On the New York Times paywall

LongReads linked to an upbeat look by Seth Mnookin in New York Magazine at the Times' performance in the immediate wake of its introduction of digital subscriptions -- and, more to the point, its concurrent capping of the number of free articles non-subscribers are allowed to read. The article uses publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.'s tenure as a lens through which to review the Times' history, and credits him with persevering through tough times and a great deal of personal criticism.

The bottom line for the paywall is more than the bottom line: The Times has taken a do-or-die stand for hard-core, boots-on-the-ground journalism, for earnest civic purpose, for the primacy of content creators over aggregators, and has brought itself back from the precipice.

I finally took my own stand by subscribing, in spite of my dislike that the Times doesn't provide an option for pure Web access (I only read the paper on a browser). I want to support the hard work of real journalists. I therefore hope Mnookin is right, and that the Times has found a way to survive in this new age.