In response to the Times’ new paywall, the Atlantic Wire is planning to pick out the best articles from each day’s edition in a new series called Trimming the Times. The Nieman Journalism Lab puts it succinctly:

“Trimming the Times” isn’t — per its framing, at least — about gaming the Times’ meter, per se; it’s about helping readers navigate stories within an ecosystem that, from the payment perspective, punishes aimless exploration.

While our household subscribes to the weekend edition of the Times, this was my biggest concern. I didn’t want to have to worry about how many articles I’m viewing. Even though I know I won’t hit the paywall, I find myself avoiding articles that are purely factual, figuring I can save the click and get the information elsewhere.

While I’m busy quoting, my coworker, Mr. Andrew Anker, reframes the discussion by pointing out the real value that the Times provides:

The New York Times’ value to me (as my hometown paper) has never been its hundreds of writers who create a bunch of content every day; it’s been the tens of editors who picked exactly everything I need to know today. When I grew up, that one package on my doorstep every morning was by far the easiest way to figure out what mattered. Now with the internet, social media and portable devices I want more than one set of editors can provide. But I still would like one easy package and I wish more media companies would redefine their editorial mission to include creating new types of packages, not trying to C&D others out of business.

Andrew’s post falls into the category of “I wish I wrote that”, as suggesting that companies make their package more valuable instead of trying to litigate is right on the nose. It’s been said before, but people will happily pay more for additional value. It is now harder to read the Times online and I have to pay to make $35/month to not have to worry. I am happy to pay for the Times, but hate that they make it feel like extortion.