The Chris Moeller Archives

Another free post

It's one of the darkest days for American journalism in the new millenium. The New York Times website began charging for access to their op-ed columnists this morning, with a price tag of $49.95 a year. It's a curious move given the dying circulation of it and other American dailies. The Times correctly assumes that its audience is moving to the internet, but the company believes it needs to act to protect the exclusivity of its talented stable of writers. Their mistake is underestimating the competition, if not in terms of quality, than at least in quantity. For my money, no syndicated columnists can match the wit and wisdom of Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich, but with the internet, I've got plenty else to choose from. The net's symphony of honest and independent voices more than makes up for the lack of polish in their collective presentation.

Trying to control the internet is like trying to catch fish with your hands. The LA Times tried this same maneuver about two years ago when it put its entire content behind a subscription wall. That move lasted about a year. (I was among those who abandoned the site when faced with a fee, then returned the very day it was lifted.) NYT lawyers will stay plenty busy, also, trying to keep the columns from being posted unofficially on any of the hundreds of thousands of other free websites. They must realize this since they're forcing the columnists to contribute more to their paying subscribers. John Tierney is going to sponsor a book club, for example, and subscribers will also get early access to Sunday articles and free archive access.

I'm going to miss my Maureen Dowd, but I'm losing her for a good cause. The elite in this nation realize they're losing their grip on our access to information to the most democratic technological advance in history. And that's a beautiful thing.

---

Let's celebrate. Here's a link to a free column by Fareed Zakaria that I think is especially prescient. Zakaria argues that the biggest failure of President Bush and the Congress has been their lack of pragmatism.

---

I've been trying to think of another reason, other than naked opportunism, why two of our former Presidents would put their own names on the "Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund." Do you know anyone yourself who would be more likely to contribute to the cause because it was connected directly to either of these two men? I don't. I would argue, personally, that both men were willing accomplices to the political structure and ideology of neglect that worsened the impact of the storm. Of the three names, Bush, Clinton, and Katrina, I'd be hard pressed to decide which has done the most damage to the American economy. As activist Danny Glover said this weekend, "When the hurrican struck, it did not turn the region into a Third World country... it revealed one."

posted by CM @ 10:06 PM