Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast.

Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)



The Washington Post, one of the three best papers in America (NYT, WSJ, Post), is $50/year if you're a prime subscriber.


I'm only seeing a $144/year option?


On my phone but try this https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2015/09/16/amazon-prime...


Why is a full feed of quality news worth less to you than Netflix?


Netflix provides many times more hours of entertainment than the WSJ could ever hope to.


If you consider news only an entertainment product, that's a fair comparison. If you want to know what's going on in the world, it's not.


Netflix costs too much for what it is. News that you can find anywhere else is certainly not worth much. Yes, depending upon how you wish it to be documented and such, it may be worth it but I don't understand the want to see any more news than the local news and what Google can provide. I'm not against supporting; I just wonder why anyone would spend more than an hour a day reading news from one source.


"quality news" is rarely consistent or reliable.

wsj in particular had some rather absurd hit pieces on bernie sanders.


Netflix is $9 a month here in Australia.


Nobody pays for Netflix; they just use their cousin's/sister's/girlfriend's/etc.'s account.


Not sure if this is a good deal, but take a look: https://myaccount.news.com.au/theaustralian/subscribe?pkgDef...


$16 a month for The Australian and the WSJ for 3 months, then $32 a month. That is a bit steep given we all already pay for http://www.abc.net.au/news/




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: