Build The Wall analysis

Section 1: 

Speaking directly to the reader, informing that high-quality journalism needs to be saved by spreading awareness of the fact that news institutions cannot sustain themselves without funding, therefore subscription fees, advertisement monetization, etc all need to be taken in account and encouraged.

Section 2:

Explains and questions whether there will be enough compensation and time for these news institutions to sustain themselves before shutting down.

Section 3:

Explains the paywall situation, handing out statistics such as "10 percent of the existing 210,000 Baltimore Sun readers who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, or roughly $10, would represent about $2.5 million a year." Subscriptions need to be significant enough.

Section 4:

Again, presenting statistic to show the damaging decline and institutions not being able to sustain themselves in the news industry, waiting to find and catalyze another platform to sell.

The NDM has had such an impact on the news industry that they've sort of had their identity stolen by their own consumers. David Simon explains in his article that the audiences of Daily Mail, The Sun, etc are not supporting institutions in which they consume from enough to sustain themselves as a business in the industry financially. He addresses issues of the fact that people want news, yet are hesitant to donate a little sum of fee in return. He also explores the reason for this deeper, listing things such as the obvious fact that in the modern day news is free, but also the fact that even if people are willing to pay, the amount wouldn't suffice, either way leaving news institutions to close. He stresses how much the Internet has stripped news institutions to the point that they're obsolete, and as a result of their service, they're not getting anything in return to keep a 'circulation' going.  

AC Grayling explores citizen journalism, and in this case, against the French media.
He states how the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy has had a bad shade of influence on him from a recent (during time of article) press conference that presented him tyrannical; an "abuse in power". Perhaps the people of France have a surveillance and therefore are more aware now of the political scheme that they're in, controlled by a personality like Sarkozy. People had access to information like this through the Internet, and are more free of knowing. As a result, the comment piece both a negative and positive infuence on the newspaper industry. Positive, because people have the right to know rudimentary affairs of the country that they live in, however, negative because information could also be presented 'too much', especially on political affairs.

Paywalls should still yet still be valid, however only to certain extents. For instance if I wanted report on political affairs such as the election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, then I would want to consume information from a trusted, credible, and liable source such as from established institutions, to pay or not to pay, rather than from any random website or Facebook post, Tweet, etc. Perhaps news corporations will also have to build a mutual fanbase to start with, producing free news with quality and interesting stories to keep attention, then offer a paywall after a certain limit.