This story by politico talks about how less than half of millennials pay for news, largely using internet outlets. And hell—some are quoted that they think they shouldn't have to:

"I don't think you should pay for news," said Eric, age 22 in Chicago. "That's something everybody should be informed in. Like, you're going to charge me for information that's going on around the world?"

So the question comes—who should pay for it? I mean, running bureaus, paying journalists does cost money. So should it be us paying a subscription service or should the costs entirely rest upon advertisers (whom people then complain about having on sites)? And what are the costs of that in terms of neutrality? Maybe people don't think that we should pay journalists, relying on amateurs,which may demonstrate how people don't think investigative reporting is a skill. I don't know. What do you guys think?

ETA: I get most of my news from NPR and I contribute a small amount of money to my member station every month. I find a lot of value to what they are doing and figure, you get what you pay for in terms of news. In the case of NPR, it's paying for an independent news outlet that isn't always chasing advertising bucks. YMMV. I'm just curious how other people see the situation.