Sample of N.Y. Times new policy: to read you have to pay

NY Times' New 'Pay' Service Today: Reader Reaction awaited
'NY Times' Introduces New 'Pay' Service Today: Reader Reaction Awaited
By Greg Mitchell
Published: September 18, 2005
Editors and Publishers

NEW YORKThe New York Times unveiled its great pay experiment Sunday night, when it unveiled TimesSelect and started putting its popular opinion and sports columnists behind the firewall. A bright orange "T" in Times logo style now marks the pay material on the paper's site.

No doubt thousands have already visited the newspaper's site and clicked on, for example, the link to the new Paul Krugman column, to find just the title, "Tragedy in Black and White," and one sentence from his column, then the following: "To continue reading this article, you must be a subscriber to TimesSelect."

Click on the Times Select button and you find that if you subscribe to the paper, or to its International Herald Tribune (three times a week or more) then you can still get Krugman and the other columnists online for free. Otherwise, you have to pay $7.95 a month.

But to break you in easily -- the paper is offering a 14-day free trial.

The question, of course, remains: how quickly, and how many, other Web editors and bloggers will copy the columns in question and put them up on their own sites, daring the Times to sue them. One of the first to put up most of Krugman's column was The Democrat Daily blog.

The second Op-Ed columnist behind the firewall for Monday is Bob Herbert. His column is titled "Good Grief" and the one sentence gift is: "The country has put its faith in President Bush many times before, and come up empty."

The Times also made pay today an analysis of the North Korea nuclear news by Roger Cohen. It announced the big changeover today in print, with an 8-page supplement to the newspaper.

Others joining Krugman and Herbert in the pay-for-play zone are sports columnists Dave Anderson (writing about the football Jets' need for a new stadium) and William Rhoden, who contributes not one but two columns (on the trauma of the Yankees possibly not making the playoffs this year and a rocky road ahead for the Jets on the field).

Your correspondent, who is a home subscriber to the Times, was confounded by the new pay program at first on Sunday night. After seemingly enrolling, and receiving confirmation, the new columns remained thoroughly out of reach for a couple hours, before finally appearing. Then I found that Krugman compared black and white reactions to the New Orleans disaster, wondered how long it would have taken for help to reach Palm Beach, and concluded at the end: "I'd like to believe that Katrina will change everything - that we'll all now realize how important it is to have a government committed to helping those in need, whatever the color of their skin. But I wouldn't bet on it."

Reading the entire Herbert column, I understood the "Good Grief" headline, since the first sentence harkens back to the "Peanuts" comic strip: "The president is Lucy, and he's holding a football. We're Charlie Brown."

Other TimesSelect pay features for Monday include a special editorial, a slide show -- and video interviews with Krugman and Herbert.

TimesSelect subscribers also get 100 free articles from Times archives, special e-mail alerts and extra material from some of the paper's top columnists and writers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Mitchell ([email protected]) is editor of E&P.

Links referenced within this article

The Democrat Daily
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/
[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001138808

Pfooey.

Osso


I suggest that all of us that are Phooey readers e-mail the New York Times to inform them that all us out-of- New-York readers think their new policy sucks. If they want New York-New Jersey residents to have to subscribe, fine. But to required people in other states to subscribe is dumb---unless the Times is in such bad financial shape that it has to take such action.

I just sent the following e-mail to the Times:

The Time's decision to institute it's Times Select Program is short-sighted and offensive. This is the worst possible time (war and national disaster) to reduce the amount of information available to citizens. The wisdom of your op-ed columnists should be more broadly available, not less.

I'm offended because as a resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico, your advertising is of no use to me. Your local stories have little meaning to me. What I do value is national and international information that is lacking is smaller newspapers around the country.

If you want to require New York-New Jersey residents to subscribe, fine. The Times is more relevent to their local needs. But readers from other states should not be required to subscribe to read your op-ed columnists.

(BumbleBeeBoogie)
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Quite a few sites have gone this route - I've noticed a real increase in the last 6 - 12 months.

I have paid, up until recently, to have select articles sent to me. Think it has been 29.95 a year. My year must have been up and I didn't get or didn't see a notice to re-up, and didn't notice for a while. Anyway, with that feature I had chosen certain words, and articles with those words were sent to me - italy (surprise!!) and landscape. So, to me, this is just an extension of that to some columnists' writing. It hits me in the pocketbook, though, and I'll have to forego the pleasure.

The side effect is that only the well funded among the population of the US and the rest of the world can benefit from the columns, which sets in place a kind of attrition in the function of the columns. To me that is their loss and 'they'll pay for what they get' in the diminution of the breadth of national (etc.) conversation inspired by those columns.

Osso


Please e-mail the Times with your objections.

BBB

Well, I pay for some newspaper's services already since more than 18 months or so (British papers).

Besides that, I pay US$9.95 for 31 newspapers per month (out of 255 worldwide) via PressDisplay.

I think, it really is okay to pay for 'special' parts of media online.

Walter


A lot of people can't afford the luxury of subscriptions. I'm thinking of students who would benefit from free access to the op-ed columns.

Well, university libraries (here) have free access to various daily international and national papers ... for their students and from university ground, however.

Walter


True, Walter, but what about other low income people?

BBB

NY Times letter to editor guidelines
Thank you for your letter to The New York Times.

If your letter is selected for publication, we will contact you before printing it. We regret that because of the volume of letters received, we are not able to respond to all submissions, other than by this automated reply.

Here are some guidelines:

Letters should be no longer than 150 words and may be shortened to fit allotted space. They must be exclusive to The Times (no prior submission to, or publication in, any other medium, including the Web). They should refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days.

