I commented on Fred’s post on Times Select and decided to turn my comment into a post. Fred expressed some frustration at TimesSelect, and how it is keeping important voices out of the debate. I agree, and actually think it is also a 1999 (and losing) strategy for a web publisher:

As I wrote in a post a few weeks ago, talking about Web 2.0 and what RealClearPolitics is about –

“I think what we’re seeing now is a slew of mainstream media organizations recognizing that a) people will surf to other sites whether you like it or not b) you have an opportunity as a brand to add more value to the experience if you can provide further filtering and help to these readers and c) if you don’t do it, your competitors will.”

News organizations are recognizing that there is tremendous value in linking to related stories around the internet to the story in question — in other words, to stories that Editors feel are particularly relevant, even if they were not written by their own authors.

Not only is the Times *not* linking to stories outside of the the NYTimes (compare to FoxNews and Time.com, both of whom are linking to RealClearPolitics.com, as one example) — which is really a bad decision in itself — but they are driving their own Times Select writers into irrelevance.

As many people believe the NY Times editors are the best in the world, why wouldn’t they showcase other sites, articles, etc. they deem worthy? And as many people believe NY Times writers are the best in the world, why not allow *other* editors/bloggers to showcase their work? We know that NY Times writers are already some of the most blogged writers out there — yet the very best in some highly highly blogged categories (politics, sports, etc.) are shut out.
It’s ironic because the NY Times Digital has been historically very innovative online — even having a Most Blogged section — yet they continue to cling to a web 1.0, vertically integrated model.

Many people also believe that TimesSelect was in some ways a reaction to WSJ’s success in building a subscription business online — yet to the WSJ’s credit, even they have links to releated stories around the blogosphere.
The world is moving away from the Times, as more and more people are looking for sites like RealClearPolitics.com and BuzzTracker.com to provide an “intelligent filter” of what is the best, on-topic articles out there.

Bottom line: readers expect you as a news organization to round-out the story; to provide context and further reading; to provide your *own* take on what’s worth it to read and not read. We will continue to see sites that provide extraordinary filtering (see RealClearPolitics) gain readers and advertisers, and sites that cling to the old way of doing things are missing tremendous growth opportunities.

There is a LOT of things going on today in the news cycle that are being covered extensively by the blogosophere:

In Baseball, we’ve got the MLB playoffs coming up - with lots of conversation happening in the Yankees and Mets blogs –

Chicago Bears fans are super-excited about their Bears –

Technology fans are up in arms about Pay Per Post and YouTube

And all kinds of people have an opinion on Mark Foley

and Condoleeza Rice.

Stats to come….