Nasty Hit for Blogging: New York Times Now Charging for Columnists
I give in. I need to talk about blogs. It is a self-conscious act, I know, but with the Roberts nomination likely in the can and Katrina in the Bush spin zone, now is the time to talk about blogs.
As we all know, the New York Times is now charging for electronic access to its columnists. The writers affected by this new restriction include David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Thomas L. Friedman, Bob Herbert, Nicholas D. Kristof, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and John Tierney. If you want to read them online from now on, it will cost you either 7.95 a month or 49.95 a year.
I think the NYT knows they can start charging for its best columnists because they know so many bloggers turn to those voices to read excellent writing on topical issues. We (bloggers) read electronically, often exclusively. We need excellent, experienced opinion to keep our world spinning.
While there remain fantastic bloggers whom we are, of course, free to read (see blog roll to the right), the blogging voice is slightly different from the NYT voice. As much as NYT deserves sharp criticism for its editorial policies, the writing remains excellent. It is different from blogs for several reasons, and here are just a few:
Their columnist positions are highly competitive. NYT top columnists make healthy annual wages because they publish books and travel the country on the lecture circuit, in addition to guesting on TV and radio.
Their writing appears less often, and, thus, statistically, the odds are greater that we will be exposed only to their better stuff. Bloggers regularly lay it out there several times a day. We read more of them, so we see more of their flabbier stuff. That's just the nature of blogging.
NYT columnists, in most cases, have been doing what they do longer than bloggers. Think about it: blogging is only a few years old. While many bloggers come from veteran careers as top journalists, the form is different. Therefore, they really have not been blogging, strictly speaking, for as long as the restricted NYT columnists have been doing their columns (and yes, I know that some of the writers I've listed above have not been working for NYT that long, but they all are experienced hard copy/print writers used to working with editors, deadlines, engaged audiences, etc.).
The NYT has an editing support system not readily available to bloggers. Even if columnists don't submit their work to editors (and virtually all do, really), they know they must reach the NYT standard, or else they will be taken to task or taken off the paper.
Why do I bother stating all these obvious little asides? Because I think we need access to these columnists. I think the blogging world benefits from their input. In a roundabout way, electronic access to NYT columnists is part of the blogging world. And NYT is taking advantage of this by charging a lot of money for access.
I suspect most bloggers would be hesitant to add a new expense to their budgets. Alas, I suspect most will have to. We can't afford more expense!
I wonder how the writers themselves feel about this turn of events. Fewer people will read them. For most writers, a loss in audience is a major blow. How will they react?
Chew the fat; speak out.
As we all know, the New York Times is now charging for electronic access to its columnists. The writers affected by this new restriction include David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Thomas L. Friedman, Bob Herbert, Nicholas D. Kristof, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and John Tierney. If you want to read them online from now on, it will cost you either 7.95 a month or 49.95 a year.
I think the NYT knows they can start charging for its best columnists because they know so many bloggers turn to those voices to read excellent writing on topical issues. We (bloggers) read electronically, often exclusively. We need excellent, experienced opinion to keep our world spinning.
While there remain fantastic bloggers whom we are, of course, free to read (see blog roll to the right), the blogging voice is slightly different from the NYT voice. As much as NYT deserves sharp criticism for its editorial policies, the writing remains excellent. It is different from blogs for several reasons, and here are just a few:
Their columnist positions are highly competitive. NYT top columnists make healthy annual wages because they publish books and travel the country on the lecture circuit, in addition to guesting on TV and radio.
Their writing appears less often, and, thus, statistically, the odds are greater that we will be exposed only to their better stuff. Bloggers regularly lay it out there several times a day. We read more of them, so we see more of their flabbier stuff. That's just the nature of blogging.
NYT columnists, in most cases, have been doing what they do longer than bloggers. Think about it: blogging is only a few years old. While many bloggers come from veteran careers as top journalists, the form is different. Therefore, they really have not been blogging, strictly speaking, for as long as the restricted NYT columnists have been doing their columns (and yes, I know that some of the writers I've listed above have not been working for NYT that long, but they all are experienced hard copy/print writers used to working with editors, deadlines, engaged audiences, etc.).
The NYT has an editing support system not readily available to bloggers. Even if columnists don't submit their work to editors (and virtually all do, really), they know they must reach the NYT standard, or else they will be taken to task or taken off the paper.
Why do I bother stating all these obvious little asides? Because I think we need access to these columnists. I think the blogging world benefits from their input. In a roundabout way, electronic access to NYT columnists is part of the blogging world. And NYT is taking advantage of this by charging a lot of money for access.
I suspect most bloggers would be hesitant to add a new expense to their budgets. Alas, I suspect most will have to. We can't afford more expense!
I wonder how the writers themselves feel about this turn of events. Fewer people will read them. For most writers, a loss in audience is a major blow. How will they react?
Chew the fat; speak out.
posted by August at 10:29 AM
2 Comments:
A true shame. NYT op-ed columnists have been my primary source of 'topical' information on our rapidly changing world, and as a graduate student I can neither afford a print or electronic subscription.
Have you found other sources? I heard a site was making the column accessible. What are you studying? I may be able to direct you to alternative sources.
Post a Comment
<< Home