Ezra Klein, the other day:
Moral of the day: Selling access to government officials who are willing to contribute their time and power to the media’s cause is a bad revenue model for newspapers. Another way of saying that is that newspapers should not be funded by indirect government subsidies. But the whole brouhaha confirms my long-held belief that newspapers should be funded by direct government subsidies. (emphasis mine)
Which one’s more amazing: the audacity of someone who happens to work for a newspaper openly advocating for their livelihood to be paid, by force, by people who don’t buy the paper he works for? Or the irony of the underlying favortism to an outdated model of disseminating information coming from someone posting a fucking web column?