Ok, I've got problems with Nicholas Kristof when he occasionally slips into Bush-enabling mode. He's not as bad as Friedman and certainly nowhere near Brooks or Tierney in sheer shill capacity. But from time to time he does come up with some really boneheaded ideas that I can only hope stem from naivite and an unwarranted optimism in the face of the human filth that Bush and today's GOP clearly are.
But when it comes to the issue that he most often covers in his columns, the truly horrible genocide in Darfur, he has done a brave and exemplary job. While the rest of the media have largely given up on this issue, he continues to bang the drum on it, reminding readers that the horrors there continue unabated, while the world--including of course the freedom-loving Bush administration--continues to look the other way. Hats off to him for this.
On Sunday, he has another op-ed on Darfur, no doubt an excellent and moving one. Yet if you don't subscribe to the NY Times or to its online TimeSelect service, here's all you can see of it:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Silence of Bystanders
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 19, 2006
It's our own silence on the genocide spilling out of Darfur, Sudan, that is inexplicable.
To continue reading this article, you must be a subscriber to TimesSelect.
And here's where I get pissed off at the NY Times. This story is so important, and his columns on it are such necessary reading, that they should be available to anyone for free, at all times, like the news section of the Times is now. And yet, for god knows what reasons, the geniuses at the Times have decided to hide his columns behind their rediculous--and, I think, in such cases, immoral--TimeSelect firewall, making it impossible for the non-paying public (i.e. most of us, including yours truly) to view his columns on Darfur.
Now, I realize that the cost for TimeSelect is not THAT high ($50/year), and that you can still read Times op-eds for free in the print version, available at any library, newstand, B&N or Borders. I also realize that, for the intrepid who are willing to slightly bend a law or two, it's usually possible to find the full text of all Times op-eds on the web (hint: Google newsgroup searches). Plus, they do offer a free 14 day trial subscription, and a half price discount to students and educators.
But that's not the point. Columns such as Kristof's, that deal with such horrible and important topics as Darfur, should be free to all, at all times, and the Times should stop hiding them behind their TimeSelect firewall, period. The widest possible audience should be made available to them, not just the kind that pays up front, has a subscription, attends or teaches at a school, has the time to visit the local library, or has the know-how to surreptitiously seek out hidden content out on the web.
Shame on you New York Times. Keep Krugman, Herbert and Dowd's eviscerations of Bush and the GOP behind your firewall if you like. They're always interesting to read and help keep the fires burning, but people can find get such content elsewhere on the web, for free, or else splurge for a subscription or find a copy of the Times somewhere. And Brooks, Tierney and Friedman you can keep too, as no one with a working brain takes them seriously anymore. But op-eds such as this should not be kept hidden from anyone's eyes. They're simply too important to not get maximal exposure.
Here's a suggestion for you to consider. Every once in a while, when the content of an op-ed or other content that would normally remain hidden behind your TimeSelect firewall is important enough--and I think you're all smart enough to realize when that might be--make it freely available for all to read in their entirely, and keep them available for free in your archives indefinitely. Some things simply should not be charged for. Oh, and you might also want to relax your "3 column" limit on excerpts cited in other places, with such content, for much the same reasons. I'm sure your lawyers can work out the details.
This would not only be the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but I also think that it would be the smart thing to do from a business one as well. One, because it's always good for business to be seen as doing the right thing, and two, because it'll give non-subscribers an occasional taste of what they could get if they subscribed, and perhaps convince more than a few to go ahead and shell out the $50.
Think about it. You and the rest of the world (not the least of whom would be the people of Darfur) have everything to gain, and almost nothing to lose.
It's just the right thing to do, and I think that you know it.
(Incidentally, I did a quick search for "alternate" sources of the entire column so I could post it here, but couldn't find any. They usually don't become available until the actual day of publication. And maybe it's for the best, as I wouldn't want to get Kos--or myself--in trouble.)