The New Times

A friend of mine once complained that the Wall Street Journal, a largely conservative, perennially pro-capitalism periodical, charged for all its online services. To my friend, this smacked of opportunism and capitalist gain-mongering. For that reason alone he refused to read the Journal. He would read the Boston Globe and the New York Times, who give away nearly everything online.

I wonder how my friend now feels knowing that the New York Times is going to charge online readers $49.95 per year ($39.95 if you sign up now!) just to read the paper's op-eds and guest columnists. Regular editorials will still be free, but if you want to read Dowd, Krugman, Friedman, Kristof, Rich, well, you'll have to pay.

That this is a disappointment to me is worth noting, particularly since the genesis for this website was born in my disgust of the NYT's columnists: Contratimes means "against the times", and damnit, I am against the New York Times with all my soul. (A truly great read, by the way, is Bob Kohn's Journalistic Fraud: How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted .) My disappointment derives in realizing that I will soon not be able to cite or access the NYT's columnists for purposes of ripping into their insipid prose; and their largely inane and always partisan analysis.

How is it, I ask, that a progressive paper like the NYT needs to profit off of its columnists? Or is this just a fund-raising project, with the extra cash collected from the new fees going to the poor, perhaps helping ease Krugman and Kristof's guilty consciences? Surely the NYT is not thinking of personally profiting from this membership fee; surely the columnists are not expecting any personal financial gain?

I suspect that part of the problem is that web-access to NYT opinion threatens the NYT's stronghold on ideas. As things stand now, columnists' opinions are instantly exposed to criticism from a whole host of writers, many such as myself: unpaid, active, and fed-up, grinding axes in weblogs day and night. I should think that limiting access will curtail this somewhat, though if it doesn't, at least the NYT will make some money trying to stanch the bloodflow.

It all perplexes me, though. For the NYT's columnists, if they are anything, they are idealists. As such, I should think that they believe what they are doing is part of changing the world into something better; about contributing ideas of meaning and import that will guarantee equity, justice and purpose for all. But if indeed this is the case, that these writers believe their opinions actually improve the world, or will lead to such improvement, then would they not want to dispense their antidotes and salvific ideas and observations for free, particularly ensuring that the underprivileged and poorest among us have access to truth? What if Jesus Christ's message is indeed the salvation of humanity? Imagine if he charged money before he spoke a word. What does the NYT's fees suggest about its writers' idealism? Does it not make readers suspect that it is not strictly offered as sage advice to a desperate planet in need of guidance, but rather presented as entertainment or so much ear-tickling chatter to satisfy partisan convictions, and that for profit?

Alas, I am afraid the motives for such fees are hardly as noble as the NYT's perceived elegance in such matters.

***

In other news: The death toll in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast may not be nearly as dire as I thought. Of course my thoughts were influenced entirely upon media reports coming out of the region, reports which now may be deemed gross over-reactions to the problems post-Katrina. Could it be that the "abysmal" evacuation and relief efforts were not as abominable as they were first perceived? Could it be that the realities were exaggerated and distorted for political gain, or as a shield behind which were hidden all sorts of pre-existing, underlying problems in the region, particularly in New Orleans?

Also, it is important to note that the NYTs (and other papers) found former First Lady Barbara Bush's remarks about Katrina's survivors reprehensible enough to file a report about her apparent miscue. Mrs. Bush observed that many of the survivors were in better situations after Katrina than before. That I have provided for Contratimes readers a transcript from a National Public Radio interview essentially proving the accuracy of Mrs. Bush's observation is telling. And Mrs. Bush did not state her positions in terms of Katrina being a good thing. In fact, she said the idea that people were better off afterwards was "sort of scary". But whenever the media can exploit a situation to highlight the upper-classes' alleged insensitivities towards the poor, they will, without compunction or fairness.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes