Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're often running in to the WSJ paywall that means their content is often good, and they fund that content through subscriptions. Their competitors, who you're not running in to very often are not funded through subscriptions. Maybe subscriptions lead to higher quality content?
> If you're often running in to the WSJ paywall that means their content is often good, Doesn't follow. It does mean its often get linked in places that I read, but that doesn't mean its good. > Their competitors, who you're not running in to very often That was never stated and is an unreasonable assumption. Just because one isn't running into competitors paywalls (because other sources often don't have such a thing…
It's also pretty reasonable to believe that they make more money from subscriptions than they would from advertising, and that they're more likely to be able to afford to produce high quality articles with more money than with less.