How To Muzzle An Important Voice

Tom Friedman wrote an important opinion piece this morning.

I don't see it on Memeorandum.

I don't see it on Real Clear Politics.

I bet the reason is that sites that track the conversation don't link to posts behind a fucking wall.

Now you might say, well if you want to read that post, you can subscribe to Times Select.

But we all know that the "look to book" ratio on the web is in the single digits, often below 2%.

So maybe one in fifty who click on that link will actualy read the post.

The NY Times has put a muzzle on Tom Friedman.

Arianna Huffington has a louder voice than Tom Friedman and is probably making a lot more money too.

No offense Arianna (to steal a phrase from my daughter Emily), but you are not Tom Friedman.

I beg the Times to take down the wall for all of their columnists for the next month so that their columnists can take place in the critical debate our country is having about the direction it wants to go in.

Comments

[steve]

Fred, i am of mixed feelings about times select, but the rhetoric is a little too intense, no?

The NYtimes does not have a muzzle on Friedman. Friedman has a job at the NYTimes. He is an employee. They are an employer, and are free to set the rules and conditions of Friedman's employment, as long as they stay within the law. To my knowledge Times Select is within the law. Friedman is free to quit, if he objects to the conditions of his employment (or for any reason.) He is not doing so. So, in the end, are you advocating, well, what? Workers of the world unite? I know you hate Times Select, but to the point of being opposed to free enterprise? ;)

[Nick]

Fred, more importantly is the feeling about Friedman in the liberal blogosphere as one of the key enablers of the Iraq war. Sure, when Bush has been sitting in the 30's for months, Friedman has finally decided to come around -- but the immense damage is done, without anything hinting at a mea culpa from Friedman.

The select wall does play a roll, but the new emerging voices of the blogosphere play an equal role. Friedman is one of the "blessed" wise old men -- and the ultimate insider.

[Josh]

I agree with Steve. The Times cares more about whatever revenues they make off their Times Select than how valuable his voice is to the national debate.

If Friedman cared so much, let him start a free site...

[Andy Nardone]

Friedman's acquiescence to Times Select, for me, frankly calls his own judgement into question. It's the exact wrong way to go with content, and if he and the other columnists don't see that it speaks volumes. I've discounted his opinions ever since he jumped the wall.

Yeah, they're employees, getting a paycheck yada yada. Forget that, these are big enough names to have influence over the direction of their product.

I think Andy Kessler was right.

[michael]

I think Steve is being a bit idealistic with that perfect market drivel and although Nick's point muddy's the discussion I think Fred's on to something. My first (frustrated) impression of Times Select when it debuted was that it muzzled not only an individual, but the TImes itself. The Op/Ed's (Dowd, Rich) had a certain amount of momentum that TS deflated when the Times threw up the wall.

Friedman (or anyone else) leaving to start their own free site etc ignores the broader discussion of the media (in contrast to a widget maker) and the responsibility that comes with the mantle of the "paper of record" which the Times has shit all over in the past few years. I agree with a bottom line focus most of the time, but this is more complicated and Time Select was the fatal blow to the relevance of the Times and disheartening evidence of an old world news icon opting for control over an exciting, uncertain, evolving future.

[steve]

idealistic? if the Times told Friedman that, as condition of his emplyment, he had to, say, endorse, in his column, the same positions and candidates as the NYT editorial board, i daresay he would quit. so his remaining behind TimesSelect doesnt mean he likes the idea, just that he doesnt find it so troubling as to be worth leaving. maybe he will change his view

also, who said friedman would need to start a free site? all he would need to do is move to another publication or venur. i think ANY newspaper or magazine or Tv network or anyone would take him in a second. and he knows it. so one would infer that not only does friedman find Times Select not so horrible, he also thinks that, in spite of Times Select, the NYT is still the best platform for him to be associated with.

idealism? no, just common sense.

[michael]

You changed the subject to Friedman. Idealistic was in reference to your tidy recant of how the job market works in "free enterprise". In an ideal setting, I'm a libertarian, but we don't live in an ideal world. You sound either like an idealistic or a robotic free market cheerleader which misses the whole point. Again the the issue is Time Select, not Friedman's personal reaction to it. It's not whether NY Times has the right to throw up the TS wall (of course they do), it is whether or not it was the right move. The latter requires a look at the details, not a dismissive ode to the wisdom of free enterprise. I repeat (respectfully): that is idealistic.

My reference to a free site was in response to Josh's related comment, not a suggestion that was the alternative.

[AlFromChicago]

Fred --

You are right on here. As I wrote in a post here (http://www.participatemedia.com/?p=23), talking about Web 2.0 and what RealClearPolitics is about -- "I think what we’re seeing now is a slew of mainstream media organizations recognizing that a) people will surf to other sites whether you like it or not b) you have an opportunity as a brand to add more value to the experience if you can provide further filtering and help to these readers and c) if you don’t do it, your competitors will."

(side note -- somebody should allow you to edit a comment just like you edit a blog post)

News organizations are recognizing that there is tremendous value in linking to related stories around the internet to the story in question -- in other words, to stories that Editors feel are particularly relevant, even if they were not written by their own authors.

Not only is the Times *not* linking to stories outside of the the NYTimes (compare to FoxNews and Time.com, both of whom are linking to RealClearPolitics.com, as one example) -- which is really a bad decision in itself -- but they are driving their own Times Select writers into irrelevance.

As many people believe the NY Times editors are the best in the world, why wouldn't they showcase other sites, articles, etc. they deem worthy? And as many people believe NY Times writers are the best in the world, why not allow *other* editors/bloggers to showcase their work?

