I've gotten the impression it'd cost like $100 / month to subscribe to the different newspapers whose articles I read maybe once a month?

But if there was a way to subscribe to all of them and pay $1 per article

(But I'd like to use Trim for 2 years, for Nyt.)

If the newspapers/sites expect every reader to subscribe, it can add up quickly, if you're reading 2 articles in each of 20 publications every month.

I do wish more people would pay for content, but the market hasn't really adjusted to the way people read 1% of dozens of different publications.

Yes, and I find it a bit weird that the newspapers won't collaborate and do sth about this -- I wonder how much money they're missing out on.

@catacombs -- those, + the economist, + 3? more in my home country

Most of all I'd like to support small local newspapers

> Yes, and I find it a bit weird that the newspapers won't collaborate and do sth about this -- I wonder how much money they're missing out on.

Way easier said than done.

The NYT in this case should never be supported again.

Scott Alexander does important journalistic work in deeply analyzing the issues.

It’s worth noting that the story is about how he was right about coronavirus in ways that the NYT was not.

The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.

> The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.

You have no evidence to back up this claim.

Yes, the fact SSC was fast to publish information about the coronavirus than other organizations. But, do you really think the NYT, a behemoth in the media world, considers an obscure blog -- to many -- a threat?

I think the NYT considers the obscure blog a snack.

I slightly wonder if they wanted to get rid of him? (his blog)

One Scott Alexander is no threat to them, but 10 could be, and this is clearly going to produce a chilling effect.

Edit for clarification:

I mean 10 commentators with his level of diligence who are willing to engage with difficult issues without ignoring the complexity.

We desperately need more of that in our society, and this action by the NYT will have a chilling effect.

It is profoundly wrong and antidemocratic.

I mentioned this in another reply, but do you honestly think an obscure blog as SSC is a genuine threat to the NYT?

SSC is a highly influential analytical blog, NYT is fast becoming a fact free propaganda horn.

They're bound to clash.

I've considered NYT a propaganda rag ever since they marketed the attack on Iraq. Just because Trump is saying something does not mean it is false - a large part of how he gained such a following is from tapping into a lot of real frustrations that people have. Consolidated mainstream media in the US is the equivalent of state media in the USSR - they're both mouthpieces of the ruling power structure. The US just airs competing factions which creates an illusion of vibrancy.

(disclaimer: Please don't take this as some endorsement of Trump. Even though some of his claims are right, he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering)

> ..he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering

Agreed, of course.