Summer Vacay

These past few months have been one of the most exciting times for Ed. He's loved sharing his industry thoughts with you and hopes you gained some valuable insights about all the recent media news. In fact, as a result of writing this blog, Ed sometimes goes off on tangents about the industry during lunch breaks and happy hours. (His coworkers and friends have learned to tolerate the outbursts).

But Ed likes to share the spotlight, so he's taking the summer off to give you a whole new batch of voices to follow. Stay tuned until June 21 to hear how Ed's chosen whippersnappers will pursue their dream job while getting coffee and making copies in the newest edition of The Intern Diaries.

And if you enjoyed the blog and think you have what it takes to discuss media news, email Ed at yelena@ed2010.com.

Bye for now,
Ed

Would you pay for the news?

Anyone who reads the New York Times on their iPhones or hears the latest news on Twitter has been spoiled — no one has to pay for the news anymore (if you know how to get it for free).

And according to a new survey released by the Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism's 2010, they don't plan on it. 82 percent of people with brand favorites said they'd find the news elsewhere if their usual sites start demanding payment. And to make matters worse, if readers are telling the truth, then online advertising is not the solution: 79% of users "rarely if ever clicked on an online ad."

Ed has to admit that he loves his NYT app and being able to read the latest headlines for free, but given that he's been paying anywhere from $10-$50 per year to subscribe to each of his favorite news magazines, paying a similar rate for the daily news doesn't seem so bad. On the other hand, aggregator sites like HuffPo or even link-heavy Gawker will definitely pay for the access and will reprint the main points for free.

What do you think, Edsters? How much (if anything at all) would you shell out to read the Times every day?