There was a New York Times article today that announced its plan to charge visitors who view more than 20 articles a month. Instead of just grumbling and closing the article because I definitely read more than 20 NYT's articles a month, reading the article got me thinking so many different questions.First of all the irony is if someone wanted to read this article after March 28 (when NYT will start charging) and it was their 21st article for the month they would be closed out.
Second of all, we've all come to terms with the media being a business, but if we start to pay for internet news which until now has been free, are we allowing a new news phase to begin? Will other news companies follow NYT's lead?
Also, what do we make of the NYT reporting on the NYT? Are they keeping to their excellent journalistic standards and reporting on themselves is just keeping themselves in check? Or do we not trust such stories because the reporters can be their own sources and because even if they're giving us the facts, the story will be slanted in such a way that what the NYT is doing doesn't seem so bad? I mean $15 for a month of unlimited news doesn't seem so bad....Am I just following into the biased trap?
Without a doubt, I'm sure other news companies will begin to charge as well, maybe after seeing how it affects NYT. They may even charge less or allow more articles before charging to allow for more competition. News companies lose so much money because everything is internet based, and by charging they'll make some of that money back. Unfortunately, charging may act as a deterrent to some, and they may lose a small percentage of readership to due to it.
ReplyDeleteThe NYT article stated that they are only charging because internet ads could not compensate for the amount of money lost in print ads. This may be true for NYT, but do you think other wealthier media companies will follow NYT's lead to further increase their wealth?
ReplyDeleteThe Times tried this before, with something called TimesSelect. The reason they got rid of it is because it decreased their influence on the rest of the web discussion; people just started reading the Washington Post instead. The Wall Street Journal is already behind a paywall, though, and they're still important. Hard to say which way this goes.
ReplyDelete