Gothamist: Good Bye, NY Times Stock Listings

Brightliner

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:31:13 -0500

Stock listings. How primitive. In this fast moving market, yesterday's closing prices just don't cut it. When it's so easy to get nearly realtime listings with a wealth of historical pricing and current news, nobody should have to wade through pages of small type just for outdated prices. "Non-Internet savvy?" Just how hard is it to go to Yahoo?

Toby

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:32:58 -0500

If it is old newspapers you desire, the Brooklyn Public Library has The Brooklyn Daily Eagle from October 26, 1841 to December 31, 1902 online. So their coverage of "The Mistake of '98" I mean unification is there too.

mrf

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:27:31 -0500

How about old features from the paper that we'd like to see come back...I was looking at a copy of a paper from around 1900 at the library, and they printed a list of passenger ships scheduled to arrive in NYC each day. It made me nostalgic for something I never experienced.

tien

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:02:19 -0500

here is one of those ads in the stock listings.

Neal

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:47:13 -0500

Err, don't the NYT folks remember that the vast majority of the audience for stock listings are older and non-internet savvy? Either they really dropped the ball on this one or the NYT's financial woes are making them cut down on pages.. Either way.. pssh.

ironyalert

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:44:48 -0500

But Style, Travel, Dining sections, etc. are what make the Times so ironic. In the first two sections they tell you how horrible the world is. Then they tell you how to soothe your mind with expensive food, trips, and spa treatments. Oh, I left out real estate. People wouldn't buy $300 per person dinners without massive income inequality.

D

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:00:09 -0500

Now, if they'd only get rid of that other useless section, Thursday Styles.

Toby

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:56:14 -0500

The Times has been declining in quality over the past couple of years. Reading The Metro Section seems to give me a feeling of deja-vu because I can swear I read the same story the previous day in Daily News. That said, the "delisting" of the stock tables shouldn't be a shock, as there have been all sorts of technical innovations that make them a curious anachronism. However, I think that this move will piss a lot of people off.

peter

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:37:03 -0500

It's about time. WSJ should do the same in my opinion. I can only imagine how many trees go into printing the dated/useless quotes these days. Anyone owning stocks these days who can't find some electronic way to access quotes (worst case: library) should feel ashamed for the environmental damage alone.

Dan

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:18:24 -0500

I wrote a column back in 1997 that predicted the end of stock tables by 2000. Oops. I was off by a few years. At the time, some people were of the opinion that the reason stock tables would linger was to maintain a location for related advertising. Guess that logic no longer holds. This is one of those small events that will push a few more Luddites online in the morning.

Keith Baran

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:08:12 -0500

No more stock pages - that sucks. Also, does anyone know if the CBS insider trading story is true. link

Chris

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:04:41 -0500

This will cause a rebellion, I believe. Have you ever been on MetroNorth and seen how many of the commuters are checking their stocks each morning? (Still, this is better than the paper cutting more people, I guess.)