TimesSelect is dead. Mickey Kaus explains why he’s glad (actually, he throws a bunch of gibberish on the screen, but you’ll get the idea), and Dan Gillmor explains why it’s smart.
I don’t blame publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. for trying to get readers to pay for content. Nevertheless, the number of potential readers who were shut out had to be enormous. As Web advertising continues to grow, it makes sense for the Times to return to the wide-open Net.
Indeed, Sulzberger and company’s decision to open some of the Times’ archives shows that they’ve decided to embrace the future and figure out later how to pay for it. This is the right thing to do, and I hope this proves to be a risk that pays off. If it does, it will change the entire business for the better.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike from Norwell
Glad to hear that the NYT came to their senses. Their columnists have been marginalized in much the same way of Howard Stern (hear much about him after the move to Sirius?).I’ve been a longtime online subscriber of the only newspaper that has a chance to charge for access (Wall Street Journal), but what they offer and the field that they delve in (finance) make them a completely different case. Witness how the Herald ended their charging for columnist access over a year ago?Not sure what the future holds for newspapers (it can’t be pretty w/ Craiglist et al gutting classifieds), but further marginalizing your newspaper probably isn’t the way to go.