> The contract a reader enters with The Information is very clear: We pay, they write. Enough of us pay so they can keep writing. They write in a way that provi

> The contract a reader enters with The Information is very clear: We pay, they write. Enough of us pay so they can keep writing. They write in a way that provides value via knowledge (ostensibly leading to smarter business decisions or investments on the part of the reader; i.e., extremely clear value proposition), not shock. Their model is not contingent on us looking at their writing from morning until night. Once a day is more than enough. Entry points are limited. It’s a healthy model for all parties. It's certainly a personal choice, but this is NOT the contract I want with investigative journalism. I want the model to be "I support you however I can, you change the freaking world." IIRC I've seen The Information put quality investigative articles behind a paywall, and I was struck by how inefficient this would lead to change: I can't share this with others, the nuance of the article isn't visible if someone Googles the subject, the punchline may enter the zeitgeist but the nuance will not. I think that's dangerous, and if The Information were instead to suggest a contract "we show ads to everybody, track everybody, clickbait everybody, and therefore you can share this with everybody" I would prefer that instead. Certainly they're entirely within their rights to NOT want to be in that business. Fully support anyone who does. But the ad-driven bait-driven model does have its uses, and we shouldn't throw it out with the bathwater.