It's the Media Buzz Meter with Howard Kurtz.

I'm kind of teed off at the New York Times.

I remember when the Times essentially abolished its sports section in favor of an outfit called The Athletic.

And I remember feeling bad for people who had a pretty good sports section, who worked hard over the years,

and suddenly either they lost their jobs, I don't know't know or got shuffled off to other parts of the paper

and i should have seen this coming i mean this is obviously the plan all along now you know i

pay for a times online subscription out of my pocket. And occasionally I'll see a support story,

you know, how many home runs does Aaron Judge have

or, you know, what record did Caitlin Clark break?

And I'll click on it, and I won't be able to get it.

And it says, you know, you have to subscribe to the athletic.

So if you want to pay an extra fee beyond, just to get basic sports stories,

beyond what you're paying for the times itself, you have to do that.

So I understand everybody wants to make money, but, you know,

often it's information that I can just get for free elsewhere.

I mean, the athletic does a good job.

I can tell from the few stories I've been able to look at.

And it's hard to figure that out.

That it's got a certain depth.

But now it's like, fine.

And then you get into the question of how many things do you subscribe to

and the way in which it adds up. All right. This just in, Vladimir Putin, I know you've been

...