Summary: There’s a thin line between irritating and necessary evil, and I don’t think the Atlantic has crossed it yet.
Never said it was evil. I am absolutely saying it’s patently dumb and potentially suicidal.
It takes time to compose a well-written, well-thought out, well-researched piece, regardless of the topic. I’d much rather wait a few days - even a week - for quality content from my favorite writers, rather than read rushed troll pieces only written for ad revenue.
I expect writers, like Maureen Dowd for example, to really give me something to think about when they publish a new piece. If I want to read mindless crap with no journalistic integrity, I’ll read Perez Hilton or Gizmodo.
As for paywalls, I don’t mind them as long as the content is worth paying for and the system makes sense. If the New York Times goes pay-only when the iPad is released, I’ll pay. I’d pay to receive Macworld on my Nook if they made it available. I trust these publications. I enjoy the content they provide. However, I also know that they won’t take advantage of their readers the way a certain out-of-touch media mogul does.
The Wall Street Journal forces users to pay for both the print and online versions of their newspaper. Then, someone got the bright idea to charge iPhone users an additional fee to read the Wall Street Journal via the paper’s self-published app - even if those users already subscribe to the online version. Read the ratings for the WSJ app in iTunes and you’ll see a lot of justified anger and hatred towards Rupert Murdoch/WSJ.
The Wall Street Journal cannot survive with this business model and the idiots who run the paper are too busy stuffing their wallets to see the long-term effects of their greed. Paying for content is fine - paying excessively is not.
