I’m not sure when my love affair with the New York Times began but it is the only paper that I can spend hours reading. It is set as my laptop homepage though I usually read tons of articles at my leisure all from the convenience of my Blackberry. When I heard that there would be changes made to accessing the paper online I didn’t think twice about it. I didn’t think that it would effect me. So imagine my frustration when opened my web browser, clicked on an article, and was told that I couldn’t read it.
The New York Times recently changed their policy regarding online subscriptions. Internet users can now read only 20 free articles per month on the computer and must pay to view additional articles. I probably read more than 20 articles in one day. I don’t usually read the paper thoroughly on my computer but I love browsing through them in my spare time. And now they are telling me that I need to pay for a service that I am so used to getting for free?!
I get it: The New York Times is a business. Times are changing and people prefer to read the paper online as opposed to, well, an actual paper. And sure, there are ways around the wall that stops an over twenty article reader: you can switch browsers (such as going from Safari to Firefox) or do some technologically savvy techniques (something about clearing cookies or adding lines of computer codes, neither of which I understand). I guess that I could also either switch papers or stop browsing through articles on my computer and just keep to reading articles on my phone like I usually do.
There is another option: I can pay. ESPN does something similar with their website - you can read most articles but must pay for the “Insider” access. I don’t complain about that, but, then again, I am used to that system and I can access almost everything that I want. There is no way that I am paying for a service that I am used to getting for free.
So, why am I enraged and spending an RCL blog and over 400 words venting? Yes, I am angry. But the press continually highlights the ignorance of the American public. Ironic, huh? How are we to remain informed if we cannot even access the information?
Sounds like it has the makings for a public controversy to me.
UPDATE: The NYT has stopped allowing me to use it on my phone. Oh, NYT. It's on.
UPDATE: The NYT has stopped allowing me to use it on my phone. Oh, NYT. It's on.
Public controversy for sure!! Paying to become informed does not seem fair and definately not effective. I know I would never pay to read articles online when there are so many other places you can read about different things online
ReplyDeleteThat's ridiculous! Dude good for you for being so well-informed, that's impressive. I was Editor-in-Chief of my high school paper, and a topic we discussed constantly was how newspapers were all losing money because everything is online now. I wish there was a way to get people to subscribe to the PAPER version still..then you wouldn't have this problem!
ReplyDeleteI don't blame you for being angry! Not enough people care to educate themselves by reading the news, whether online or in print. The NY Times shouldn't decrease that number even more by limiting the number of articles people can read. This probably isn't the greatest option, but the NY Times is a big company, and I'm sure they could make a lot of money just through ad revenue on their site. It'd be great if they could just do that and stop limiting the articles. Unfortunately, though, the chances of that happening are little to none.
ReplyDeleteI sure it was quite a shock to realize you couldn't read it online. However as technology is advancing and more people (like you Gabo) are reading newspapers online instead of in their printed form (which most people have to subscribe to get) the newspapers are losing money. If the readers continue to cancel subscriptions because they can just read their favorite newspaper online for free, then to keep the newspapers running they are going to have to charge for online subscriptions. (sorry for the rant)
ReplyDelete