On second thought, that makes him really valuable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Friedman is famous for his terrible writing style ( see " Flathead " : http : //www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html [ nypress.com ] ) .
He does not make any sense .
In his book " The Lexus and the Olive Tree " he presents Toyota as an example of the efficiency of the free market .
Nevermind that Toyota got massive subsidies from the Japanese Government for decades , which makes it an excellent example of the protectionist infant industry argument ( as Ha-Joon Chang points out in his book " Bad Samaritans " ) .
He also was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq .
This guy 's perception of reality is so wrong that you can basically count on the opposite of his predictions to happen .
Hmm. On second thought , that makes him really valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friedman is famous for his terrible writing style (see "Flathead": http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html [nypress.com]).
He does not make any sense.
In his book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" he presents Toyota as an example of the efficiency of the free market.
Nevermind that Toyota got massive subsidies from the Japanese Government for decades, which makes it an excellent example of the protectionist infant industry argument (as Ha-Joon Chang points out in his book "Bad Samaritans").
He also was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq.
This guy's perception of reality is so wrong that you can basically count on the opposite of his predictions to happen.
Hmm. On second thought, that makes him really valuable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30814898</id>
	<title>Re:How to do this right?</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1263822780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to exchange ESPN 1-666 for a few newspaper subscriptions.</p><p>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to exchange ESPN 1-666 for a few newspaper subscriptions.-l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to exchange ESPN 1-666 for a few newspaper subscriptions.-l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803860</id>
	<title>Re:What are they doing to cut costs?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1263743460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, small detail: a good chunk of their content is <i>about</i> New York.</p><p>Also, their main claim to be a GNOR is their coverage of things like business, finance, and the arts. NYC is a center of such things. That's how they <i>became</i> a GNOR in the first place.  Hard to cover these things from Kentucky.</p><p>There are indeed a lot of businesses that spend too much money on Manhattan offices just for the prestige of being there. This is not one of them.</p><p>Also, cost-cutting has not worked out for most newspapers. They lose people, they content declines, they lose subscribers, so their income drops even more... It's a death spiral. I've already posted an <a href="/comments.pl?sid=1513954&amp;cid=30802830" title="slashdot.org">interesting quote</a> [slashdot.org] on the topic from the publisher of the Dallas Morning News.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , small detail : a good chunk of their content is about New York.Also , their main claim to be a GNOR is their coverage of things like business , finance , and the arts .
NYC is a center of such things .
That 's how they became a GNOR in the first place .
Hard to cover these things from Kentucky.There are indeed a lot of businesses that spend too much money on Manhattan offices just for the prestige of being there .
This is not one of them.Also , cost-cutting has not worked out for most newspapers .
They lose people , they content declines , they lose subscribers , so their income drops even more... It 's a death spiral .
I 've already posted an interesting quote [ slashdot.org ] on the topic from the publisher of the Dallas Morning News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, small detail: a good chunk of their content is about New York.Also, their main claim to be a GNOR is their coverage of things like business, finance, and the arts.
NYC is a center of such things.
That's how they became a GNOR in the first place.
Hard to cover these things from Kentucky.There are indeed a lot of businesses that spend too much money on Manhattan offices just for the prestige of being there.
This is not one of them.Also, cost-cutting has not worked out for most newspapers.
They lose people, they content declines, they lose subscribers, so their income drops even more... It's a death spiral.
I've already posted an interesting quote [slashdot.org] on the topic from the publisher of the Dallas Morning News.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263731820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not going to kill journalism - it's just going to thin it out.  Advertising revenue is perfectly viable to support news sites out there - it's just not enough to support the current number of them.  Every small town has a newspaper.  Most larger ones have several.  Every large-ish city typically has 4-5 television stations that also have their own news departments that do journalism.</p><p>Go to Google's news aggragator.  Every article they have has typically a few thousand versions of the same article at different sites.  In reality, rather than thousands, we really only need a few dozen traditional news sites.  I don't care how much they fight it out and die until we whittle down to an appropriate amount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not going to kill journalism - it 's just going to thin it out .
Advertising revenue is perfectly viable to support news sites out there - it 's just not enough to support the current number of them .
Every small town has a newspaper .
Most larger ones have several .
Every large-ish city typically has 4-5 television stations that also have their own news departments that do journalism.Go to Google 's news aggragator .
Every article they have has typically a few thousand versions of the same article at different sites .
In reality , rather than thousands , we really only need a few dozen traditional news sites .
I do n't care how much they fight it out and die until we whittle down to an appropriate amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not going to kill journalism - it's just going to thin it out.
Advertising revenue is perfectly viable to support news sites out there - it's just not enough to support the current number of them.
Every small town has a newspaper.
Most larger ones have several.
