> It's hard to say of course, we don't have all the information, but I can tell you it was very resource intensive, and at the same time the core product (newspaper/website) was bloated and burdened with ads.

> Honestly to me it felt like the historical newspaper model just simply stopped being as effective, and rather than face that reality, downsize, and innovate, these companies sold their souls to the devil (advertisers).

What now? Are you somehow suggesting the newspapers shouldn't have been running ads, or decided to run fewer ads, when their other revenue was likely drying up (e.g. classified ads)?

The historical newspaper model has always been to use news to get eyeballs, them make money showing ads. If that's selling "their souls to the devil (advertisers)," they were doing it from the start.

Maybe that model no longer works? I don't recall an option to pay for an online account and not have ads, or pay for a print version without ads. Why not? My points is they were lazy (my experience) or simply just not innovative enough.

Times change, behavior changes, technology changes. I don't see how forcing the marketplace to subsidize a failing business model simply because "freedom of the press" is codified in the Constitution is a good idea.

Maybe the press needs a rethinking? Sites like Substack are showing that's the case.

Lastly, I do want to see local newsrooms survive and thrive, I'm just stating my experience in hindsight gave me a perspective where I'm not entirely sympathetic to ideas like the one core to this thread.