Just plain mean-spirited.

Ever notice, if you click on a Washington Post article in an RSS aggregator, you can read the title, read the summary ... but if you open the page, WaPo takes you to their home page (washingtonpost.com) for their $1 access fee 'ask', with the page you want barely visible and the actual specific URL obliterated? If you don't pony up, you can't even grab the URL to the article unless you dig back in your RSS feed (time consuming).

Bloggers used to be a value-add, bringing more eyeballs in. Bah. I'm going to drop WaPo from my NEWS list, to my PROBATION list.

Another prime source of good info out of reach. I used to post based on their summaries; now it'll take too much time. Another that I have to observe, then triangulate second-quality sources to try to attract eyeballs with. We still have AP, though the writing's uneven.

I have no problems with news orgs charging for access. They could offer some creative methods for bloggers like myself to access their wares, but I suppose blogs like mine are dodo birds in this day and age. I do not pay for subscriptions because I want to accommodate all my readers, affluent or not. It is getting hard, very hard to find and use quality free sources. I strongly feel that as a voting citizen of the US, a human on this changing globe, a certain 'minimum' amount of news should be free. You shouldn't have to pony up $10/month ... or even $1 for a digital peek ... to find out Kim's launched a missile at your home town, or Vlad's made someone local a big (glowing) green salad.

Thank goodness for the Guardian in Britain. I just contributed. You should, too.