Extra! Extra! A paper actually wants to get paid for its services!

Screen Print of the Article - Just in
case they decide to change that header

The New York Times has finally decided to put up a pay wall. In an oddly bold printed article with the web banner titled “New York Times to Impose Fees for Web Readers on March 28,” they lay out their plan for subscription web access to readers. Website and mobile access is $15/month and an extra $5 if you prefer the iPad to your phone. A rather useless $35 “all-access plan” is also available, if you absolutely must have access to all three. If you’re only a casual viewer, don’t worry, you’re guaranteed access to 20 articles per month. I assume this means access to any article will now require registration, by which they can count your 20 article limit.


I was a little hung up by the terminology they used in the article header. A Fee is usually a charge with a negative connotation. Your bank charges you fees for overdrawing your account. Your job might charge you a fee to replace your lost desk key. Late fees are your library’s punishment for keeping their books and movies for too long . Your credit card charges fees for anything, because they are an instrument of Satan. The theme is that fees are charges that are levied when one exploits a service.


So, in The Times Freudian-slip of a header, I believe they are actually chiding their online readers for their selfish behavior. Do I think it’s right of them? HELL YES! It’s about time The New York Times stood up for themselves and decided that their 1st rate news coverage cannot be gobbled up by news hungry web crawers and headline nabbing bloggers. Their basic web access subscription is a ridiculously reasonably priced plan. To compare, The Wall Street Journal is $8.62 a month and the Los Angeles Times is 12.99 a month for their eEdition, which is an electronic carbon copy of their daily paper (their online content appears to have no pay wall).


So, is “fee” the correct word choice for the New York Times new subscription plan? Yes. Should they use it to notify their readers of this change? Probably not, but hey, they’re The New York Times not some sissy, tabloid nonsense and people will pay for the privilege of reading their fine paper.