by Mike Masnick
Tue, May 3rd 2011 2:04pm
This is kind of bizarre. The folks over at the Nieman Lab have pointed out that when the NY Times launched its paywall, one of the things they said was that in the event of a "9/11-like" story, they can push a button and pull down the paywall to make sure everyone had access to the news. And yet... the head honchos at the NY Times decided not to do so for the news of Osama Bin Laden's death. The argument for why really makes very little sense. They basically say that since it happened on May 1st, and the "counter" for how many free stories people get per month just reset to zero, there wasn't much of a point. Except, now that means that those same people will hit the limit much earlier if they scanned some of the stories. In other words, the incentive, yet again, was for people to find the news elsewhere. It's really difficult to fathom why the NY Times is so infatuated with driving people to other sites.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
- NY Times And Reuters Claim Totally Different Explanations For Yahoo's Email Scanning
- Washington Post Charges An 'Activation' Fee To Let You Pay Them To Get Around Their Paywall
- GQ And Forbes Go After Ad Blocker Users Rather Than Their Own Shitty Advertising Inventory
- Canadian Judge Says Asking For A Copy Of A Legally-Obtained But Paywalled Article Is Circumvention