[autoexec]

Netflix the contender for our limited attention and only one of an ever growing number of subscriptions whose cost needs to be justified. I'm guessing a streaming service, even one with netflix's catalogue, is going to provide a lot more bang for your buck in terms of minutes of quality content per dollar.

[carlosjobim]

Netflix has nothing to do with newspapers or other digital content and services that aren't video streaming.

People seem to make the comparison only because the things are accessed by using a screen, which seems to be a very simple perspective. Just because Netflix is a great bargain (for those who like their content), doesn't mean you can conclude that everything else is expensive.

[dahwolf]

Value for money and value for time will apply regardless.

Both entertainment and reading in-depth paid news are one and the same: luxuries one does in their (typically) scarce spare time using an (often) modest budget.

[carlosjobim]

That's not my attitude to paid news at all. Quality news are often essential in order to understand things that are happening in your vicinity, that will have a direct impact on your life and on the life of people close to you. It is not necessarily about entertainment or wasting some time. Mostly low quality news media will have a focus on entertaining.

If we use Netflix as a benchmark, you shouldn't spend money on anything except for on Netflix, since almost nothing gives the same amount of hours of use per cent paid. Exceptions for lightbulbs, which are not that entertaining to watch.

I think most people sometimes go out for a drink, a meal, or a coffee - without agonizing much about the price, even though you could get many days glued to Netflix for the same price as that drink with friends.