Subscriptions are fine, I pay for several. But they don't fit every use case. There should be a way to pay for a single article. Some micropayment service(s) so you don't need an account with every web site you might want to read.

It has been tried numerous time without success. Not sure when the right time and the right concept will come.

Similarly, I think I would rather read a blog written by an expert on their area of expertise (for free) than read a newspaper's (sloppy) filtering of that.

And, if I care deeply enough about a topic, I would rather read a book about it. What service do these newspapers think they serve?

To corrupt an adage, I honestly think the best reporting is generally free (e.g. coffeezilla, e.g., excellent in-depth podcasts, e.g. many excellent articles and essays linked via HackerNews, etc...) and the second best is more expensive than most newspapers can afford to be (e.g., a book).

Privacy is portayed by the authorities as someone to protect the people, but in reality the people have none and it’s really used to hide the illegal and corrupt actions of government officials.

Maybe that would work for larger websites too? They do often have gift links, which are another way to do it. Limited-time promotions seem like a reasonable way to get new subscribers, and an election is an excuse to do it. It would get traffic from people who do last-minute research on less-covered races.

I’m skeptical about how much effect it would have on the races where most people have already made up their minds. How would that work? Would it increase turnout?

To get around the paywall...

Ad-supported journalism is a joke in a society that abuses advertising so thoroughly. Using an ad blocker is more than a convenience, it's a security measure. Arguably it's also better for the environment [1] [2].

One article [3] argues for "non-reformist reforms," which try to mitigate the commercial pressures on journalism. However the article's solution seems to be to switch to public media models and/or government funding. As the article puts it:

"Therefore, any initiative that erodes the commercial and anti-democratic design of existing media institutions—by transitioning them into nonprofit outlets, facilitating public media partnerships, unionizing newsrooms, and establishing media cooperatives—can help radicalize news workers and engage communities while laying the groundwork for more transformative change in the future."

I honestly don't know how well that'll work, but it's also basically what the article suggests to pay for journalism for a year:

"They can enlist foundations or other sponsors to underwrite their work. They can turn to readers who are willing to subscribe, renew their subscriptions, or make added donations to subsidize important coverage during a crucial election."

Stengel's article also says, "A large percentage of these Americans see media as being biased. Well, part of the reason they think media are biased is that most fair, accurate, and unbiased news sits behind a wall."

That wasn't true 40 years ago and I don't think it's true now. A lot of journalism strives to be unbiased, but that will always be a goal it reaches for, not one it will attain. To say otherwise only continues to erode society's trust of journalism.

The money to pay journalists has to come from somewhere.

[1] https://marmelab.com/blog/2022/01/17/media-websites-carbon-e...

[2] https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7080/8/2/18

[3] https://lpeproject.org/blog/taking-media-out-of-the-market/

I never subscribed to a newspaper and I don't know what exactly drives an average Joe to subscribe to one but my assumption is that one or two paywalled articles won't drive someone to subscribe to the newspaper, it would rather frustrate them to get stuck and blocked from reading. Either you will subscribe because of the word of mouth and perceived reputation of the newspaper or you will subscribe because your favorite author is writing for the newspaper you want to subscribe. That's why I find it mind boggling that for example The Economist's news articles are anonymous and not signed by authors.

My suggested solutions are: 1. Make old news articles free and really new ones paywalled or 2. Introduce micropayments for each article (for example 10 cents to unlock an article for lifetime) or 3. Aggregate all paywalled articles across different newspapers to some news aggregator and then ask people to subscribe.

Tbh, I'm a huge fan of independent journalism and internet blogging which are free and either ad-supported or donation supported.

I don't want Google and the likes to become more powerful either, but some kind of consolidated access to all such information might be a better approach for the news consumer. Perhaps some kind of pay per "article" model might work better.

I would have been more willing to pay something like 25 cents per article if there was a universal access model.

I suprise myself saying this, but AOL model was probably a more consumer friendly approach...

If anything, a paywall suggests that somebody has put some effort into gathering that news. People peddling disinformation want to pay you to take it.

I believe the real issue is that the disinformation is so popular. It's crafted so that some people want to hear it. It's usually not difficult to refute, but there's so much of it that it that even if you're skeptical it's hard to swat away 100% of it.

Putting a paywall between you and the actual news source doesn't help, but even if it were free, it's just too much work. And those who don't want to believe it won't.