Yesterday the New York Times “public editor” (fancy word for ombudsman) penned a column wherein he discusses reader complaints about the lean, mean, mostly lean new Times.
He begins:
Ruth Dobsevage, a reader from Bethel, Conn., asked, “Mr. Brisbane, would you care to explain why The New York Times has waited an entire week to cover the Occupy Wall Street protest?” Other than a blog post on City Room, she added, “I’ve seen nothing until I read Ginia Bellafante’s dismissive and superficial comments this morning.”
The Times initially covered the protesters on Sept. 17 on the City Room blog on NYTimes.com, getting a good jump. But while a print version of the piece appeared the next day in the New York edition, readers of the national editions never saw it. It was a full week before many saw a story in print, an attitude-heavy column by Ms. Bellafante headlined, “Gunning for Wall Street, With Faulty Aim.”
Carolyn Ryan, the metro editor, disagreed that The Times was late and listed the many angles of the movement that The Times has covered. “You can criticize us for many things, but undercovering this movement is not among them,” she said, adding that The Times had published at least 160 separate pieces on Occupy Wall Street, including blog posts and opinion articles.
Here, if you’re fully caffeinated and paying close attention, is the crux of the matter. The Times, like other papers, thinks it’s still covering the news if it posts it online.
To be sure, the early coverage was there, but it was hard for some to find because so much coverage is now online only.
To which I say: Fuck that.
I subscribe to the Times’ print edition. This also entitles me to unlimited access to its website and app. I read both, so I should be happy. Right?
Wrong.
The print edition is the “real” paper. It costs more to produce, more to distribute, and it’s more expensive. It’s the premium product, and the premium product should contain the most (i.e. premium) content. The Web version costs less and thus ought to be a stripped-down version of its print counterpart.
If the Times were an airline, it would serve the shitty (or no) food in first-class and deliver the champagne to coach. That’s fucked up.
I admire the Times for partially charging for online content. As I told an editor a few years ago, there are articles in the Times archives available for free that the reporter got killed while he worked on it. Surely his widow ought to collect a few centimes.
But they’re screwing up big time with this crap print version/beefy website strategy.
