nyt may start charging for online reading.
N.Y. Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was quoted in the article as saying: "It gets to the issue of how comfortable are we training a generation of readers to get quality information for free. That is troubling."
yeah. because, you know, information should be paid for.
ass.
2 comments:
To the best of my knowlege (and as a student in library studies), information has always truly been free, if you're willing to go to the library. So that whole bit about the generation being made to think information is free--that's crap. In a sense that a computer is not free, neither is travel to a library. But once you get it, or there, there is a lot at your disposal. And with a library, probably more than you can get just on a computer. NY Times might charge for subscription, or reading online, but then you can decline to pay for it and find a library to read it at.
Dangerous things, these newfangled libraries.
i just think schlesinger's arrogant comment about the commodification of information (considering how woefully narrow and biased our corporate media is) was...arrogant.
and ass-ful.
Post a Comment