I don't understand the New York Times' move to start charging for access to their editorial content. Were I in the business of propagating memes I'd want them to travel as widely as possible, including to those minds unwilling to pay for the privilege of reading them.
Looks like Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, John Tierney, Nicholas Kristof, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, David Brooks, Frank Rich and others will have to find other avenues to my eyes. That's a shame. They are all brilliant writers. Were I one of them I'd be pissed at this move by the New York Times, because there are plenty of other brilliant writers out there unimpeded by this new hurdle.
Am I just being cheap? Maybe, but you've got to draw the line on expenditures somewhere. I'm already paying subscription fees to the New Republic, Scientific American, Skeptic, the Atlantic Monthly and others. I'm more inclined to cut the Atlantic Monthly and the New Republic than I am to start paying the New York Times another fifty of my finite bucks, for which I have plenty of other uses. I already tossed the Wall Street Journal a while back, but that was for another reason - their editorial stance became too much to stomach with their adoration of the charlatan Lomborg and their climate change "skepticism".
I can understand the Times' need to increase revenue, and if I used their archives a lot I would not mind paying, as I have not minded once or twice when I've done so. I could not care less about their sports content, and I have no use for their other Select services. Sorry, but if they want me to read their editorials they'll have to cover their expenses with advertising revenue.
Thanks, but no thanks. It's been swell, but I guess it's over. So long, New York Times. So long, esteemed opinion page authors. Maybe I'll read your stuff elsewhere some day.