It's much, much worse than "nobody is willing to pay".
Good journalism must be available to the masses for a minimal cost if we want to maintain a functioning democratic society.
Think about it: if "good journalism" is only available to people who can comfortably afford to pay $10-30/month for a single subscription, that means that the people who are already the worst off have less and less access to the vital information they need to be able to effectively act to change their circumstances. This applies both to political information and business information: the former is necessary for those who want to try to make the lot of the poor better overall, while the latter is necessary for those who want to try to better their own situations.
Word-of-mouth networks in this sort of thing can only get you so far, especially when the free information out there is so heavily skewed to advertising, propaganda, and other forms of manipulative quasi-disinformation.
Good journalism must be available to the masses for a minimal cost if we want to maintain a functioning democratic society.
Think about it: if "good journalism" is only available to people who can comfortably afford to pay $10-30/month for a single subscription, that means that the people who are already the worst off have less and less access to the vital information they need to be able to effectively act to change their circumstances. This applies both to political information and business information: the former is necessary for those who want to try to make the lot of the poor better overall, while the latter is necessary for those who want to try to better their own situations.
Word-of-mouth networks in this sort of thing can only get you so far, especially when the free information out there is so heavily skewed to advertising, propaganda, and other forms of manipulative quasi-disinformation.