[news] painfully inevitable, saddening, and satisfying - The Times to charge readers starting 2011

At 3:02 p.m. today, I opened my e-mail inbox. A subject line immediately caught my eye from the NYTimes.com News Alert - "The Times to Charge for Frequent Access to Its Website". (Yes, I have the The New York Times delivered to my inbox around the clock since I subscribe, duh). My heart skipped a beat. The Times? As in, The New York Times?

I quickly clicked the message open.



"Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for access."
Oh goodness. My heart died a little when I read that. So my paranoia was right.

"The New York Times announced Wednesday that it intended to charge frequent readers for access to its Web site, a step being debated across the industry that nearly every major newspaper has so far feared to take."

Certainly. Yes, I've always contemplated about the future for newspapers, and I certainly have always sensed that newspapers would find ways to deal with their situation. But...I never quite expected that, well, it'd come down to this, The New York Times, my most beloved newspaper...

After digesting the article, many thoughts immediately came to mind...

The first was something along the lines of, "Oh my goodness! What am I going to do after this?! How will I be able to religiously read the paper (online) after this happens?" And the second was a slow, sad realization--that this was perhaps a necessary measure taken by The Times. And then, I realized that if this was what it took to salvage a newspaper, so be it--I'm happy they've decided on something to address the problem, though I can't say for certain that I believe it's the solution.

We'll see how things go from here on out--I wouldn't be surprised if other newspapers followed The New York Times's lead.

i have a column crisis

So I have had this feeling in my bones...
My columns in The Purple Tide are losing their edge and appeal.

I just know it.

They are not nearly as amusing, funny, or relatable. I'm missing those elements. And I feel like I'm probably one of the most annoying columnists ever--the one with a preachy, overly reflective, old wisdom crap. My columns are on the verge of having a patronizing tone, are they not? (Great--just the thing I hate. I hate it when certain people try to sound patronizing). My columns sound matter-of-factly, and are loaded with seriousness and lack a bit of flair here and there.

But there's nothing that I can write about that's not a serious topic, I think. There's nothing hilarious and meaningful enough to be put into words. Or maybe I just don't see it, but it's there.

Or maybe I shouldn't be worrying at all about my columns and let them be the way they are.

What do people think when they read my columns?

What's my purpose in writing columns? I love writing columns because I can be personal and have jurisdiction over my tone and diction. I could be outrageous and obnoxious, scathing even, and funny. At least, that's what I thought when I started out. Now, I feel like I'm a one-trick pony or on a one-way track that is all serious stuff and, well, not as fun as I thought it might seem to others.

Do I make any sense?

Can someone honestly tell me what they feel about my columns? I don't want a polite response; I want the truth.

Are my columns too boring? Too unrelatable? Too preachy? Too serious?

And I need ideas. Ideas. What has happened in my life [recently] that people could connect to and still find interesting all at the same time.