Times Select
Among other items I would have blogged about this week, if my stream of patter hadn’t been interrupted with technical problems, was the introduction of the New York Times “Times Select.” Otherwise known as yet another attempt by newspapers to start charging for what they have been giving us for free for nearly ten years.
I was slightly annoyed on Wednesday to discover that I could not read Maureen Dowd’s weekly column; nor was Frank Rich’s Sunday column available. I stewed about it for the better part of the day.
No doubt these newspapers have regretted ever making their news available for free on-line, and editors have been looking for ways to renege on the unspoken agreement between consumer and publisher that whatever is available in print will be available for free on-line. I can understand that it costs money, lots of money in fact, to maintain a “free” on-line newspaper. However, as a consumer I always find it irksome to find I have to pay for something I am used to having for free. It’s almost like a bait and switch: the Times hooks you with their great opinion columns, then says, “Not so fast. You gotta pay us fifty bucks a year if you want to continue reading.”
But my point is, I see both sides.
I signed up for the fourteen day trial after much inner wrangling. I haven’t decided whether to let myself be billed for the year subscription. I can cancel anytime within the fourteen day period.
What do you folks think? Is it worth paying? Is there somewhere else I can find these columnists? Is anyone else signing up for this service?
Another worry is that all of the free, on-line news sources are anxiously watching the Times with little lines of drool dribbling down their chin. If the Times discovers that people will pay for this service, will the Washington Post and other newspapers follow suit? I don’t want to indirectly contribute to the consumerization of news and information on the Internet.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I would vote for a non payment. You are simply encouraging the times to deny information as you already imply. I’m not worried, really, about this though. If the NY Times falls behind, someone else will step in as the free news source–hopefully a more radical news source.
Comment by proservative — Friday, 23 September 2005 @ 9:23 am
I don’t know what’s the best response. My guess is that the NYTimes’ charging for access to the editorials will drive down their traffic considerably, and as aresult cut into the ad revenue they generate on their site. But I guess someone over there must have considered that and decided it was worth it.
I’m at least waiting to see if people don’t regularly reprint the editorials somewhere else. I will sorely miss reading Krugman and some of the others.
Comment by Scrivener — Friday, 23 September 2005 @ 2:32 pm
It’s an interesting, complicated debate, one that gets newspapers either all greedy or high and mighty. I could get all windy here….
I prefer the approach of being a tightwad and not paying. I doubt there’s anything that I wanted to read so badly that I would pay for it. At this time.
It’s hard to say where sites with a paper equivalent will eventually go.
There’s the argument that more people are choosing to get their stuff online, sounding the eventual deathknell of the print publication.
If that’s the case, journalists need to get paid somehow.
I’ve read about one scheme (no idea where) that suggests that people would pay tiny amounts for a single article.
There’s the thought of integrating, so if you have an online wallet, you would probably have access to everything. It’d be no more different than deciding whether you wanted to pay for coffee today, I suppose.
I think the more interesting thing to think about is that eventually, paper publications will die. We’ll all have the equivalents of electronic newspapers or something. And you’ll still have to pay somehow. If you don’t pay, you’ll pay through being subjected to advertising. When it comes to that, I’d rather pay.
But for now, embrace being a cheapskate. You have plenty of free options, even if they’re not the options you want.
Comment by Mel B. — Friday, 23 September 2005 @ 8:13 pm