Posted by Juliet Linderman

As the resident Vol. 1 New York Times fangirl I had to mention the new paywall that went into effect yesterday, limiting New York Times online readers to 20 free articles per month before charging for content. There will be three payment plans, and they’re all reasonably priced. Though, when it comes down to it, those who already subscribe to the print edition are entitled to the most expensive package anyway–all online content, plus ipad, tablet, etc., etc.,–so everyone should probably just boss up and subscribe to the weekender, right?

Sulzburger on the paywall, from an article in the Gray Lady:

“This announcement allows us to begin the thought process that’s going to answer so many of the questions that we all care about,” Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the Times Company chairman and publisher of the newspaper, said in an interview. “We can’t get this halfway right or three-quarters of the way right. We have to get this really, really right.”

What do you guys think about this?

Share →
  • There are reporters in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Tokyo, Libya and small towns across America. I’ll pay $15 every four weeks so these people can provide a product that I cannot get elsewhere. And as a writer for the Times, I see firsthand what type of work goes into the copy and reporting. Frankly, this should be a non-issue.

  • julietlinderman

    @r.s. Chang: I’m right there with you. As a reporter and a reader I’m absolutely willing to pay for high-quality content (I’m a NYT stringer and a print paper subscriber myself). But people tend to have strong opinions about paywalls, and I’m curious as to what they’re thinking.