This move seems to betray a lack of nuance in understanding of readers by the NYT. To be clear, I find the idea of paying for journalism and news media, in comb

This move seems to betray a lack of nuance in understanding of readers by the NYT. To be clear, I find the idea of paying for journalism and news media, in combination with or instead of ad support, to be compelling and important. However, I think it is also important to recognize the pragmatic value of the decision to offer free content, when this is the norm on the internet. The NYT has lost a great deal of trust from it's readers in recent years, including those of various political and social leanings. Many opposed to the growth of populist, right-wing movements in the US (and to a degree abroad) see the NYT as emblematic of a news media more interested in humanistically profiling far-right extremists, including self-avowed white nationalists, than in highlighting their evils. They also find the NYT to be a major nexus of sensationalist coverage of the Trump presidential campaign and administration, distracting from balanced and substantial coverage of the race in favor of an obsession with email scandals and essentially unimportant (but amusing or provocative) actions by Trump and his entourage. On the other side of the American political divide, many have found the 'failing' NYT to be unrepresentative of their experiences as Americans, and have begun to dismiss it's coverage as partisan and often distorted. The paper's attempts to introduce balanced coverage, especially in the editorial pages, has been met with vitriol from both liberals and conservatives. Outside of partisan politics, coverage of issues like the Las Vegas massacre have been criticized by many as sensationalizing the attack and encouraging copycats, including by academics. When the most venerated news institution in the United States cannot heed what is increasingly accepted in academia and abroad as responsible reporting procedures for mass attacks, it is concerning. Journalism need not be free to consumers, and I personally believe it would be better off as a directly subscribed medium with little to no ad support. But this does not seem an appropriate or strategic time for a newspaper that desperately needs to rebuild its trust with readers (especially with young millennials) to ask for more subscription dollars. I have heard of many people who have cancelled or allowed to lapse subscriptions to the NYT (subscriptions I was surprised to learn they had) over the issues I've mentioned. Subscription volume may be up, but I suspect deeper trends in subscriber and nonsubscriber perceptions are at work and this change will damage the NYT in the long run. Of course, this is a fragile time for news media, especially print, and it is not surprising to see a paper opting for short-term earnings.