It's ironic because the NY Times Digital has been historically very innovative online -- even having a Most Blogged section -- yet they continue to cling to a web 1.0, vertically integrated model.

The world is moving away from them, as more and more people are looking for sites like RealClearPolitics.com and BuzzTracker.com to provide an "intelligent filter" of what is the best, on-topic articles out there. The Times has a lot to add, but needs to get to 2.0.

(Disclosure: I am Publisher of RealClearPolitics.com and BuzzTracker.com)

[Earl Voss]

I agree wholeheartedly, and on 2 fronts. First, Mr. Friedman is a WONDERFUL author who is an extremely well-informed Mid-East expert. I am currently reading his "From Beirut to Jerusalem" and I am convinced this book should be required reading in school.

On the second front, I don't much like the Time's subscription teasers. Just this morning I tried to investigate the cost for Times Select. I wasn't able to easily determine the fee, even after clicking on the "Try it Free" page. This policy is very much like the subscription snail-mailings I receive from the Times. Join for $2.50 a week for the first "X" weeks. It isn't easy to determine what the subscription reverts to once those "X" weeks have expired. Very poor customer relations.

[dave]

Steve is right; Friedman is an idiot. Why you pay attention to him, and why you spend time blogging about the stupidity that is the Times, God only knows.

[michael]

"Why you pay attention to him, and why you spend time blogging about the stupidity that is the Times, God only knows."

Because it should fucking matter you low expectation shits. Of course Friedman is a twit, and the Times a dangerous relic hopefully en route to an anachronism, but those op ed pages masqueraded (or were permitted to for a time) as the closest thing the mainstream might have had to a vanguard for a few fleeting moments (pre Select) in the plunge into fascism of the last few years and made some of us remember the myth we were taught that the press might function as one at its best.

"Fred, I am of mixed feelings about times select, but the rhetoric is a little too intense, no?"

Yeah...too intense for soulless idiots who delight in their own abundance while rubbernecking the US makeover on Pravda. Do those of you who are ok with Select in principal:

a) have any gauge of what the Times is alleged to mean in the remaining mythology of a "free press" and
b) actually read both what is and far more importantly what IS NOT printed in this newspaper day to day?

When Select was implemented, the Times' only remaining claim to any balls, or more damningly and accurately, a soul lay in the Op-Ed pages. I've combed it almost daily since reading not a single word of the paid content and not surprisingly I find it only appears to have a soul when compared to the likes of Murdoch's Fox. When silhouetted against the real world, it hawks the same over consumptive fantasy we all belittle in less articulate surroundings. I have more faith in a vain twit like Anderson Cooper in this whacked out land of make believe than the fucking NY Times. Is no one else disheartened that Stewart, Colbert and Maher speak more truth to power than every network and major daily combined?

As if I had not made it clear already, I see Fred’s muted outrage and raise him 10 fold. I realize I’m spewing venom, but in a week when a sex scandal is overshadowing the legislative time warp that just took our Divided States of Embarrassment back 900 years and the Times goes right along with it (search their pages for a real story on the matter…good luck) I am fucking outraged (again) and simply unable to invoke my normal numbness to the lies and omissions of our spineless press. If I were alive in the late 60’s I imagine I’d be out in the street somewhere. As it’s 2006 and marching in the streets means shit because the Times and its like don’t cover it (I’ve tried many times), I guess flaming some dudes on a blog is my little protest. That’s kinda Web 2.0 right? Let’s make that work....Cuz you know I think "the market" has left a gap or two.

Speaking of Fred, you hear Thom Yorke’s solo offering yet?

Atoms for Peace ….

No more talk about the old days
It's time for something great

I want you to get out
And make it work

So many lies
So many lies
So many lies
So feel the love come off of them
And take me in your arms

Peel all of your layers off
I want to eat your artichoke heart

No more leaky holes in your brain
And no false starts

I wanna get out
And make it work

So many lies
So many lies
So many lies
So feel the love come off of them
And take me in your arms

I wanna get out
And make it work

I want you to get out
And make it work

I'll be ok

So many lies
So many lies
So many lies
So feel the love come off of them
And take me in your arms

[curmudgeonly troll]

Mr. Sulzberger, tear down this wall!

Current management is the Gorbachev of the media.

Some people, it just makes your head hurt to try to think down to their level. If they don't already know, you can't tell'em.

[Nick]

OK, I'll return to the clear part of the discussion. For argument's sake, I'll substitute John Columnist for Tom Friedman.

When the TimesSelect decision was made last January, I posted a somewhat different take on this issue:

I don't see anything wrong with this action. The Times pays their columnists, and it's their decision to make. Whether this reduces their impact on the National stage or simply reduces annoying mass mailings to their columnists by those who would never subscribe anyway is yet to be seen.

The Times should listen to their subscribers above others. I imagine they get thousands of emails daily by those on the right who still actually belive the NYT is a "liberal" paper, but who would never subscribe or even read an article in the Times. I believe this avalanche of correspondence might perhaps be a catalyst to their rightward descent - after all, it is the squeaky wheel who gets the grease.

Now, if we look at the last nine months since this decision has been made, columnists like Friedman have seemed to return to a more realistic point of view.

Maybe the SelectWall was a bit extreme; perhaps a better ombudsman or editors with thicker skin could have prevented the Times rightward (Wrongward?) descent, but nonetheless, this action seems to be producing results.

[P-Air]

In some ways, this may be analogous to the Howard Stern situation. Don't know about you, but it's almost like he's dissappeared fm my life or even the pop news. Surely, he made a bundle, but in exchange, he's also outside of the mainstream's consciousness...unless you're one of those paying for radio.

[druce]

Times Select is history: NY Post.

Guess they thought they could afford it after shrinking the paper.