The New York Times Finally Gets The Web
from the it's-about-time dept
Techdirt has beat up on the New York Times a lot over the years for its bone-headed use of the web. For years, it treated the website as an afterthought, serving up warmed-over versions of its print coverage and charging for the privilege. As we pointed out repeatedly, the web is different from older media. Success online requires that you be part of the conversation. Users expect a faster-paced, more connected experience from a website than you get from a newspaper. But in the last six months or so, the Times has made a series of decisions that suggests they're finally starting to understand that the web is its own medium with its own unique rules. They've dropped their paywall, launched a ton of great blogs, produced podcasts and videos, and added new personalization features. This summer, they unveiled Open, a blog by and for geeks about the use of open source technologies at the Times. And now they've launched Blogrunner, a news aggregator they snapped up last year and are integrated in various places around the site, starting with the technology section. Integrating links to other sites into their subject-specific pages makes it more likely that people will make that page their starting point for information on that subject. None of these developments are that Earthshaking by themselves, but when you add them all up it starts to look like the Grey Lady is finally taking the web seriously. Now if we can just get them to give us full-text RSS feeds of their blogs!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, newspapers, open source, websites
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Worst Newsaper in the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worst Newsaper in the US
You don't need it because you have Faux News and Rush Limburger.
G-d forbid you might open your mind to other opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worst Newsaper in the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worst Newsaper in the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed, Mr. Brice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hyper-redactions
Obviously--Techdirt is (and others are) far ahead of the New York Times technology reporting, it's a different standard.
How would you like to see the best blog articles and comment threads in print distribution? It wouldn't be hard to get rights from the bloggers, and a "certain kind of reader" would have a truly different perspective.
On the web, the equivalent of the Sunday paper is hard to find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sunday Paper Still Unique Experience
Online though, I have never embraced any papers website. Maybe if they start designing "web friendly" sites and start including interesting and different content than they do now, I might try them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everybody Loves Good Hot Synergy
The Internet at that time (pre-lots-o-blogs,pre-Google relevence) was innocently and uselessly a lot more noise than signal.
Now it can tend to phenomenal breakthrough articles and ideas, or openly hostile scams, big, fast range of information.
But, and this is a challenge--name a non-trivial reason 90% of the best blog writers in a week would turn down a chance to get published, in PRINT, in an International paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There May be Hope for the Times
For a left wing newspaper, this would appear to be schizophrenic behavior. But as the producer of content, I could see why they would want to "protect" the value of their content. I guess the obvious conclusion, the newspaper's left wing bias is only skin deep. When it comes to money, they are or were as right wing as you could get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worst Newsaper in the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put all these comments together
Yes, they were a little late in embracing the web - though the mid 90's is not really "late". Yes, the first approach involving subscription fees was misguided. However in writing about this you absolutely need to understand who you are writing about. In 1996 the Times still had a growing subscriber base worth many billions. It's leaders were all old-time experienced publishers, editors and writers -- not exactly a tech savvy bunch! There was no pressing need to invest in the net.
The initial change of converting a 100+ year old company from producing a physical product to producing free online content was understandably slow. However, now that NYTimes.com has grown internally into its own profitable business with employee mass, it can start making changes like you have pointed out. It was the NYTimes.com team that forced the removal of subscription fees, the open blog, projects, and other progressive things. Its made up of geeks like you and I. The old grey lady is getting younger every day!
Comment on the comments:
Look at what you are saying. Some articles are biased right, some left. Sounds somewhat balanced to me. Writers and editors are only human. Occasionally some bias may slip in here and there... don't be so sensitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]