So you're getting irritated by news organizations' need to pay their journalists. 
If you don't think that WaPo is local, then I don't think you've been reading it. Most of the sports coverage quoted in the threads of this very forum are from Post writers.
I do like the "news subscriber" idea of yours, though. $10 a month for access to all the majors seems like a no-brainer.
Not irritated by the basic need to pay their journalists - finding their approach to doing so nonsensical and inevitably failing.
As far as the sports aspect goes, what really is there that I won't find either reading ESPN or MLB's daily recap? What trades and moves won't be posted on Nationals.com, or here, or Twitter? All that's left are a bunch of inflated talking heads spouting their opinions, despite the fact they've never played professionally, much less managed or worked in a FO. If fools writing novels of nonsense they have no experience about and no credentials on was worthy of charging to read, I'd be a billionaire by now.
The wire versus "not a wire" thing... Yeah, I clearly don't get the difference. Boots on the ground, people with better perspectives, more knowledge and insight, additional quotes and interviews? I can understand why some people might prefer that. I would too, possibly, just not paying for it with the models they currently have in place (Meaning I'm only interested in some packaged deal.) Regardless, any wire produced story I read is going to have the basics and the same bits and pieces as the "premium" stuff. One might even say the wire route is preferable, cutting out the BS and unnecessary parts to get the concise 'meat and potatoes' of the story.
The local thing's been covered ad nauseum.
It's still exactly like I said yesterday. Pay for content you cannot get elsewhere and that matters to you. So far, the sports and local argument I can't say I see the same way. Sports content I'd pay for? Something like Elias Says by ESPN daily. I find the historical records broken on a daily basis fascinating, and that's something you can't get just by looking at Twitter or the wires. But the WaPo clearly doesn't appeal to me, never will. I was simply curious as to what I wasn't 'getting' that saw others willing to pay to access, and so far I still don't.
Seems like it's more of a holdover from days before there was an Interwebz - sort of like Encyclopedia Britannica trying to survive in an era of Wikipedia, albeit nowhere near as dramatically.
Seems to me what they need to survive is to revolutionize their business. Beyond my idea of a group deal, I could see folks paying for personalities - which is something that the big name papers almost do the exact opposite of right now. Some journalist or pundit who you like, agree with, or enjoy reading, producing content for that paper's site. While there are definitely some names out there, largely the papers seem to try to minimize the individuality and focus on the brand - "This is a Washington Post article, so you know it'll be good." and not "Hey, we've got Stephen King or J.K. Rowling doing daily Op/Eds or entertainment news and reviews." Given the immediate and widespread dissemination of any news of note in the digital age, there's just no way I see the reasons given in response to my query allowing these giants to survive indefinitely producing what they're currently producing, but then again I think we've already realized I run to the beat of my own drum 99% of the time...
Poll
