My only response to The New York Times announcement of erecting a pay wall is simply this: Mr. Sulzberger, tear down this wall!
But who am I kidding- I might as well be talking with the ceiling for all the good it would do.
$15 a month may not seem like very much to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times, or to Janet Robinson, president and CEO of the paper, or to its executive editor Bill Keller--but if other news organizations start shaking down consumers the way the Times plans to do beginning on March 28th-it won’t be long before readers will be forking over $50-$100 a month just to read news online.
That's simply obscene.
Maybe others have money to burn-but since I've been without a job for over two years- I don't.
But the good news is even without my loyal readership-the Times’ stands to profit handsomely from this new venture .
It will matter little to Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller that I’ve disabled the Times as my home page on my browser; or that I have no intention of coughing up $180 a year to them just to the read their newspaper-they will go on living their rich luxurious lives even without my loyal following, that began back in college when R.W. Apple grabbed my attention for his prodigious ability to explain complex dust-ups across the globe with such a clear eloquent writing style. I’ve been hooked ever since.
But all good things, as they say, must come to any end. The Times will likely succeed (and prosper) with this new pay wall undertaking-and their world will be better for it-with or without me.
So for the have- nots like myself, after having the door so rudely slammed in my face by The Times, my only recourse is find the Times’ stories from news aggregators and blogs; and after that fizzles out-start checking in more regularly with The Associated Press and The Washington Post , which lo and behold has redesigned their Web Site over the weekend.
And when I really need to search past Times’ stories, I always have the option of making use of my public library card, which allows me to remotely access The Times’ archives from 1851-2006 through the ProQuest Historical Newspapers Archive.
Maybe 10 to 15 years ago, when there was a limited pool of news resources available on the Web, The Times might have been able to extort $180 from me, but not in this age-when there are online news sites (free ones) popping up like toasters in every nook and cranny on the Web.
Granted, the quality of the Times speaks for itself-they consistently produce quality Pulitzer-Prize winning journalism that competitors, with much less budgets, find hard to match. But in the end, it is only news the Times is selling-it’s not Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, nor are they uncovering the Dead Sea scrolls or divulging Adam Smith’s economic theories. I might not get as much enjoyment or be equally as fulfilled reading a news story from CNN’s Web Site or Yahoo News, or from MSNBC-but I won’t be any less knowledgeable about politics in the Middle East or about President Obama’s domestic agenda after being locked out of The Times’ Web Site either. There is plenty of free content that will keep me informed on any current news item to my liking, from the effects of the tsunami in Japan, to the simmering NFL labor disputes.
I will, of course, plunk down money for books at Amazon and even from time to time buy history lectures through The Teaching Co., but those are more investments, simply because its content is more beneficial and enduring than just a daily spin on the news.
So my long run as a loyal Times’ reader has come to a screeching halt; but I would still like to acknowledge all those talented journalists that kept me coming back to the paper (either at the newsstand or on the Web) day after day, year after year, since sometime in the 1980’s. It’s with fond memories, then, that I would like to thank William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, Johnny Apple (God bless all of their souls), Anna Quindlen, George Vecsey, Bob Herbert, Tom Friedman, Bernard Holland, Ralph Blumenthal, Manohla Dargis , Lawrence Altman, Linda Greenhouse, Adam Nagourney, Sarah Lyall and John F. Burns.
Although I’m fuming with the way The Times’ is planning to shake down its readers with their new pay wall scheme, I do understand, just like Tony Soprano would have explained to me:’ Nothing personal, Bill, it’s just business.’’
I just hope in my journey in searching for a new home page, I will find a source that gives me at least half the enjoyment that the Times provided for so many memorable years.
(-30- )
-Bill Lucey
[email protected]
March 21, 2011
***
Alternative News Sites to Consider:
2.) Spiegel Online -(Tremendous for news analysis)
3.) The Guardian (Excellent for Breaking News)
4.) World News (a collection of international news from multiple sources)
5.) Newslink:
6.) BBC News
7.) Google News:
8.) Google’s Fast Flip:-Page One News broken down by most popular and most recent.
9.) An assortment of News Wires, Online Newspapers, Columnists and interesting websites as compiled by Lucianne
10.) Bloomberg News
>>>Maybe 10 to 15 years ago, when there was a limited pool of news resources available on the Web, The Times might have been able to extort $180 from me . . .
You don't need the Times - you need a dictionary to look up the meaning of 'extort.'
Posted by: Rob Levine | 03/21/2011 at 09:17 AM
The pleasure and information that I get from reading the Times is easily worth $15 a month. I can't say that about any other news source. If I'm a little short on cash, I can skip going to a movie which costs $12 where I live.
Posted by: Greg Popkowski | 03/21/2011 at 11:58 AM
How is this anything more than "I want the Times for free?" I mean, if you have some idea on how the NYT can cover its costs without charging people, have at it -- support your case. Otherwise this is just a rather clueless whine, and nothing more.
Posted by: Dan | 03/21/2011 at 01:49 PM
Extort? Shaking down? If I hadn't read your bio I'd assume you were ex-New York Post, given the hyperbole.
The Times has a product, a very good one, to sell. You, as a consumer, can choose to buy that product. Or not. That's our free-market system.
I've subscribed to print newspapers all my life, because I value what they have to offer and I believe in paying for things of value. If nobody pays, there won't be a NY Times or other newspapers, and you'll remain unemployed forever.
Sorry about your job situation, but this post is really an embarrassment.
Posted by: Bob Higgins | 03/21/2011 at 02:58 PM