I love to read the New York Times, and I think the paper's reporting and columnists are some of the best. But, since the institution of the NYT paywall earlier this year, I have changed my NYT reading behavior. The paywall's rules are a little confusing (it states a hard-and-fast article count, but then creates exemptions like the US tax code), but mostly I hate the thought of not accessing a story I really want to read at the end of the month. So I read fewer NYT articles, and I choose more selectively.
But the "more selectively" point creates the (presumably) unintended consequence of the paywall: I read less bipartisan material. I prefer a few of the NYT's right-leaning journalists (e.g., David Brooks, Ross Douthat) over some more liberal ones (e.g., Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich), so those are the columns I "consume" within my free allotment. This reaction isn't uncommon: "confirmation bias" suggests people generally read things with which they agree. Author Bill Bishop notes we've even becoming residentially self-segregated by political beliefs.
As a result, I read fewer left-leaning articles from the NYT. I backfill from other sources (WaPo still lets me read E.J. Dionne, Ezra Klein, and the like gratis), but I wonder if the NYT considered these perverse incentives before they established their particular model. They don't care about my particular reading habits, to be sure, but it weakens my loyalty to them as a paper, and I'm sure I'm not alone. If David Brooks were to leave, readers like me might now leave too... and that will hit their bottom line sooner or later.
No comments:
Post a Comment