Every large-ish city typically has 4-5 television stations that also have their own news departments that do journalism.Go to Google's news aggragator.
Every article they have has typically a few thousand versions of the same article at different sites.
In reality, rather than thousands, we really only need a few dozen traditional news sites.
I don't care how much they fight it out and die until we whittle down to an appropriate amount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806758</id>
	<title>Re:Oh well</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1263822180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't stream Videos from the BBC outside of Britannia. But maybe that will change as bandwidth improves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't stream Videos from the BBC outside of Britannia .
But maybe that will change as bandwidth improves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't stream Videos from the BBC outside of Britannia.
But maybe that will change as bandwidth improves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803470</id>
	<title>Re:What are they doing to cut costs?</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1263739920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure doing business in NYC ain't cheap - do they really need an entire building in midtown Manhattan?</p></div><p>The <i>New York Times</i> management has made mistakes, but they aren't complete dummies. They don't actually have <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/09/new-york-times-publisher-headquarters" title="guardian.co.uk">an entire building</a> [guardian.co.uk] in midtown Manhattan anymore. But as far as being a "global newspaper of record," being based in what some have called the "capital city of the world" isn't a bad idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure doing business in NYC ai n't cheap - do they really need an entire building in midtown Manhattan ? The New York Times management has made mistakes , but they are n't complete dummies .
They do n't actually have an entire building [ guardian.co.uk ] in midtown Manhattan anymore .
But as far as being a " global newspaper of record , " being based in what some have called the " capital city of the world " is n't a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure doing business in NYC ain't cheap - do they really need an entire building in midtown Manhattan?The New York Times management has made mistakes, but they aren't complete dummies.
They don't actually have an entire building [guardian.co.uk] in midtown Manhattan anymore.
But as far as being a "global newspaper of record," being based in what some have called the "capital city of the world" isn't a bad idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30808658</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT UP - NOT TROLL...</title>
	<author>Vidar Leathershod</author>
	<datestamp>1263834360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He obviously isn't saying that every thing they print is untrue.  He's correctly pointing out that the NY Times editorializes on every page, and prints ridiculously biased stories that push their political agenda.  Those who agree with that political agenda think that the paper is the penultimate in journalism, since it's an echo chamber for their worldview.  In fact, having done so many times, I can spot someone of the liberal persuasion by their fastidious reading of the Times.  Talking with them for 10 minutes will confirm it.</p><p>There are those who read the occasional story, and that gives no guidance.  But those who are always toting a copy or have the site as their home page are 99\% liberal.</p><p>Disclaimer: I get most of my news from BBC, though they are heavily biased as well.  Knowing the bias helps to nullify it, I just get more info more quickly from BBC News.  However, what they *choose* to report on creates a bias that is not so easily nullified.  Take for example the lack of balanced coverage on CRU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He obviously is n't saying that every thing they print is untrue .
He 's correctly pointing out that the NY Times editorializes on every page , and prints ridiculously biased stories that push their political agenda .
Those who agree with that political agenda think that the paper is the penultimate in journalism , since it 's an echo chamber for their worldview .
In fact , having done so many times , I can spot someone of the liberal persuasion by their fastidious reading of the Times .
Talking with them for 10 minutes will confirm it.There are those who read the occasional story , and that gives no guidance .
But those who are always toting a copy or have the site as their home page are 99 \ % liberal.Disclaimer : I get most of my news from BBC , though they are heavily biased as well .
Knowing the bias helps to nullify it , I just get more info more quickly from BBC News .
However , what they * choose * to report on creates a bias that is not so easily nullified .
Take for example the lack of balanced coverage on CRU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He obviously isn't saying that every thing they print is untrue.
He's correctly pointing out that the NY Times editorializes on every page, and prints ridiculously biased stories that push their political agenda.
Those who agree with that political agenda think that the paper is the penultimate in journalism, since it's an echo chamber for their worldview.
In fact, having done so many times, I can spot someone of the liberal persuasion by their fastidious reading of the Times.
Talking with them for 10 minutes will confirm it.There are those who read the occasional story, and that gives no guidance.
But those who are always toting a copy or have the site as their home page are 99\% liberal.Disclaimer: I get most of my news from BBC, though they are heavily biased as well.
Knowing the bias helps to nullify it, I just get more info more quickly from BBC News.
However, what they *choose* to report on creates a bias that is not so easily nullified.
Take for example the lack of balanced coverage on CRU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30814898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30807136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30814776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30808658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30808818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_2249220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30808818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30814776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30814898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30807136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30805280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802522
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802784
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30806478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803954
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809528
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802788
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30809356
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803436
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803320
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804044
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804694
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803208
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803798
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803908
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30808658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_2249220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30802554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30804402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_2249220.30803546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
