From Robert Niles on May 16, 2005 at 3:47 PM
Of all the editorial content a newspaper could put behind a paid wall, putting opinion behind that wall does the most to reduce a paper's influence in national and global debate. Even as the Wall Street Journal put its reporting behind a paid wall, it has left its editorial pages freely available.

One reader's prediction? At least one Times columnist will leave the paper, in an effort to preserve his/her prominence on the "free" Web. Editors at other papers targeted L.A. Times critics after that paper put CalendarLive behind the wall. Bet on many NYT Op-Ed names getting friendly "how ya doin'" calls from editorial page editors around the country over the next few weeks.

From Jon Garfunkel on May 16, 2005 at 9:13 PM
I'm looking forward to paying the $50 (if I need to; I'm only a Sunday subscriber, I pay about $250/year now.) I think periodically should be giving more services (particularly access to archives) for their paid subscribers. Once again I'm underwhelmed by the rattling of the free-earth society.

From Richard Silverstein on May 19, 2005 at 1:17 AM
I agree with Robert Niles. I don't blog much about the columns which become paid content so it won't harm my blog too much. But I love Maureen Dowd's columns & I guess I won't be blogging about her wonderful satiric columns in my blog anymore. It's a shame. Maybe she'll be the one leaving?

And what about Niesenholtz's wacky idea that bloggers will help sell the paid content via an Amazon Associates type arrangement with bloggers? Why would anyone want to pay $2.95 to read John Tierney anyway?

Oh & I love Niesenholtz's inane defense of the $49.95 subscription fee by comparing it to the cost of a hotel martini.