On 11/10/2013, at 2:45 AM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow at gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now, given low ad
> revenues, the only way the NY Times can pay its journalists, editors and so
> on is to get revenue from somewhere. We can have all the demands we want
> about how things should be restructured, but while the system is what it
> is, it is no more a matter of "principle" to insist that we won't touch
> information that is not "free" than it is a matter of "principle" to insist
> that we won't eat a hamburger if we have to pay for it.
That's the same as saying we should pay the ransom, or the kidnappers will murder the hostages.
What? You want me to buy a Murdoch newspaper, because otherwise Murdoch's journalist hostages will be thrown into the street to starve? (Except those who work for The Australian newspaper, which is a protected species in the Murdoch empire.)
The argument is preposterous.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas