The weekend is over, and because your bracket is definitely in shambles (if it isn’t, we hate you), FishbowlNY would like to shift your attention to a smart take on the New York Times paywall, written by David Carr. In a post filed yesterday, he basically says that if people want quality journalism, it had to happen. He explains that while it goes against the idea of an open Internet, reporting and journalism cost money, thus the paywall:
People, real actual people, went and reported that information [about Japan], some of it at personal peril and certainly at gigantic institutional expense. So The Times is turning toward its customers to bear some of the cost. The Times is hardly alone: AFP, Reuters, The Associated Press, Dow Jones, the BBC and NPR are all part of a muscular journalistic ecosystem. But it seems an odd time to argue against a business initiative that aims at keeping boots on the ground during a time of global upheaval.
Sure Carr is biased, but he’s completely right. The paywall is needed, and should’ve been there all along. If we’re all willing to flush money down the toilet trying to guess which basketball team wins the tourney, we should all be willing to pay for the best reporting in the world.
We’d also like to add that next year is Pitt’s year! We’re sure of it this time!
- NY Times Baghdad Bureau Chief Talks Iraq
- WSJ Cuts Awards Coordinator
- Source: Rupert Murdoch Downsized Post Joan Rivers Coverage
- Happy National Newspaper Carrier Day!