|
The New York Times |  | Publisher: The New York Times Company
Category: Digital Text Feeds
Buy New: $13.99
as of 11/27/2009 12:23 CST details
New (194) from $13.99
Seller: Amazon.com
Rating:  160 reviews
Sales Rank: 51
Format: Newspaper Subscription
Media: Kindle Edition
Subscription Length: 0 Months
ASIN: B000GFK7L6
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The New York Times is dedicated to providing news coverage of exceptional depth and breadth, as well as opinion that is thoughtful and stimulating. Widely quoted, and often hotly debated, The New York Times is held by its readers to the highest of standards and continues to be regarded by many as the nation's pre-eminent newspaper. The New York Times has earned an unprecedented 94 Pulitzer Prizes, far more than any other newspaper. A global news staff covers a wide range of interests: from world, national and New York issues to business, culture, science, religion, travel, style, food, sports, health and home. In addition to outside contributors, the editorials page features The New York Times' own team of award-winning columnists: David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Thomas L. Friedman, Bob Herbert, Nicholas D. Kristof, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and John Tierney. The Kindle Edition of The New York Times contains articles found in the print edition, but will not include some images and tables. Also, some features such as the crossword puzzle, box scores and classifieds are not currently available. For your convenience, issues are automatically delivered wirelessly to your Kindle at 5:00 AM on the weekdays and 5:30 AM on weekends New York City local time.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 160
Love the Kindle and love the format - the content is weak November 26, 2009
bookscdsdvdsandcoolstuff (USA)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
After having a discussion with someone at work about the state of journalism in the United States, I signed up for the 14 day free trial of the New York Times on the Kindle. The person made me feel a little guilty for not supporting good journalism with my dollars.
I am in my thirties, and have long since given up the notion that I need to subscribe to the actually physical paper. Most of these articles are available online for free, and the 24 hour cable news networks run "print" versions of news stories on line. The AP and Reuters have all their articles on-line as well, and with news aggregators and direct visits I have all this information directly at my fingertips. I have often read stories days before my mom has in the local in the paper. "That's old news isn't it?" is something I am tempted to ask when she brings up news stories to me.
But the argument that the Times runs in-depth stories that others can't, and that they are superbly well written, and that we will lose something if people don't support these papers made some sense. I signed up.
First, I think if the news"paper" has a future, it is in this format on e-book readers wirelessly delivered. More and more people are adopting electronic ink. The Kindle sells well. Sales of Sony readers have picked up since the Kindle was released. Barnes and Noble has introduced its reader. The market is growing. We will see books survive forever. They will always be important, just like records or CDs. But, just like MP3s, ebooks will account for a larger and larger portion of the market in the coming years.
And the format for the Kindle newspaper is pretty darn good. It took a little while to get used to how to browse the paper effectively (clicking the number next to the name of the section instead of the section itself to see the headlines. Reading the headlines first, then going back and reading the articles etc. etc.). It was a little distracting at first not having all this navigation in the "menu" and instead having it at the bottom of the Kindle screen, but I got used to it very quickly. I can make annotations in the text just like an ebook, and I can clip articles or save copies of the paper I want to save.
After I got used to the formatting and navigation, I really enjoyed this. It was just like the "paper" without the 600 year old technology of paper with ink printed on it. Clean, no recycling, adjustable font size, ease of navigation, the ENTIRE paper (you just need to learn how to use the navigation tools to read the articles in their entirety). It is a really good product in this sense.
However, I still find myself questioning the economic future of the newspaper, and I am not at all convinced that if the NYT closes up shop it will be that big a loss in the long run.
The paper is still a day behind my internet news reading. I find the articles I like best in the Times have "Associated Press" in the byline. These articles are usually available the day before online for free.
