So to read more, I have to pay more—or Google for another source. Seems like a bad idea overall. Guess they didn’t learn from “Times Plus” or whatever that was.

A facebook friend is all up in arms about this. He’s liberal politically, but also the very anti-NYC sort who gets a little too gleeful at any NYC misfortune. You know the type, “there’s culture in smaller cities too. NYC thinks it has it all. Bunch of trust fund kids.”

I dislike any judgments made on scant knowledge. Yeah, I rail on Cleveland--but I’ve lived there.

Anyway, back to the Times. This is sad news. I’m guessing, knowing the few tidbits I do know about the inner workings from a friend who works as a writer there, that it wasn’t a conclusion at which they arrived happily. They’re kind of up a tree as to how to manage costs. They made a few bad choices: they probably shouldn’t have built the glamour building they put up a few years back, for one. Maybe debacles like the Jayson Blair incident cost them. And their commercials, their pretentious and mockable commercials!

I honestly hope they can withstand the heat (though I’m growing concerned). I think they are a better, more interesting, more thorough read than the Washington Post or the Chicago Tribune. I think the Sunday Magazine beats the other Sunday Magazines hands down.