Everything “Free” is Subsidized

This is a rehash of the old "no free lunch" argument. The difference is, most of what you see in the news media is opinion, hype, and repetition, and instead of paying 100 people to produce that full time, you can have 100,000 people generate it for free, select the top 100, and get better quality content.

Does anyone honestly think that the "breaking news" cycle of TV news conveys any more information than you'd get searching on the relevant Twitter hashtag?

Those of us who actually want good journalism are a niche market. We aren't well-served by most of the media and we won't be well-served from most of the internet, but there is a niche market selling to us. The Economist meets that market, and the NY Times aspires to. But most news has turned into the type of tabloid news that, frankly, can be produced at much lower price and annoyance by sites like Huffington Post.

i would agree if the article said that everything "free" does actually get paid for in some form (especially with respect to business dealings).

but a "subsidy" and to "subsidize" has a specific meaning that isn't as universally applicable as the article tries to make it.