To be considered for publication, letters must include the writer's name, address, current location and daytime and evening phone numbers at your current location (for verification, not for publication). If you submit your contact information as a result of this automated reply, please re-send the letter with it.

For computer security reasons, we do NOT accept attachments; please resubmit your letter pasted into the body of an e-mail message.

If you send us more than one message in any seven-day period, you will receive only one automated reply.

Letters submitted for publication in other sections may be sent directly to these addresses:

[email protected] (Arts & Leisure)
[email protected] (Sunday Book Review)
[email protected] (Connecticut weekly)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (The City, Westchester and Long Island weeklies)
[email protected]
[email protected] (SportsSunday)
[email protected]
[email protected]

For a complete list of departmental e-mail addresses, please write to [email protected].

Sincerely,
The New York Times

Re: Walter

A Top Liberal Blogger Rips 'NY Times' Pay Plan as 'Stupid'
A Top Liberal Blogger Rips 'NY Times' Pay Plan as 'Stupid'
By Editors & Publishers Staff
Published: September 23, 2005 3:30 PM ET
NEW YORK

It will be interesting to see how this winds up, but many popular bloggers have declared that the new New York Times online policy -- which puts its influential columnists behind the "paid" wall -- offers a major boost for the blogosphere, and the loss of real online clout for the Times.

Jay Rosen at his Pressthink blog made this point, and others, Thursday, arguing that with a thousand flowers of opinion blooming on the Web every day, who needs the tired views of the Times' veterans?

Today, Mark Karlin, who runs Buzzflash.com, said, "It is rather noteworthy that the New York Times chose to force readers to pay to read their columnists, many of whom remain the sole progressive voices in the establishment newspaper of the status quo. It certainly appears a curious choice, considering that Judith Miller's erroneous stories would still be free, were she free to be an administration conduit once again."

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the top liberal political blog Daily Kos, wrote the following, in response to the new TimesSelect policy:

***

Every columnist's goal is to influence public opinion. That's why they put up with the abuse that every single column generates. Because they hope their voice has an effect in the public debate.

And there are a million voices out there, all clamoring for a piece of the "influence" factor, especially now with the advent of the weblog. Opinion is a commodity, with more to be found than could ever be processed by anyone.

In addition, publications (and broadcasters) seek to aggregate those influential voices into a greater whole -- an institution that can shape and move public opinion. With mass influence comes prestige, power, and all manners of perks.

The Wall Street Journal is not stupid. They're smart. They've put their news content behind a pay wall and have done quite well revenue-wise for their troubles. BUT, they also want to influence public opinion. And being a key component of the Right Wing Noise Machine, the WSJ editorial board has made sure their opinion material is accessible to everyone. Heck, they have a guy emailing their content to bloggers. They even have a separate site for it: OpinionJournal.com.

You want your dose of Peggy Noonan (must ... supress ... gag reflex), or John Fund, or James Taranto? You've got them. No pesky paywall between their opinion content and the people they hope to influence.

The New York Times, on the other hand, is the textbook definition of stupid. They take the one part of the paper that is a commodity -- the opinion -- and try to charge for that. No Krugman? Who cares. Give me Brad DeLong. No Bob Herbert? Whatever. Give me James Wolcott or anyone at the American Prospect or Washington Monthly. Or any of the thousands of columnists at other newspapers, and the tens of thousands of political bloggers.

In this world, no one is special, no one is irreplaceable. In the old world of syndicated columnists, that might bruise some egos. Especially in the rarified air of the NY Times (they think their **** don't stink). But the world has changed. And for the better.

Suddenly, overnight, Brooks and Friendman and Krugman and Herbert have been ripped out of the national debate. Whatever void that might have created has already been filled by the multitudes of voices in the sphere.

So the Wall Street Journal works hard to be a top influencer in the national debate. And the New York Times works hard to become a provincial paper.

Wish granted.

E&P Staff ([email protected])

Links referenced within this article

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001180204

Yeah. I said that in less words.

Osso


Yeah, but you don't get paid by the word for your opinion. Neither do I---except my dogs love me for my efforts.

BBB

With their pay-to-view policy, I'd say the New York Times is guilty of the very same thing they are accusing the United States of doing.

Readers Comment On NYT's Op-Ed Policy
Bush Watch Letters: Headlines Page Readers Comment On NYT's Op-Ed Policy
9/26/05

Pedro: Could you identify the NY Times links? They require subscription and it is a waste of band width to hit the link button.

Politex: Only selected op-eds need a subscription, and they're identified as "[TS]".

Mark: The "[TS]" designation in The NYT means "Tough S*&%," right?

Kent: I think you should seriously consider dropping the NY Times from the newspapers you cover, along with a clear statement in each issue you post as to why that paper is not being covered. Other major papers continue to be part of the public record, while the NY Times has opted for commercializing their commentators, joining the ranks of the Wall Street Journal and a few other right-wing rags in trying to squeeze dollars out of the internet.

Politex: Actually, the Wall Street Journal has commercialized its news, but posts its conservative op-eds free at http://www.opinionjournal.com/. To my knowledge, the only other mainstream newspaper that commercializes its op-eds but not its news is the progressive UK Independent. Bush Watch has no plans to delete news and analysis by either The Independent or The NYT.

Alan: The NY Times charging for [op-eds] may be a signal that this golden age of easily reading [internet] newspapers from around the world will eventually come to an end.

Perhaps the columnists get some of the money?

I thought of that today, Noddy. Doesn't the Times pay them enough already?

I'll miss Bob Hebert but if I've got to pay now to read his column, **** him.