I am a TimesSelect subscriber. I would not pay a cent for any WSJ comment, but synoptic and second-hand (late) coverage of Krugman and Rich, among other great commentary, would ruin my day. To read these guys (even the best of Dowdage) I would pay for the printed edition. The best read of most days is a Times editorial. Imagine going to the editorial page online and not being able to access a Herbert teaser or an oped of consequence. While The Times might make more money through advertising, TimesSelect is proof of intellectual value that can be capitalized. When Slate began, I subscribed--and would do so again. Beyond that great umbrella, I'm a sucker for clear insight. You know: a bit more knowledge, a great wedge, info on the cusp, wonkery even when wobbely, a way to say hello-goodbye I'm late... Slate's advantage is an easy way to navigate "the newspaper sections" by whinnowing wheat from chaff, by openly joining opinion with sourced fact, and offering links to original sources and in-depth coverage. Neither The Times nor The Post are secure enough to do any of that. Clearly the best business decision (in communications) of the last decade was The Post's purchase of Slate.com. While the "Old Guard" is confused and amidst and among and educating and enforcing, "the kids" are experimenting with an expansive paradigm of multiple outlets and income streams. Dana Milbank (of The Post) is a great example: He appears in print, radio, television, and The Web; his clothes, hair, and teeth are write-offs. As one of 225,000 subscribers, I am among the vanguard. When I send the latest TimesSelect (or Slate) article (to fewer than a dozen friends), that funny word, democracy, gains value.