Walls of Mass Destruction

Although we can easily afford the cost of Times Select, I refuse to pay it.

We pay a monthly bill to subscribe to the paper version of the NY Times.

And in that paper version of the paper this morning, I read Maureen Dowd's op-ed on the Judy Miller fiasco, entitled Women of Mass Destruction (here's a link to a free version of the piece).

I want to blog it, as Jeff did today.

But I need to get to the piece in order to blog it.

And I can't get there unless I pay more money.

This is nonsense.

We know that online content should be free and ad supported.

We need look no farther than the success of the online media giants, of which the New York Times is a member of, to understand how profitable free web-based media is.

And yet the Times is keeping its most interesting content, the stuff that always made it to the top 10 emailed stories list, behind a damned wall.

It's bad for its customers, its bad for its business, and its bad for the open discourse that the web has created in our society.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I say "Mr. Sulzberger, tear down this wall"

Comments

[Ben Casnocha]

Hey Fred - if you don't want to access it on principle, fine, but all print subscribers get free access to TimesSelect.

[RonG]

Not timely enough for your purposes, but there's also: http://www.johntabin.com/neverpayretail

[steve]

the nytimes may or may not be foolish with their new policy re: times select, but whether "free" content is preferable is a matter of personal preference and circumstance -- and of practical realities. the only ad model that is working on the web is pay per click -- read yahoo's results and you'll see everything else they are doing is small and growing slowly if at all. the nytimes already inserts google pay-per-click ads all over the place and they perhaps have realized what common sense dictates -- that while search is an extremely effective way to insert and successfully sell pay-per-click ads (after all, search users are by definition wanting to be told how to go elsewhere) virtually all other forms of content are hard or impossible to support using that pay-per click model.

case in point: this blog. highly targeted content for a highly desirable demographic, professionally produced and maintained with good traffic. but google's vaunted ad sense barely pays for the coffee and broadband connection.

so its likely the nytimes is just the tip of the spear -- as content owners realize that pay-per-click is not a cure-all web media business model, and (deja vu all over again) "eyeballs" and "page views" do not automatically equal success and (deja vu all over again all over again) people may just have to pay for certain content if they want that content provider to survive.

also, i cant help but wonder -- do you pilfer books from a bookstore? will you if google scans every book ever published? do you think printed content should be free? if not, why should that same content be free just because the delivery medium is different? ditto music, ditto whatever.

finally, call me a cynic but i continue to be amazed at how the burning issues of web 2.0 feel like warmed over leftovers from web 1.0

[Toby]

I agree, walled gardens suck. The analogous example in the music world would be Rhapsody. I mean really, who wants to sign up and pay for Rhapsody just to see someone's playlists?

[Peter]

Fred:

I am confused...if you subscribe to the NY Times (paper); isn't the Times Select FREE?

Free for Home Delivery Subscribers
As a home delivery subscriber, you
may upgrade to TimesSelect free.

[wma]

So as I trekked through the Blogosphere following your trail of links and tags from the headwaters of your entry, I find myself via Jay Rosen's column from NYU winding up at the October 16th NY Times Article by Judith Miller " My Four Hours of Testimony" on line.

The Third Libby Conversation

Miller then continues: "My third interview with Mr. Libby occurred on July 12, two days before Robert D. Novak's column identified Ms. Plame for the first time as a C.I.A. operative. I believe I spoke to Mr. Libby by telephone from my home in Sag Harbor, N.Y."

"My notes of this phone call show that Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report on his mission to Niger. He said it was unclear whether Mr. Wilson had spoken with any Niger officials who had dealt with Iraq's trade representatives."

Now as I am readin this a CNN International report catches my attention. Am I hearing some tragic news about the royal matriarch as well as something about a plane crash with senior officials on it in Niger this morning? Am I watching too many old Mel Gibson conspiracy flicks? Or were the formative years of my youth spent recovering from too much "reading between the lines" by my political sciene professors during the Post Gordon Liddy era?

"With the understanding that I would attribute the information to an administration official, Mr. Libby also sought to explain why Mr. Bush included the disputed uranium allegation in his 2003 State of the Union address, a sentence of 16 words that his administration would later retract. Mr. Libby described it as the product of a simple miscommunication between the White House and the C.I.A."

And then I realize I must tame my very over active imagination. There obviously must have been a simple miscommunication between the Nigerian pilot and his instruments on take off..

[TB]

I guess this is not widely known, but a way around Times Select is http://truthout.org/ -- don't know if they do this with permission from the Times, but they post the op-ed pieces to this site on the same day the stories are published.
I go straight to this site on wednesdays, saturdays and sundays for both Dowd and Frank Rich.

[jackson]

I'm not convinced the Times is obligated to do anything other that what they are doing - making money.