On the New York Times New Paywall

So, today the New York Times rolled out the details of its new content paywall. Gawker has a quick and dirty take here. I don't have a lot to add, besides that I've subscribed most of my adult life to the Times, and I'm glad the plan tilts in favor of subscribers and people who find articles via social media. That said, I probably wouldn't mind paying for online access alone. As a subscriber I took a nine-month hiatus from March of 2003 to early 2004 because of the insipid and propagandistic Iraq pre-invasion coverage by Judith Miller- take that, Sulzburger!- but otherwise have tried to read it near-daily. I love the New York Times dearly, and even though our subscription has cut down now to just Sundays- thanks for the Christmas gift, mom!- I still read my favorite sections. Those include sports, book reviews, and economic analysis in the Week in Review and Business sections, all consumed with an undimmed quasi-religious fervor.

The paywall to me seems imminently sensible and pretty fairly calibrated. In 2007 I ridiculed the Times' creation of "Times Select", and I stand by it- that paywall was for the benefit of reading opinion columnists the likes of Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman, who in a modern opinion-dominated blogosphere really have become only as good as their ideas, i.e. borderline marginal. Who cares about opinion: good news content is what's important! I take this seriously as someone who has never tried to function without good sports journalism. And from a sports journalism perspective, the upheaval at AOL Fanhouse and subsequent AOL move to greater nonpaid content creation at AOL/ Huffington Postshows it's become very hard to get people to pay for quality sports journalism. I'm still a dead-tree newspaper addict, but even if I weren't, unlimited free web access only makes sense for the consumer.

(Photo: the Observer and a Sunday pint of Newcastle from my days living in the Cotswolds in southwestern England. Tony Blair's eyes do not require a subscription.)