Reading paid news is definitely something that my generation and the upcoming ones do not see as a good use of money - I realize I'm generalizing but I don't know anyone who went to high school with me that pays for news. Now, my parents, my grandparents, and a lot of people in the 50-60+ range have newspaper subscriptions and magazine subscriptions. I used to work for a boss that let me read his old WSJ papers and wow was that fun, but there was no way I could afford the $400/year? that WSJ cost - but I see the value in paid news, so I'm not bashing it at all. I just don't know anyone that wants to pay for it. That and every news company I go to is frigging LOADED with advertisements that I can't even focus on reading because every half page scroll there are 20 ads - even in the text. How do people focus and actually read anymore?! You watch those old television shows and movies (60s or so) and you see them reading a news paper that is 90% print. Now I could see paying for that, in fact, I'd gladly pay for that. But why in the **** would I pay for something that's 80% advertisement? That's why I personally can't stand to pay for it - even WSJ and Economist have too many ads on their website even if you pay their expensive fees. In the 2003-2009 years I had to stop my magazine subscriptions because even though they were $19.99/year, they became 80-90% advertisements. I'd definitely re-consider it if they removed ALL ads for paying subscribers. I'm finding more and more people that I know get their news from youtube channels that talk about current events or what not.