I just checked out WSJ and NY Times. After promo, WSJ is $29/month. That's whether or not you want actual paper or just digital access. NY Times has various plans, one of the cheapest is about $16/month. So that's just two newspapers.
I'd gladly pay $20 or even $30 per month for full access to all the major newspapers. But the big papers would never agree to that, because their individual cuts of the pie would probably be too small.
I agree, this video makes it look like there was a strong chance that it could have been a success if the random variables on the way down aligned better. If it had of been they may not have learned and iterated based on this possibility and may have had a failure down the track.
Yes, it should be the responsibility of the supplier. That's how every other balanced system works in economics. You only have issues when there is moral hazard when someone is allowed to shirk their responsibility. Trying to have someone downstream make up for it is a fool's errand.
In this case, the supplier should be required to put up collateral or purchase some kind of cleanup insurance for cleanup. i.e. there needs to be a basic regulation from the government on land granted to mining.
The one time I got that kind of offer, I got a lot of pressure from the hiring manager to take the most equity possible. They basically insinuated that doing otherwise was disloyal -- although, they cloaked the message in a super-positive tone, saying something like, "we are always really stoked when new hires choose the most equity possible because they believe in the mission". I know those words might sound squishy but trust me, there was no ambiguity about what they meant.
In retrospect I wish I had taken the higher salary.