My take on the Times paywall debate:
It may seem like a slap in the face, when you click on a interesting, hard hitting headline only to be faced with a paywall. This is because it is a service we have become accustomed to having for free.

However, you wouldn't walk into the shop, pick up a copy of the Times and walk out without paying.

Without some sort of paywall in place, online articles are relying purely on ads. For me this presents a problem in that articles are then, inadvertently or not, written to get these clicks.
To me, that is a dangerous trend which will damage the integrity of journalism.

It does create a divide. Those who can afford it, and those who can't. But that was always there to an extent. I grew up in a working class household. We couldn't afford to get a paper every day. But once a week, my Dad would buy the local paper and one of the Sunday papers.

He bought these with knowledge that in these papers, there would be a high quality level of journalism. He continues to buy them to this day.

Like any other service, if we want quality journalism, we are going to have to pay for it some way or another. But I feel that if we do pay for it, then we have the right to demand that it be at that high quality level.

If anyone has any other ideas, I would genuinely love to hear them. Because the industry I put my heart and soul into is suffering, and we need to find an answer.

Please excuse this rant, I have been cooped in this house for too long.