One of the (perhaps unintended) consequences of The Times paywall has been the disappearance from public view of several previously well-known commentators. David Aaronovitch for instance used to be everywhere. You would see him on television, hear him on the radio, be able to read his articles on the internet.
Now, unless you actually buy The Times (which I do occasionally) you are not able to obtain an Aaronovitchian insight into issues of the day (I am not counting Twitter, which is tedious beyond belief).
One of the advantages of the internet has been that the ephemeral writings of journalists, previously only available if you went to the trouble of collecting clippings, have become part of the easily-accessible collected knowledge of humanity.
But not for Times journalists.
Not only have their articles become limited to subscribers, their reputations must be suffering in comparison to other commentators and their ability to influence wider society is surely waning.
Which makes me ask: is The Times a machine for destroying intellectuals?
Now, unless you actually buy The Times (which I do occasionally) you are not able to obtain an Aaronovitchian insight into issues of the day (I am not counting Twitter, which is tedious beyond belief).
One of the advantages of the internet has been that the ephemeral writings of journalists, previously only available if you went to the trouble of collecting clippings, have become part of the easily-accessible collected knowledge of humanity.
But not for Times journalists.
Not only have their articles become limited to subscribers, their reputations must be suffering in comparison to other commentators and their ability to influence wider society is surely waning.
Which makes me ask: is The Times a machine for destroying intellectuals?
No comments:
Post a Comment