and was able to view every article. I wonder if it is allowed by clicking through their Twitter account, or if it is due to using NoScript/ad blockers.

It's $8 a month for unlimited access.

I'm happy to pay even $20/mo, as long as there's no advertising. I used to subscribe to the WaPo, and I still got ads! When I called them on this, they copped a very haughty attitude. "Of course there's advertising! We need that to stay in business!" No, you don't.

Ads cause the page to reformat, which for me is very irritating. They are also quite the distraction when reading intense text that discusses difficult subjects.

Give me a news site that doesn't run ads *for subscribers*, and I'm happy to subscribe. WaPo could have two different subscripton rates: one low rate with ads, and a higher rate without ads. Apparently they are too busy being incensed to reason this idea through...

news spread as much.

Your volunteer work, most laudable, isn't a substitute for supporting those who go to work every day to inform, educate or even entertain us.

I also volunteer for what I believe in but don't begrudge paying for having my car repaired or my roof repaired.

How is journalism and information different?

Paraphrasing, a free press isn't free . . .

If I had enough to buy a digital membership I would, but I don't so this is how I read the article if I can't find it somewhere not behind a pay wall.

That seems pretty reasonable for all the content they provide.

Not sure how they are supposed to stay in business without subscribers.

News sources need money to pay reporters, etc.

We want great news coverage but people whine about paying for it.

What journalism do YOU support?

The New Yorker. I decided to put my money where my mouth is and support good reporting.

Www.democraticunderground.com

Reporters, editors, office staff, janitors, photographers all like to eat. Servers and rent aren't free. Online ads don't bring in enough revenue. Something has to give.

that must be an historical first.
When did they ever do that before?
What next? Advertising in the middle of TV news shows?

WaPo has a paywall, Washington Times doesn't

NYT has a paywall, the NY Post doesn't

The Atlantic has a paywall, Front Page Mag doesn't

Could this be a reason why they are much more effective at getting their message out?

They have huge costs for composition, layout, printing, and distributing their paper product.

News sites that are all or mostly digital are better able to support their reporters, writers, and IT operations on ad revenue alone.

Their shit... er, I mean news, is worthless.

If it's worth nothing, you pay nothing.

pay for the Washington Post.

Not sure it's worth it so long as I can get uneditorialized news from AP and Reuters for free.