Journalists from paid newspapers look down on their colleagues from free media. When they write about them, the addition "The free newspaper" is almost never missing, making it clear that "free" is an absolutely central feature of that newspaper. Whether it's a regional weekly or "20 Minutes": somehow they are all suspect.
The core argument against these papers is qatar rcs data always that journalistic products involve a lot of work, and that work cannot simply be free. Of course it really cannot. But there are various models for financing this service. Some let readers pay, others only let advertisers pay. From an economic point of view, it doesn't really matter, the main thing is that the bill works out. And the fact that they are currently doing this mainly for free newspapers does not exactly calm the excitement.
But what about the conclusion that free media is inherently of lower quality? Is journalism necessarily less good if there is no subscription product at the end of the chain.