6 ms·
Sadly, I would have to pay $1 a week for 12 weeks to read the story. I think it would probably be old news by then.
by dholowiski 13y ago
Sadly, I would have to pay $1 a week for 12 weeks to read the story. I think it would probably be old news by then.
- ghshephard 13y agoWSJ stories are 100% of the time available by doing a google search for the headline.
- cpncrunch 13y agoIt's ridiculous that we should have to do that.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- eropple 13y agoIf you've got a better way for them to keep the lights on, there are wheelbarrows of money waiting for you.
- gargarplex 13y agoWhat about the Netflix/Spotify model? Pay a monthly subscription for "premium news" and then let the content providers divvy up the monies based on pageviews.
- nknighthb 13y agoThat would simply accelerate existing trends. All the money would go toward pumping out more celebrity gossip because that's what gets eyeballs. There would be no remaining incentive to engage in actual journalism. Profit-based news is irretrievably broken.
- cpncrunch 13y agoThere's nothing wrong with profit news. That is how all news generally works - journalists generally don't work for free. However they should rely on adverts like the other online news sources.
- nknighthb 13y agoJournalists get paid, that doesn't mean the news organization that pays them must be a for-profit entity.
- chunger 13y agoBarons articles too, if you're into financial news.