I've said this before in other threads but I'll say this again: THERE IS TOO MUCH NEWS. In any market as the quantity goes up (and the amount of news content ha

I've said this before in other threads but I'll say this again: THERE IS TOO MUCH NEWS. In any market as the quantity goes up (and the amount of news content has skyrocketed in the last decade or so) the value goes down. There are so many news websites out there, and I'm not even talking the niche ones that cover certain things, there are hundreds if not thousands of large general coverage entities online all vying for the same eyeballs. When we hit a Paywall here on HN, we either use the Google link to get around it, or go to a different website offering the same content for free. There is no incentive for me to pay the New York Times 99 cents a month or whatever it is when there are a dozen parrot websites offering the same product. The bigger institutions involved in this are getting drowned by parrot clickbait shitty websites for their "rapid fire" coverage. They should stop covering that kind of garbage and move purely to more thoughtful, innovative and interesting topics and just stop doing the rapid shit altogether. I would pay to read an NYT that had interesting a thoughtful content that I wouldn't be able to get at every other website. In short: No one gives a shit if the New York Times doesn't cover the latest Twitter scandal: We know, we were on Twitter watching it happen, we don't need 5,000 articles from a thousand news sources about how horrible it was. Go find us something INTERESTING to read.