May 03, 2005

Lost in the Post

nypost.jpg

A lot of newspapers, including the New York Times, require their readers to register before being able to read their stories online. Add the New York Post to that list, but with a twist: if you don't go through the registration process, you can't access the content, but if you do try to go through the registration process, you still can't access the content! Genius! So far, there's no evidence that anybody has successfully managed to register.

The Blogs (Gawker, Gothamist, Curbed) are up in arms, of course, over this right royal cock-up, as various other Murdoch tabs might put it. My own favourite bit of the whole registration process is the above error screen, which helpfully tells you two things:

  • You have a login and password if you have signed up for home delivery of the Print Edition of the New York Post
  • If you subscribe to the print edition of the New York Post, you do NOT automatically have an online account.

Maybe an online account is not the same as a login and password? Maybe the Print Edition and the print edition are two different things? Only Post readers, presumably, are smart enough to understand...

Posted by Felix at 01:27 PM GMT
Comments
#1

this is excellent news! lets hope no one can access their drivel, and that their printing facilities explode into a million fiery bits on the same coincidental day that Rupert Murdoch is visiting the press.

Posted by: sucker on May 3, 2005 03:03 PM
#2

Ha. Brilliant. I didn't think there was a way for the Post's Web site to be worse, but they found it.

Posted by: Toby on May 3, 2005 07:12 PM
#3

I reluctantly tried to sign up last night because I needed some quick info. Only after jumping through hoops did I learn it was all for naught.

Never again!

Posted by: J.D. Davis on May 4, 2005 06:38 PM
#4

I too registered and now I cannot log-in.
Lachlen, I hope some heads will roll, because
the Daily News for sure will take you guys to task
for this screw up.

Posted by: 010101 on May 4, 2005 10:02 PM
#5

I often disagree with the editorial and op-ed content of the Post, and I too was mildly annoyed with the registration to nowhere, but I'm regularly amazed at the hatred of the paper and its owner. That one large circulation paper out of several dozen should have the temerity to expound a Rightist point of view is not only to be expected, it's downright refreshing. Hatred is an awful emotion - whether of a person or a newspaper - and I would hope that it would have no place in your discourse.

Posted by: Elliott Adler on May 4, 2005 10:46 PM
#6

oh please mr. adler, give it a rest. folks don't dislike the post for its political perspective but for its commitment to distortion, disinformation and trivialization. rule of thumb: do you rely on the paper as a genuine source of news and analysis? didn't think so.

Posted by: dmachine on May 4, 2005 11:07 PM
#7

Aww, Elliott, c'mere, you need a hug.

Posted by: Jame on May 5, 2005 01:35 AM
#8

Elliott, the Post is the best bad paper in the world.
It revels in its awfulness. Who else would employ a drunken creep like Dunleavy, who defends the rights of the mob to kill people, a shrill harridan like Peyser? You read it for the gossips and the complete and total rottenness of the paper. It's the funniest thing on the web.

Posted by: jeff on May 5, 2005 01:17 PM
#9

Ok. I didn't expect much sympathy being a dopey Post reader. I read the Times for 30+ years (and we take the WSJ and the Times too - my wife likes it better) but gave up that nasty habit about three years ago. Actually, I really do read the Post for the op-eds and editorials (once in a while). I couldn't care less about the headlines or the first 20 or so pages - I can pick this up on any news wire. I like Peter Brookes, Amir Taheri, Eric Fettmann and Arnold Ahlert among others. I don't always agree with them but I like the change of pace that Bob McManus offers and I don't miss the party line of the Times at all. If you want a good laugh, check out Sarah Lyall's piece in today's Times, "British Newspapers Choose Sides and Square Off". Pay particular attention to the first several paragraphs wherein she accuses the British press of slanting the news coverage in a way that only the Times itself could hope to achieve.

Cheers,

Elliott

P.S. Thanks for the hug.

Posted by: Elliott Adler on May 5, 2005 02:52 PM
#10

If I am not mistaken posting #9 is from my brother Elliott. I'll have to ask him. I still read the NY Times but the Post Op-Ed pieces are often more interesting and more entertaining than those in the NY Times.

Posted by: Jeff Adler on September 8, 2005 01:38 AM