The editorial stance of the NYT is truly pathetic. I am a Christian, and I find the Times outrageously biased on matters religion, politics, and culture. I would be fine if this stance just informed their editorial page, but it seems to inform the ENTIRE paper. Its not just how the news stories they bother with are covered, its the stories they chose to ignore. The ACORN scandal is a prime example. In an unbiased media this would have been a HUGE story and gumshoe reporters would be tracking it down aggressively. Today, these papers seem like shills for certain ideological positions. It reminds me of the yellow press, but less entertaining and influential. Maureen Dowd's anti-Catholic ramblings, choosing to ignore major news stories (consider the HUGE email scandal regarding the premier research organization on global warming's attempts to cover up evidence that was contrary to man-caused climate change). The list of abuses goes on and on. The NYT is a shell of its former self.
The arts section is a JOKE. For every good article on classical music, jazz, visual art, or dance there are two falsely elevating pop-music and popular movies to the level of fine art deserving of serious criticism.
After reading the entire paper for several days I do not find myself edified; in fact I feel a bit masochistic. I have forced myself, because I was challenged by a liberal coworker, to read a paper that is increasingly poorly written, poorly edited, and culturally and politically irrelevant.
And the market data show that most Americans agree with me. These old newspapers are loosing subscribers at an alarming rate. New subscriptions are not coming in. Add revenues are down. Subscription revenues are down. The Washington Post just closed more offices. They are all struggling to stay afloat, and the federal government under our current socialistic president has even said it is "open" to bailing out the newspapers! (If the thought of Big Brother Obama taking over the nation's news media doesn't frighten you, nothing will!)
IF the newspapers are to survive and become relevant, this reader thinks several things will need to occur:
1) The price will have to drop on the e-readers. Adds should be included in the Kindle version if necessary to do this, and the subscription price should be dropped to around 6 dollars a month. I cannot justify spending more for this content and will not allow the subscription to continue past the 14 day free trial.
2) Newspapers are going to have to get some quality. Ideological diversity MUST be introduced into the editorial pages. Newspapers should consider stopping the age old practice of endorsing candidates for office. Instead, reporters should try and cultivate a more adversarial relationship with elected officials of both parties. Consider the free pass the NYT gave to Bush on the war in Iraq. It was a pathetic lap-dog like performance. Consider the free pass the press is now giving Obama on health care, global warming, and his Afghanistan dithering. The US press is VERY compliant and pliable in comparison to the British press for instance, which is FAR more healthy.
3) The topic of the British press is important to bring up. Because I get my news online I read daily in the Telegraph and the Sun. English reporters are more aggressive, less compliant, more prone to write critical stories. And, speaking as an outsider, they are MUCH more diverse in their ideological positions, even if they betray a certain anti-American and liberal bias at times. I enjoy the British papers FAR MORE than the American ones. They are more cheeky, and fun to read. Maybe the NYT and the grand old American papers need to drop their arrogance and learn from their more successful counterparts from across the pond.
Unless one is really committed to learning what the "NYT" has to say about current events, I wouldn't bother paying for this paper if I were you. I would instead learn to use the internet effectively, listen to NPR on your way to work to make sure you keep track of "respectable" news you can follow up on later on-line. You learn less from the paper than being an internet news-junkie. All you get is an ideological position, and it isn't even very well written anymore.
The newspaper may be dead. The Kindle and devices like it may be their only lifeline in the coming years, but even this lifeline will require the papers actually try to make themselves relevant to consumers.
But maybe, just maybe, the consumerist model of funding newspapers needs to go by the wayside. I read with interest The Free Press by Hillaire Belloc and it really influenced my thinking. It seems to me that a smaller free press, not beholden to advertising but instead dependent on its readers, with an open and clearly identifiable bias, may be better in the long run than these so-called "unbiased" newspapers. If a newspaper has a clear and identifiable bias (consider the "The Republican" or the " The Democrat" of previous generations) then intelligent readers can read through the bias more easily. Plus, one is likely to get tougher questions for candidates and public officials if papers with biases that are opposite of the candidates or officials thrive. Maybe it is time for the Times to adopt a not-for-profit model, but back a bit on size, and instead focus on quality. "All the news that's fit to print" doesn't make sense anymore. That is ALL online for free.
As an addenda I will say that I DO feel guilty about getting all my news for "free." Who will pay for excellent reporting?
Of course, there is a solution to this that the Kindle makes very easy.
One can subscribe directly to the AP and Reuters from one's Kindle. AP US News AP World and Reuters Top News I find the reporting in these sources much more fast, accurate, and less biased than the sort of drivel the Times often provides. AND, I can get both AP and Reuters wireless delivered to my Kindle. The cost? For the AP US feed and international feed and Reuters top news feed that is a total of 6 dollars a month! Think on it. That is HALF the cost of the times, for more stories (often the stories the times includes from the AP... the ones I enjoy most) and I am missing NOTHING. Plus, I do not have guilt from not supporting these news organizations financially, because I am. If I do this, and participate the NPR fund drive annually, I am doing my part to support journalism, and I can bypass the biased drivel of the old (and now increasingly decrepit) dailies!
I worry about the state of the printed word in the age of the internet. But this technology creates more opportunities that it takes away. We need to learn to embrace it, while finding ways to support good journalism.
Difficult to skim November 18, 2009
LS (Tennessee)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
After my two week trial, I have elected to cancel. For my purposes, the NYT.com/Today's Headlines email version is preferable to the Kindle version. It is icing on the cake that the former is free.
The Kindle version has the advantages of a physically more convenient format for reading, not requiring an active internet connection, and a larger selection of articles. Where it falls short for me is in what I will call skimability. The list of articles in each section is represented by a headline followed by a one line subhead which is usually truncated and not a complete sentence, let alone a cogent summary of the subject of the article. It is usually necessary to navigate to the article itself to determine if the subject is of interest.
The Today's Headlines product is sent as an email each day at 2 am. It is a very efficient format to scan for things of interest, more akin to how one interacts with a print version. Each major section heading is followed by 3 or 4 headlines. Each of these is accompanied by a one (complete) sentence description of the content of the article. It is a simple matter to follow the link in the email summary to the full text of the article in the online version. Admittedly, this is a more concise version with fewer articles than the Kindle version and requires an active internet connection. But, it is sufficient to the time I have available for reading it and I spend more time reading and less time searching.
This would seem to be a fixable problem. The Kindle version needs a full sentence summary of each article in the list of articles not a description which is automatically truncated by the system depending on the font size in use.
 Much Better Than Reviews Led Me to Expect November 13, 2009
Kathryn L. Evans (Caroga Lake, New York United States)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I almost did not purchase the NYTs because the reviews were so bad. In fact, at least the front page stories do include pictures and graphics. Also, until I read the New York Times on Kindle, I never realized to what extent the newspaper format slowed me down in reading the paper - all that starting an article on the front pages, than finding the section with the end of the article, getting distracted, looking back at the big page with endless gray columns, small print, and trying to find where you left off, juggling holding the bulky paper, turning pages, while sipping coffee...none of those problems are an issue when holding the ergonomically friendly, light-weight, little Kindle in your palm and changing page screens with your thumb. I find I manage to read so much more of the paper, so much faster. The master menu of NYT Sections, and the sub-menus of articles within each section, including the opening lines, allow me to find the articles I most want to read much faster than I used to, and also allow me to return to an article of special interest to me without tearing the paper apart to find it.
But I agree with the reviewer who suggested that for many people, the option of just buying the paper day by day, 75 cents for the daily paper, might work the best, at least until you find out how much you like it!
 NYT Auto delivery feature - Not as promised November 6, 2009
Tony N (Sao Paulo, Brazil)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
The Kindle's auto delivery feature for the New York Times does not live up to its description, at least not in Brazil. The Times does not arrive to my kindle overnight or in time for my morning coffee, as promised. Unless I decide to have my first coffee in between the hours of 10am and 11Am Sao Paulo time.
Ureliable November 5, 2009
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Even with a full battery there are days when the NYT does not arrive at my Kindle. Yet I am still being charged on my credit card the full amount of the subscription.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 160
|
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.
| |
