chris ozer

 
Tags


Filed under

New York Times

 
January 21, 2010

I disagree. Why the NYTimes.com fee is a step back - CNN.com

Web sites trade links as currency, pointing readers' attention to valuable content. Meanwhile, a network of independent curators has sprung up on sites like Twitter and Facebook, directing those valuable clicks to handpicked sources. By creating uncertainty about whether those links will work for all visitors (readers might have used up their metered allowance for the month), The Times will dissuade the sharing of links on blogs and social networks. Popular blogs like ours will seek out other sources to link to, concerned about directing readers to inaccessible pages.
via cnn.com

Cashmore states that the Times' proposed paywall is a "step back" but I would argue that they are at least attempting to innovate in a way that also brings them revenue (can you blame them?). This isn't a return to the fee structure of Times Select - they are spending an entire year to come up with a smart way of implementing this new form of revenue stream all while maintaining one of if not the most innovative news websites in the world.

I don't think the Times wants to "dissuade the sharing of links," either. They've been very clear about still being quite open to casual readers and I think they'll find a way for link sharing to be a big part of that.

Being upset about having to pay for something that once was free is one thing, but equating that to lack of innovation? These are two entirely separate issues.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   New Media   New York Times   Paywall  

Comments [0]

October 16, 2009

A New Metaphor for Reading

From the New York Times Room for Debate Blog:

Initially, any new information medium seems to degrade reading because it disturbs the balance between focal and peripheral attention. This was true as early as the invention of writing, which Plato complained hollowed out focal memory. Similarly, William Wordsworth’s sister complained that he wasted his mind in the newspapers of the day. It takes time and adaptation before a balance can be restored, not just in the “mentality” of the reader, as historians of the book like to say, but in the social systems that complete the reading environment...

My group thinks that Web 2.0 offers a different kind of metaphor: not a containing structure but a social experience. Reading environments should not be books or libraries. They should be like the historical coffeehouses, taverns and pubs where one shifts flexibly between focused and collective reading — much like opening a newspaper and debating it in a more socially networked version of the current New York Times Room for Debate.

-Alan Liu

With all of the arguments about paper reading vs. digital reading I hadn't thought about this point: reading digitally opens up a whole new social structure for the readers involved and what may seem like distraction to some is really what Liu calls "peripheral attention."

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   New York Times   Reading   Social Media  

Comments [0]

August 25, 2009

My thoughts exactly on the health care debate

From the New York Times -

To the Editor:

Many Americans get health insurance through their employer. So if they become chronically ill to the extent that they can’t work, they lose both income and access to health care. That fact alone ought to be enough to scrap our current system and come up with a universal plan for everyone.

The rich probably can’t even imagine the plight of being seriously ill and having no help available. But how dare anyone condemn plans that would assure coverage for everyone. Who among us believes that we ourselves don’t deserve access to health care when needed? We don’t know in advance what will befall us, what care we’ll need or when. It’s not a choice.

To allow human suffering and death because of lack of health insurance is beyond a moral outrage. It is primitive, uncivilized, barbaric and unforgivable in a country as rich as the United States.

Nancy Bennett O’Hagan
Swatragh, Northern Ireland
Aug. 24, 2009

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Health Care   New York Times  

Comments [1]