The End of Times (As We Know It)

Photo from web

The Times has decided to further refine its online subscription protocol: instead of twenty free articles per month, we (the internet-surfing, information-hording public) are now only entitled to ten. To this I say: whatever. I know how to break the paywall and I can always access articles from third party websites such as Twitter and Facebook and not have it affect my monthly count. But what does this mean for other people who are mildly ethical? Or for people who read eleven articles per month? The Times’ paywall experiment has officially entered its second phase as of April 1, and no, they aren’t messing with you.

We have been hearing about the demise of print journalism for quite some time now. With the advent of the iPhone and the iPad (with honorable mention to Galaxies and Androids), it seems that nobody wants to read a bulky newspaper anymore. Why would they? Why constantly fold pages and hide your entire midsection and head when you can read articles on a sleek tablet and watch videos to accompany your news? The answer is, put simply, you wouldn’t. If you own an iPad and still read the print edition of the New York Times or any other newspaper, I have to assume you’re a) doing it ironically, b) you are in love with the nostalgia and the concept of reading the morning paper or c) your fingers don’t generate enough heat to operate a touch screen.

Print journalism is dying, though it’s experiencing a slow and painful death, akin to the victim who shudders on the noose after the floor drops out from under him or her for upwards of five minutes. Soon, all of our “newspapers” will be on digital screens, the glowing hue of our computers and tablets destroying our retinas as we read about President Santorum bombing Iran. For now, we have to deal with the duality of our favorite periodicals trying to balance the traditional with the new: maintaining a printed product while attempting to bolster its online presence and generate enough revenue to survive in a world where information is considered a god-given right rather than a privilege to be paid for. The Times is presently in a unique position: it is constantly trying to prove to its readers that it is worth paying for; that the quality of journalism it provides is of the highest caliber and that those other free websites are simply off-shoots of it and second-rate.

The New York Times, despite putting up its easily maneuverable paywall, still attracts thirty million visitors to its website per month. One receives full access to the website if he or she is subscribed to the print edition or pays a reasonable monthly fee. Why the change from twenty to ten articles, though? According to the Times website:

We think 10 articles a month, plus free access to our home page, strikes a better balance between visiting and subscribing. Most of our readers will continue to enjoy their Times experience without interruption. At the same time, the change provides us with an opportunity to convince another segment of our audience that what The Times has to offer is worth paying for. 

It appears as if the Times is attempting to do what NPR has been doing of late: provide free access to what it considers the general public (i.e. those who visit the website infrequently and most likely wouldn’t surpass ten articles per month) while convincing the diehard readers to pay/donate to the cause in order to keep the paper up and running. So is this ten-article limit really necessary?

I believe the shift toward less free content is more symbolic than anything else. Nobody who reads the Times in any form is going to be truly up in arms about this reduction of free monthly articles. Rather, this lessening serves as a call to those who use the website frequently and aren’t contributing (like myself). Never before in human history has information been considered a right rather than an entitlement. According to Times columnist Brian Stelter, we are living in an age that will be viewed as an anomaly in the future—“remember that time when all news on the Internet was free?” If reliable and time-honored papers such as the New York Times are going to survive the test of digitalization (and so far, they are doing better than most every other newspaper), seasoned patrons are going to need to keep it afloat.

Perhaps sometime in the near future, when I have my own money to spend and don’t feel a rush from cyber-stealing and crushing paywalls, I will gladly give my money to the New York Times. To me, the paper represents an American institution that has helped open up our society. By publishing things such as the Pentagon Papers in 1971 or even the Wikileaks diplomatic cables in 2010, the Times remains on the cutting-edge of news in America. Until then, though, I will soak in all of the free content I can. •