As a blogger, I often have aspirations of writing more and better stuff. In the past I've written about stuff that bugs me, sports, a little about travel, pop culture, etc. To be honest, most of my blogging projects fail for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes I get bored with a topic and move on. Sometimes I'm distracted by, well, life. As a writer, each of my blogs is one of my babies. While none of them have generated any kind of readership, I still look back on each of them with a little bit of protectionism. I like the idea of them.
This blog has been a lot more casual and agnostic (partly due to the ease of posting) and in some ways more successful. Despite that, I still often find myself asking, what on Earth should I write about? It seems to me this is a common thread in online writing (even when the author doesn't really think it on a conscious level).
So why do I bring this up now in my 89th post? Well, I was thinking about quality writing today in response to the New York Times' decision to
begin charging for access to its website in 2011. A lot of people online were angry about it. Some of the comments I read (and I am paraphrasing) included thoughts such as:
- I hope the NY Times fails
- I'll get my news elsewhere
- You're dumb
- I'm mad and I hate the NY Times
It seems this decision just made the internet unhappy. Personally, I found myself thinking it was a good decision (and I'm cheap). Why? Well, the New York Times puts out some of the best content in the world. From straight news, to honest reporting, to up to the second blogs covering everything from baseball to books. The organization puts out an incredible amount of information and content. Additionally, this content is reliable. They're not going to publish something stupid like, "Phyllis Diller named Secretary General of the UN." Why not? Because they are stocked with professionals who pay attention to what they do. How good are their people? A handful of them have started examining the Times and its practices to make sure that the organization upholds its own ethics. Really! Check them out on Twitter
@NYTPicker.
So why do they do this? It's not because they're bored. These people all have homes and families and like to eat and buy things. It's a job, just like yours or mine. The Times needs to be able to pay for its reporters, pay for its offices, and pay to send objective reporters to the far reaches of the globe. In order to do so, it needs money. As more and more news sources evaporate it means that fewer eyes are observing for us. Fewer voices are discussing events. Consumers get crappier and crappier information. Sure, you could go to CNN.com for your free news and get as many stories about John Mayer banging actresses as you would about the Senate election in Massachusetts.
Good information is worth paying for. Good news is worth paying for. Free isn't always bad, but eventually news that is driven by advertising is going to be more interested in getting eyeballs than it will be in getting the facts right. That's never good.
