What I'd really like though is to support one or two major publications and then have a slush fund where I could pay per article to other sources.
I don't know... does HN have enough readership where it could collect funds and redistribute? It's my primary source of reading random material.
Unfortunately I can't afford all the different publications that might have an interesting article from time to time, but it seems like it would be their loss if they completely paywalled everything off.
Maybe something more like gym memberships would work where you could purchase say a 10-article "punchcard" or a subscription.
One of the things I like about print magazines (and newspapers) is the serendipity--you read something that wouldn't normally grab your attention because it's on the next page and...you've already paid for it, after all.
Paying per article seems like it would push people only to read things that they're sure they'll enjoy (based on the author, title, etc).
I wonder if an opt-out payment scheme would work: you authorize the site to bill you up to (say) $5/month. When you finish reading an article, the site deducts $0.25 from your account unless you take some simple action. If your account is empty, you read for free until the next month, and maybe some "proud support/well read" flair or something.
It does put a limit on the site's monthly revenue, but perhaps ensuring that readers feel like they're getting what they paid for helps make up for that.
NYT is like NPR -- high quality reporting, but they beat you over the head with a stick to get across whatever broader point they have. It gets a little ponderous. The secret of the NYT is that you escape that crap by turning the page... the features are a treasure. I've been hooked to Science Times since second grade. They have stuff on art, books, etc... that's why you subscribe. The news is a commodity.
If anything I feel like the focus on what he says is just distracting people from the more important news which is what he's doing.