[dingfeng_quek]

You got it for free - why should you expect more? If there's a demand for accurate, well-supported, and much harder-to-produce news and commentary, which someone is willing to pay for, many journalists would be happier as well. This, however, is a free publication that (simplifying) earns on a per-view basis. Perhaps there already exists another source of information that's accurate, but behind a paywall.

[novalis]

I don't think we should act like there aren't any quality freely distributed reporting sources. Someone paying for content can have the perception that it is worthy and better than other models, but that often leads to comsumption of more targeted content that fits the internal level of bias and doesn't necessarily make it to be of higher journalistic quality. These both considerations shape the content industry, and none of them are "free" models. Ignorance, in communication, is not an externality that we can afford in this day and age.

[bobsoap]

There are plenty of monetization models besides trashy linkbait and paywalls that are capable of producing great results. I agree with you that, as a consumer, if you get something for free, it's actually you who is the product. But there are many facets in the quality/trash spectrum and there are quite a few good examples of successful business models that are "free" yet produce good quality.