I wonder if it's too elitist to be useful to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality content. I happily pay for the Economist, Stratfor and other simil

I wonder if it's too elitist to be useful to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality content. I happily pay for the Economist, Stratfor and other similar high-quality sources of information and they seem to derive sufficient income from those subscriptions not to have to resort to asinine ads. Sites that don't provide high-enough quality content to be worth the subscription fee all get to fight over monetizing the eyeballs of their users and (I suspect) alienating the more discerning customers.