3 ms·
Spending $100 a month on a grabbag of various newspapers is completely infeasible for the average person. Ergo, it's not a solution to the problem.
by ceilingcorner 7y ago
Spending $100 a month on a grabbag of various newspapers is completely infeasible for the average person. Ergo, it's not a solution to the problem.
- pgrote 7y agoI understand what you are saying and am grateful I can afford the monthly cost. The cost I pay is worth the value I receive.
- xnyan 7y agoI agree and I also subscribe to what I can. The only problem for us is, like others are saying, I don’t think our subscriptions are enough money and I don’t think it’s feasible financially for enough people to do so at the level needed to keep enough quality newspapers and journalists in business. (in the us) The New York Times is arguably the only non-business paper that makes enough money from subscriptions to make sense sticking it out alone. Maybe the Washington Post, LA Times and a few others (and maybe not, i hear the subscription rates are horrible) too, but for the vast majority bundling digital subscription as a single package is the only way I see for small papers to attract significant numbers of subscribers. It would be really great to read papers from Las Vegas and Cincinnati, but I can’t see myself ever setting up and managing individual subscriptions to them if I am being honest.
- stronglikedan 7y agoI'd posit that the average person who would make use of all the subscriptions, as the OP seems to be, could most certainly afford it. As hobbies go, it's really not that expensive.