Is the NY Times new paywall a platypus?

Will the new New York Times paywall survive longer than its last one? The Times sent me an e-mail explaining the plan, but Felix Salmon explains it more succinctly and clearly:

[T]he website is free, so long as you read fewer than 20 items per month, and so are the apps, so long as you confine yourself to the “Top News” section. You can also read articles for free by going in through a side door. Following links from Twitter or Facebook or Reuters.com should never be a problem, unless and until you try to navigate away from the item that was linked to.

Beyond that, $15 per four-week period gives you access to the website and also its smartphone app, while $20 gives you access to the website also its iPad app. But if you want to read the NYT on both your smartphone and your iPad, you’ll need to buy both digital subscriptions separately, and pay an eye-popping $35 every four weeks. That’s $455 a year.

I can’t say I disagree with Salmon’s take: “The message being sent here is weird: that access to the website is worth nothing. Mathematically, if A+B=$15, A+C=$20, and A+B+C=$35, then A=$0.” And I suspect Mike Masnick’s is correct in his belief this plan was spawned by a committee that either lacked or utterly ignored any member who suggested the idea was stupid:

It feels like something that was completely developed by committee group-think. It’s one of those things where they’re sitting around and someone timidly suggests a dumb idea (“I know, for $5 more we take away their smartphone access”) and, because they have to come up with something, someone else says “sure” and then they think there’s validation of a good idea. But there’s no one brave enough in the room to say: “Guys, the newspaper is digital. Charging different amounts based on the hardware is like charging people different prices for listening to the same music on headphones vs. speakers.” But no one did that. And because they had a committee, who kept making bad suggestions like this, and 14-months to keep upping the stupid, they spent over $40 million on it.

The result for me will be that I’ll read the New York Times less than I do now. Whether the newspaper will in fact be hurt by losing page views by readers like me or will make more money than it does now with its content online for free remains to be seen, but something tells me this isn’t the best solution to the world we live in now, one in which newspapers no longer control the means of producing and distributing journalism.

Stay tuned. We’ll see what the New York Times is doing online in a year or two.

New technology means the old ways of doing business won’t survive — how much longer will we have newsprint?

The ways changing reality forces change in the ways business is done: Nicholas Cohen wrote in January that it costs the New York Times “about twice as much money to print and deliver the newspaper over a year as it would cost to send each of its subscribers a brand new Amazon Kindle instead.” Cohen concludes that, “as a technology for delivering the news, newsprint isn’t just expensive and inefficient; it’s laughably so.” In taking down the pay wall to some its contentmaking Web, the Times recognzied that “site visitors pay for content would not bring in as much money as making it available for free and supporting it with advertising.” We’ll see what happens with the newsprint . . .

There is nothing new under the sun.

From BestActEver.com:  The Long War: Music Piracy in 1897 (NYTimes):

Greenberg v. AIG: the evidence and the truth

The difference between journalists and lawyers?  Journalists, at least as they practice their craft these days in this country, practice a pretended objectivity by giving voice to both sides of a dispute.  I presume the purpose is to leave the reader to be the judge.  It’s a way of going about thet job that gives the impression of being as fair as it is possible to be.  Fox News has grounded its entire image  in precisely this perception of what is most fair: “We report, you decide.”

I’ve bemoaned before the absence of critical thinking that goes into this style of reporting.  The New York Times is at it again today, this time on a subject far more important than whether a hot artist’s most valuable products infringe the copyrights of other creators — how AIG got our country into the financial mess it’s in and whether we ought to trust the people who brought us here to lead us out.  Hank Greenberg, the long-time head of AIG who was deposed in 2005, testified yesterday to Congress and claimed that the Obama administration should have let AIG go bankrupt, that the administration’s policies have deprived AIG of its most valuable assets by driving off the people who led AIG into its catastrophic state, and that Mr. Greenberg’s policies — which included the creation of the credit default swaps that “insured” the mortgage backed securities that were doomed to failure — had nothing to do with the eventual failure of AIG.  He might not have provided reserves to allow AIG to afford the liabilities it had assumed when it sold the credit default swaps (thereby earning itself enormous amounts of money, profits that of course contributed to the fortunes made by Mr. Greenberg and the other geniuses who our government has driven away), but, he says, he would have set aside reserves to meet those liabilities (thus averting the necessity of the bailout) had he been allowed to stick around.

The story does give the other side of the story, quoting a spokesperson for the current management of AIG contradicting Mr. Greenberg and asserting flat out that he lacks any credibility:

“Hank Greenberg continues to deny his role in allowing [AIG's Financial Products Division] to write the multisector credit-default swaps which sowed the seeds for AIG’s troubles,” the company said, referring to the financial products unit. It went on to denounce Mr. Greenberg as evading questions and lacking credibility as a business strategist.

“He refuses to acknowledge that he approved entry into the credit-default swap business, approved more than $40 billion of swaps written on C.D.O.’s containing subprime loans, and didn’t hedge or put up reserves against them,” the company said. Collateralized debt obligations are securities made from pools of loans and other forms of debt.

“We don’t understand how he can be viewed as having any credibility on any AIG issue.”

My problem with this type of journalism is that it doesn’t make judgments that can be made.  It often may be difficult to tell right from wrong with certainty, but there are often clear judgments to be made about which position is better and which worse.  Mr. Greenberg’s self-interest in these matters, his lifetime of self-promotion in the interests of building an immense personal fortune, and his rank hypocrisy are legendary.  A journalist is capable of giving both sides of an argument and of understanding context and making judgments.  To fail to do so leaves the reading public to do that work themselves, something that people simply don’t have the time to do.

Lawyers, on the other hand, do contend always with adversaries setting forth evidence that seems to contradict the evidence they are presenting on behalf of their own clients.  But setting forth the evidence is only part of a lawyer’s job.  The lawyer also structures that evidence into arguments on behalf of his client’s position, explaining specifically how that evidence should be viewed.  Then decision makers (juries, judges, arbitrators, etc.) decide.  The lawyer doesn’t rely on the decision-maker to figure out how to explain the evidence.  The lawyer gives the decision-maker the means of understanding it.

I don’t know why journalists don’t do so more often.