September 25, 2005

Comparison Shopping

For $19.95, you can get a year of online access to The American Spectator.

For $21.95, you can get a year of National Review Digital.

For $29.95, you can get a year of The New Republic Digital.

For $29.97, you can get a year of The Nation in print and online access.

For $39.96, you can get a year of online access to The Weekly Standard.

Or, you could pay $49.95 for a year of TimesSelect. Is it any wonder that the Times isn't crowing about their sales of the new service?

Posted by John Tabin at September 25, 2005 01:55 PM

Fuck those pay per view sites....

go to

Hillary C.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at September 26, 2005 02:54 PM

All the sites you mention offer a relatively small number of columns, and very little in the way of diverse viewpoints. I'd have to subscribe to at least two of them to get anything remotely balanced.

The Times, while certainly biased in its own right, offers a lot of viewpoints. It offers much more content (after all, it's a daily, not a weekly or monthly). And it goes outside of politics, to the arts, entertainment, sports, etc.

There are some very smart people running the Times. They may be taking a risk, but clueless? Hardly.

Posted by: BobH at September 27, 2005 12:32 PM

I'm not at all sure that the Times op-ed page does offer much more per week than the weekly magazines; the Weekly Standard typically runs around 40 pages. And given that the Times has precisely zero op-ed columnist who opposes either gay marriage or abortion (both very common positions, even if I don't personally support either), I wouldn't crow about their diversity too much.

Posted by: John Tabin at September 27, 2005 04:24 PM