journalism shouldn't make THAT make much money

Lately journalists are writing about how to get people to pay for newspapers even though they're used to free news (NY Times; Slate). I'm all for it because, paradoxically, it would lead to higher quality journalism and higher chances of me writing it.

But charging has failed so far. Not because readers are cheap, I think, but because journalists/their owners get greedy and charge unfairly. Here's a clue in the Slate piece:

The aggregators could bundle publications, giving you a financial incentive to subscribe to, say, the Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all at once.

Ew! Bundling is bad for consumers because it makes people pay for stuff they don't want. Even if it's just an option, not mandatory, it leads to inefficiency in the market generally. One of the great features of digital media is that there's no physical product, so everyone can build her own package. For example, you can buy your favorite 5 songs off an album for $4.95, instead of five you want and five you don't for $12.

The news should be sold a la carte too. I should be able to buy the Times' news and opinion content without paying for Dining & Wine. In the days of paper they could argue that they couldn't possibly tailor to each reader's tastes; it would cost more money than it saved. With digital media, tailoring is free. The Times has no excuse to bill me for Gaston Lenotre's obit.

As long as news organizations insist on bundling, readers will--rightly--decline their bloated product.