I have question for the majority of you who seem to think everything should be free:Where are journalists supposed to get their money? Are they supposed to do it for free, for the good of Mother Russia, comrade?If no, then how do you propose they run a business so that the journalists you want to read/watch can make a competitive, real living?Perhaps some of you will say "Well through ads! Duh!!!" But before you do, I'll tell you that pure ad-based models are FAILING all over the place. So then the question is, what do they do to make money once the ad-based model is completely proven to fail?Should all journalists just lower their wages and standard of living? Should we spread the wealth so that you can have free, ad-supported news or is there a better solution?Look, I for one do not really want to pay for news, but I also don't blame the print industry for trying to find a way to monetize their product. The newspaper industry is in shambles - their margins are in the double-digit negatives. I've heard cases of 25% and even 75% negative margins, though I can't substantiate those claims. But using common sense, I would say that it's feasible given the current economic climate.Being a capitalist, I believe we should let the free market prevail. However, I must ask questions when I see a society that has entitlement syndrome and thinks everything should just be free. Has no one ever heard of "There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" before?? TINSTAAFL!Also, while we're on the topic, let's speak in terms of Digg. If you all are so appalled at the Dragon Age ads on here, would you be willing to DONATE let's say $10 a year and receive an Ad-Lite version of the site with minimal ads? Hell, take the ads out of the debate altogether. Would any of you frequent digg users be willing to donate/give $10/year to support digg? If so, why? If not, why not?