What's interesting to me is that good journalism has always cost more than you could really charge for it. It used to be subsidized by advertising revenue and classifieds and whatnot. Part of it was a loss leader, but it's not like people in the pre-Internet age had better taste than we do. I suspect that one of the functions of good investigative journalism is prestige and a "halo effect," where having high quality content under your brand name helps make all your other content more desirable and reputable by association. I think more Internet publications may engage in "loss leader" prestige content over time.