[Traster]

I think it's so important that we move towards a model where we can subscribe to a selection of news sources for a reasonable amount. As others have pointed out, individual newspapers are as much as a netflix or spotify subscription - which may be justified. But even if everyone does move to a subscription model, it's bad for our society for everyone to have 1 source of news.

It's even more unhealthy if I can't have an informed discussion about the news of the day with you because you got your news from the NYT and I got my news from Times of London and we got two entirely different sides of the story and we can't go and see each other's sources of information. That sounds to me like a terrible situation to put ourselves in.

I would much rather pay $10 bucks a month and know that that revenue is distributed amongst the papers I read in proportion to how long I've spent reading each article- in exactly the same way Youtube tracks watched minutes.

[tzs]

> It's even more unhealthy if I can't have an informed discussion about the news of the day with you because you got your news from the NYT and I got my news from Times of London and we got two entirely different sides of the story and we can't go and see each other's sources of information

Probably not the best example. With the NYT and the Times of London, you might get different perspectives on a news story (as opposed to an opinion piece), but they will both be mostly correct. You should be able to have informed discussion.

To make your example work, you need something more like an AlterNet reader trying to have an informed discussion with an InfoWars reader.

[acct1771]

Careful with that appeal to authority.

[sneeze-slayer]

Haven't newspapers always been like that? If you want to see someone else's source of information, you would have to go and buy that days copy of the paper.

Newspapers seem to be the original subscription model--you only have one source of news.