> This is one of the reasons I really wish there was a decent, widely supported micropayment system for journalism.
Well, to be fair, there is a decent, widely supported payment system for journalism. It's called subscribing to your local newspaper (or the Times, or a magazine). And, depending on your income, this may be a micro payment. The NY Times costs something like 33 cents a day, for example.
This won't support, or get you access to, the overwhelming majority of articles, though. It's as if each musician required their own, independent monthly subscription.
"The NY Times costs something like 33 cents a day, for example."
> This won't support, or get you access to, the overwhelming majority of articles, though. It's as if each musician required their own, independent monthly subscription.
Fair enough. Sounds like "Spotify, but for news" is what you're looking for. I see your point.
> Newspapers can, and will, quietly double their prices without telling you
If there was a way to get access to all articles published that would create an even larger demand, and subjective value of, single-publisher subscriptions like the NYT.
People, including you and me, don't want to have access to everything, they want choice access to the "best", chosen by a reputable entity.
Well, to be fair, there is a decent, widely supported payment system for journalism. It's called subscribing to your local newspaper (or the Times, or a magazine). And, depending on your income, this may be a micro payment. The NY Times costs something like 33 cents a day, for example.
It does have the virtue of already existing.