Citizen to the New York Times: You're Fired

Yesterday I did something I thought I'd never do. I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times.

I've been a regular, satisfied Times reader for about 15 of my 36 years. Some think the publication is biased. I'll leave that debate for another post, except to say that all news outlets have unavoidable biases of which all citizens must be mindful. I love the Times because it covers the world in a way few other publications are willing or able to: with outstanding journalists who can think and report as well as they write. From US politics to foreign affairs, sports, literature and the arts, the Times extracts previously unavailable information, presents it smartly and analyzes it in depth.

So why am I canceling my subscription?

One simple reason: I no longer care to read the printed newspaper. Between my desktop computers at work and home, a laptop and an iPhone, I can read everything that's in the folded-broadsheet version of the Times and then some — including some good blogs and other web-only content produced by Times journalists. And I can do that without paying for a subscription to the print edition. Given the choice between a bulky newspaper that must be carried around, stored and recycled (and which costs money to buy) and a free, ultra-portable and more comprehensive publication, it's pretty easy to make up one's mind.

But for me, this wasn't a purely rational, Adam Smith-style economic decision. Before switching careers about a year ago to work on Wall Street, I spent 13 immensely rewarding years as a print journalist. I started at a newspaper, a small daily in a rust-belt city outside of New York, before moving into financial journalism as a writer and editor, first for weekly trade newsletters and then a monthly glossy magazine. I didn't always like the work, particularly near the end, but I loved the craft of print journalism and the role it played in the world. I loved the thrill of getting a scoop, the buzz and the colorful characters in a newsroom. I loved seeing my byline in print and getting phone calls from readers (even the angry ones). I loved meeting new people and learning about new things every day. I loved helping people learn about the world and being a watchdog for citizens. I loved newspapers. Even when I no longer wrote for one, I read them religiously: the Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Financial Times.

Still, I couldn't ignore the power of the Rational Economic Man inside me. And a few months ago I took the first step toward a life without newspapers. First, the Journal print subscription went. Then the Times on weekdays. No more trekking down my front walk in the bleary predawn to fetch the papers before heading to the train station. No more stuffing them in my briefcase and struggling to read them while sandwiched between ornery commuters in packed rail cars. No more watching them fill my recycling bins and dreading the stacking, tying and hauling out to the curb every two weeks. On my morning train my iPhone delivered e-mail alerts with all the headlines from each day's Journal, and the New York Times iPhone application let me read everything I would have read in the print edition and more — all on a palm-sized device.

My reading experience had improved. My pocketbook had gotten bigger. My life had grown simpler. Nothing was stopping me from going all the way and cutting out the gargantuan Saturday and Sunday Times print editions.

So now I am newspaperless, and I think I am happy. My only concern is for the future of the news.

Putting out a first-rate newspaper is not cheap. Most importantly, the companies that own newspapers need to pay the salaries of skilled journalists who know how to extract information from reticent sources, recognize what's news and what isn't, put it into the proper context and packaging, and convey it with clear, powerful writing. If I don't pay for it, and you don't pay for it, and our kids don't pay for it, who will? And if no one does, will it cease to exist?

When I called to cancel my subscription the operator practically pleaded with me to stay on, offering all manner of discounts and trial periods. I just didn't want the actual paper showing up at my door anymore. But I'd pay to read it online, provided the price wasn't exorbitant. Unfortunately for the Times, it does not offer such an option.

Because its website is free, the Times is in a worse position than other publications, such as the Journal and the FT, which require online subscriptions. Most newspaper revenue comes from advertising, but subscriptions provide a nice cushion of about 10-15% of revenues. That cushion used to be stable. Now it is disappearing. And advertising is not necessarily as plentiful and profitable for publishers on the Web as it is in print. Advertisers can take advantage of technologies, developed by companies such as Google, that target ads to certain Web users by placing them on blogs and other niche destinations instead of on general news sites.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is. But I know that it's a problem. We need a healthy, aggressive press for our democracy to function properly. And for too long, trends in our society have made the news media sicker and softer. Perhaps non-profit groups like ProPublica, which operates a fantastic investigative reporting site, provide an example of what the future might look like. Until that new model develops, citizens have little choice but to seek the best available information, wherever it resides — on paper or online.