The impact of paywalls on the dissemination of "true" news has been enormous, and has vastly undercut the influence of the New York Times (as just one of countless examples). The NYT still touts itself as "the paper of record," but when ordinary web-surfing people cannot access more than 10 stories/month, even its official editorials (to say nothing of its reportage) without paying a fee, they will turn to other, less-reliable sources for their information. And indeed, that's what many people have done. (I'm willing to bet a lot of people don't even visit NYT even to scoop up the 10 free articles/month at this point, unless someone posts a link via Facebook.)
In terms of maintaining their influence, NYT, Washington Post, et al., would have been better far served to have remained open to all comers and handled revenue issues via ads, while giving readers the option to subscribe to avoid ad content. The very notion of a paywall only exacerbated their reputation among conservatives as publications belonging to the "liberal elite."
]]>