Kevin Hinde from the BBC explains its policy of maintaining archives. It makes me glad to be living in Britain.
Josh Marshall makes a valuable point: “Some day, and perhaps some day in the not-too-distant future, someone will write this book. How much of the Washington foreign policy politics of the last decade got compressed into this scrum at the head of the Persian Gulf, how everyone who has a theory about what the next government of Iraq should look like, everyone who wants to make money off it — in short, the level-headed, the hopelessly idealistic and the utterly craven — all descended on Kuwait City to jockey for position.”
Richard Gayle is surely right that, at best, The New York Times has its priorities backwards. A new web policy at the Times means that after 30 days, links to Times articles will direct to a page requiring payment to view an article. Gayle comments, “This could be the end of the Times as a source of links in the Internet. I will no longer link to any of their pages since no one would be able to see anything after 30 days. Why tell anyone else about something interesting if they will have to pay 3 bucks to read it? What is funny about this is that scientific journals are going exactly the opposite direction. It costs money to read the current issue but many are making all their work open to everyone after a period of time. PNAS, for instance, allows open access to anything 6 months older or more. So, at least here there is a benefit to having a subscription. You can get access to 6 months of material at a reasonable price. But, if you can wait a while, you will eventually get older material.”
Update Dave reports that the Times has reversed its policy. If this proves true, it’s excellent news and a tribute to the power of webloggers decrying a ridiculous policy.
I like Rhetorica’s elitism, in response to Washington Monthly’s survey of the books presidential candidates are reading. “Brent Kendall asks: ‘So what can we learn about the current crop of Democratic candidates from their favorite books?’ To which I answer, not very much unless the journalists asking the questions know something about the topics and the books. Otherwise, they risk engaging in pop-psychobabble at the expense of the candidates and the voters.”