NYT tries to kill the Internet

Starting September 19, the NYT is charging for access to op ed columnists like AMERICAblog favorite Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman and David Brooks.

What will this mean? I'm not sure. Sure the Times has the right to charge, and I know, giving away stuff for free can get to you after a while (oh, how I know :-) But, I won't be paying for that service, and I'm not sure I know anybody who will.

People will still get copies of the articles, they'll still email them around the Net, some Web sites will still republish the entire articles illegally, and we'll end up linking to those sites instead of the New York Times (it ain't illegal to link).

So what does the Times get out of this? Maybe some increased subscription revenue. Though their page views will decrease, so their ad revenue may actually decrease as well. It's a mixed bag. But I won't be linking to any "for pay" articles if the link takes you to the NYT pay-site. We'll just start summarizing articles, posting a few choice paragraphs like we always do.

And finally, if the Times' idea catches on, this really could be the beginning of the end of the current state of Internet news. Free news online has created an amazing and new dynamic in which people are more informed than ever before. If other news sites start to follow the Times' example, we jeopardize that. Again, I get why the Times wants to make money, they're not a public service, but still, I'm not sure their move will help them influence public debate, and isn't that part of the reason they exist?