If more people paid for journalism, sites like The Guardian’s wouldn’t have to have those banners.
To turn it around: what journalism have you paid for recently?
To turn it around: what journalism have you paid for recently?
There was a day where, if we wanted to read an edition of a newspaper or a magazine, we would pay a dime or a quarter to receive a copy. We could do essentially the same thing on the internet, but for some reason everyone huffs and puffs and insists that it wouldn't work. Yet it hasn't truly been tried. I would certainly "insert" a quarter to receive a day-pass in order to read something I'm interested in. Just give me the option. For the people who don't want to pay, they can choose to view ads and annoying modals.
Maybe the presence of these banners says something important about the value of the content (in this context) and the respect that the organization has for its readers.
If you're willing to pay for journalism, find a newspaper – any newspaper – and buy a subscription. I assume from your posts that you're in America, and politically right-of-centre. What about the Wall Street Journal? It broke the Theranos story and many others, and employs a raft of very good journalists doing important work.
We had a local paper in my area, The Western Star, that ran for 206 years. It was the last source that I was really dedicated to, because I cared a lot more about local.
RIP Western Star https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p16007coll84