Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re largely owned by Gannett, so all have the same subscription template.

+1 and part of the point is to remind people that journalists need an income and producing real news isn't free.

+1 It might help if they could just ask users to pay to see specific articles rather than subscribing, but then OP and others like OP probably would still object that they had to pay anything at all.

This belief that people are entitled to free news is one of the reasons why those "podunk" papers are dying off, taking the profession with them, since journalists do actually need to eat, pay mortgages and support families, while ferreting out things which often the powers that be don't want brought to light. But hey, they should do that as a public service, right? And not expect any remuneration, God forbid.

Anonymous wrote:They’re largely owned by Gannett, so all have the same subscription template.

+1 and part of the point is to remind people that journalists need an income and producing real news isn't free.

They’re largely owned by Gannett, so all have the same subscription template.

Does anyone who does not live in the area of the paper actually pay for this? I follow true crime and I'm constantly surprised how many random online papers in Cheboygan, etc. want people to become subscribers to read random articles. I'm always able to find the info without a paywall, but still tons of sites try to maybe it works? Btw, I'm fine with ads and understand they need revenue, but its not realistic to expect every random person to subscribe.