Tom Friedman: Moron

I mean, like we didn’t know this, but it turns out he’s not just a moron about the things he writes about, he’s amoron about the medium which publishes his work:

Friedman is now “pro some kind of pay model,” he says. “My own feeling
is, we have to do anything we can to raise money,” he told me. “At some
point we gotta charge for our product.”

Dipshit, you ALREADY charge for your product. You charge for it and make a shit ton of money from it. You charge the readers of your PAPER, which apparently no one cares about anymore even though it makes the company millions, and you charge the advertisers on your web site, and the advertisers in your paper, and all of that makes you a fuckton of money.FUCK. TON. But it’s not enough, or as much as it used to be, so suddenly it’s necessary to kill what little goodwill you have left by making people go dig through their bags and pull out their wallets and type in a credit card number every third Monday to read your nonsense? Seriously?

It is too early in the morning (and it’s after 10 a.m., but I’m saying) for this much stupidity.

Via Balloon Juice, which, this SO MUCH:

Such are the harsh judgements that must be made when a Very Serious Person’sfamily fortunes are cruelly reduced from a decently prosperous $3-billion-plus to a mere handful of millions.

I mean, honestly.

Schmuck.

A.

5 thoughts on “Tom Friedman: Moron

  1. whet moser says:

    As suggested in Balloon Juice comments, perhaps micropayments and having to enter your credit card would be a small price to pay for reducing the influence of Brooks, Friedman, and Dowd.

  2. pansypoo says:

    so the shit gnews will starve finally?

  3. leinie says:

    I read this on Balloon Juice this morning, and thought “A is gonna have something to say about this.”
    The stupid, it burns.

  4. …this is the tragic result of Friedman getting all of his ideas from Armenian taxi cab drivers…

  5. RAM says:

    I keep reading that newspapers need to charge for their on-line content. And I keep wondering why. Because newspapers have, at least in the weekly world, NEVER charged for their content. Subscription and per-copy prices reflect the cost of paper, production (running the press–and fixing it when it breaks on deadline day–making plates, buying ink, paying the ladies in the stuffing line), and distribution either via the USPS or carriers. Ads pay for salaries and overhead. In fact (and it’s been a while since I cared enough to pay attention) USPS rules used to mandate that second class postage depended in part on a publication’s subscription price reflecting AT LEAST the cost of production.
    So if an electronic publication has no press, no stuffing ladies, no plate burners, no ink, no carriers or heartburn dealing with clueless postmasters, why should readers be charged MORE for content than readers of the dead tree edition?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: