As I have many times said: No one in the future-of-media discussion is worried that rich and powerful people won't get the journalism they need to understand what's coming and make good decisions. The issue is whether the public will be so inabled. Now with that in mind, read on...

god forbid they should go back to print and make individual issues available at your favorite grocery check out line ... ... A subscription is of course much easier to sign up for and forget until one cannot afford fast food delivered by Ubereats.

I'm just laughing at the fact that Sacramento has achieved world capital status, even if it makes Gavin Newsom even more insufferable.

I guess if I was a multimillionaire, I wouldn't object to paying for one of these subscriptions, so some intern could spend all day tracking it and looking for the occasional nugget. But based on what I've seen over the years from the stuff they offer through their ad-supported channel, (1/2)

That's one reason why the news division in the Wall Street Journal is still reality-based. Financial titans have money on the line that requires them to have the real facts before making a decision.

I am actually worried on that. Among other things, when news is a competitive and circulating thing, more truth results. When there is more truth to getting to them, gives us all more of a shot. When there is less, get stuff like 2008.