Newsday Columnist Quits Over Paywall, Wants To Be Read
from the as-he-should dept
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. We've suggested in the past that 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. So, with Cablevision deciding to put Newday behind a paywall, it didn't take long for some of its columnists to start to bailing. The NY Times is reporting that Newsday columnist Saul Friedman quit and did so while publishing an open letter on why paywalls are a bad idea, while also telling the NY Times that he knew his column was popular with people outside of Newsday's footprint, and he was upset that those people would not be able to read his column and that he wouldn't be able to send out links to his columns.Oh, one other thing? Mr. Friedman is 80 years old and worked for newspapers for over 50 years. In other words, he's not just some "young kid who thinks everything online should be free" as we're so often told is the real problem. News organizations that lock up their content are increasingly going to discover that it's more and more difficult to attract top talent when compared to publications that actually help raise the journalists' profiles.
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: columnist, journalism, paywall, quit, saul friedman
Companies: cablevision, newsday
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mr. Friedman's blog will now be on my regular blog watch list. The fact that he even has a blog is amazing. I had problems showing my dad how to play a DVD on a Windows Machine, and here is Mr. Friedman setup with a blog and even his own domain name. Amazing!
As my Grandfather used to say: "Don't think you're too special. We all put our pants on the same way."
Tip o' the hat to you Mr. Friedman. Tip o' the hat, my friend.
Here's his blog:
http://timegoesby.net/
Oh Lord, I just saw that there's a "Geezer Flicks" link on the blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Control may be power, but it doesn't build an audience
With copyright ineffective, and a free and dwindling market in copies that people can now make themselves for nothing, the market that's left is for journalists, their views and news, and the money of those in their audience who would incentivise them to continue producing it.
But, the elephant in the room that proponents of paywalls ignore is "Why does a journalist want to keep their audience small, simply so their publisher can charge admission to those tiny few that will jump through hoops to read them?"
Even in 1701 Defoe was happy to embrace pirates selling copies of his work - if they would at least ensure those copies were accurate:
If he was in the business of selling copies (or charging for access via a paywall) he would be concerned at the competition, but he's not, he's writing to be read, by those who would read him.
Writers are not in the business of selling copies, they're in the business of selling their words and ideas. Copyright was created for the press, not authors (despite the press pretending otherwise).
Given a choice between a sheltered life as a circus freak, and straddling the world's stage as a literary colossus, one shouldn't be surprised if such captive authors as Saul Friedman seek to escape the circus to the freedom of the world's free press aka the world wide web.
You never know, they might even have a thousand true fans waiting for them that throw them a few pennies to persuade them to keep up their good work.
From the prohibition of copying parochial newspapers, to the liberty of the world's free press. And there's no law preventing journalists being paid by those who would pay them to write - yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In that regard, he is doing the right thing. Perhaps he should just open a blog and see what life is like in the real world, where a paycheck doesn't show up every week just for being there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then again, probably not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creator's priorities vs middleman priorities
Creator's Priorities
1. Usage.
My work should be out there being seen/heard/read.
2. Attribution
My name should be on it.
3. Money.
Middlemen's prioirties are the exact reverse of these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creator's priorities vs middleman priorities
Tipping my hat to you, and, of course, Mr. Friedman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Oscar Wilde
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a bunch of married 40 year old journalists, with 2.2 kids each, start quiting then it would perhaps confirm the theory. People need to earn their crust first - then they get to think about things such as readership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which means that just because you guys have (or blindly expect to have) it lucky, not everybody does - most don't and that your more than perfectly well understood, though painfully dated assumption is, simply, for shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here we see the extremely rare case where an opinionated old guy would like things to be free also. But I agree, can't expect to find many of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hate to fly in the face of such a brilliant argument, but sign me up as a 'sometimes writer' who doesn't want to be behind a paywall. I write the occasional post for Techdirt for just that reason. I'm too obscure a writer already, I need to get my words and ideas out there, linkable, sharable, tweetable, diggable, etceterable.
And now, you say:
"OK, so that only applies to consultants who write in their spare time, and octogenarian columnists for major papers. Not anybody else."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Career advancement" vs. ego
I agree with the prediction that more authors will resist paywalls, but I'm not so sure that the primary concern is "career advancement". The example is an author who quit the New York Times, one of the most well-known and respected publishers on the planet, in order to write for his own blog. Not exactly the traditional model for career advancement. While you can make an argument that your personal reputation is more important than the reputation of your current employer, I think this has more to do with ego than any concerns for career advancement. Not egotism, just the general idea that authors place a very high value on the size of their audience, in many cases even when it overrides income or overall career concerns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Career advancement" vs. ego
But remember, this is a lesson to the publications too. Respected and recognized columnists are a BIG part of developing a dedicated core readership, and they are also integral to making the readership grow through word-of-mouth. These are the pundits that have die-hard fans who never miss a column, and who then talk about them at the water cooler and the dinner table, who Twitter them onwards and post them on Digg and generally evangelize them to their friends and family. It's utterly insane to want to lock that content up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Career advancement" vs. ego
1) That the subscription only places will lose so many of their target readers as to be a failure, and
2) that there is such a huge market for opinionated columnists that they can take their act anywhere and be famous.
the WSJ has shown that it's subscriber base overall (online and print) has gone up dramatically since it put in online subscription based access. That is the sort of readership that wants and is willing to pay for their content, which makes them an even more valuable demographic than random websurfers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Career advancement" vs. ego
The columnists at the WSJ can be considered more akin to financial advisors. People will pay for access to their material in the same way they will pay for professional portfolio advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Career advancement" vs. ego
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Career advancement" vs. ego
Well, I did acknowledge that personal reputation could be considered more important these days than just the reputation of your employer. However, I still stand by my opinion that ego was a big part of this guy's decision, rather than just career advancement. As another poster pointed out, the guy is 80. He's probably not going to advance his career too much more than he already has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Career advancement" vs. ego
As a writer, you just enjoy the fact that your words are beign read. There is a satisfying feeling to knowing that your ideas have legs, and are spreading and growing. More people reading your work increases that satisfaction. It's more than ego.
Consider these two vaguely similar acts:
- a big snowfall hits on Friday night. You spend Saturday morning shoveling for an hour. I'll bet you stop when you're done and take a good, long look at that clean driveway, at the neat piles of snow on the banks, and feel...well, good. Snow shoveling was always one of my favorite jobs, since the results were so immediate, so visual, and so satisfying.
- your lawn has two weeks of growth on it, and you set about mowing it for an hour. Who doesn't stop to look at the shorn heath, the neat rows of tire tracks, and feel a sense of accomplishment. Sure, it'll grow back, but you did real, visible work. Many of us professionals lack that kind of visual affirmation of our work, so the lawn helps a bit.
Well, that show-shoveled or cut lawn feeling is like what writers feel when somebody reads their work. If an order of magnitude fewer readers read it, it feels less satisfying...like you cleared two tire tracks down the driveway so you could get out, but that's it.
This guy's 80. I hope he's not shoveling much snow. But he can feel productive as long as he's writing, and someone's reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HELL YEAH! THAT'S MY KINDA BONUS, BABY!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does he have a blog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]