Paywalls To Drive Journalists Away In Addition To Consumers? 131
Hugh Pickens writes "With news organizations struggling and newsroom jobs disappearing, each week brings new calls from writers and editors who believe their employers should save themselves by charging for Internet access. However, in an interesting turnabout, the NY Times reports that Saul Friedman, a journalist for more than 50 years and a columnist for Newsday since 1996, announced last week he was quitting after Newsday decided that non-subscribers to Newsday's print edition will have to pay $5 a week to see much of the site, making it one of the few newspapers in the country to take such a plunge. 'My column has been popular around the country, but now it was really going to be impossible for people outside Long Island to read it,' he says. Friedman, who is 80, said he would continue to write about older people for the site 'Time Goes By.' 'One of the reasons why the NY Times eventually did away with its old "paywall" was that its big name columnists started complaining that fewer and fewer people were reading them,' writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. 'Newspapers who decide to put up a paywall may find that their best reporters decide to go elsewhere, knowing that locking up their own content isn't a good thing in terms of career advancement.'"
Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then (Score:3, Funny)
Journalists never went into journalism for the low pay, they want to be read.
Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reporters are basically bloggers then (Score:5, Funny)
You're talking about columnists, not reporters. They used to be different.
Fixed it for you
Re:Opinion columnists are like bloggers (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently Newsday thinks they're worth $5.