Medium posts are no worse than institutional journalism. Journalism is also slightly less capital-intensive than spaceflight.

I also don't know if content has value until after I've read it, and in the case of journalism I still don't know after I've read it, I'll just get closer to knowing if it was worth anything over time and in light of corroboration.

I'd prefer that my money go to journalism based on a combination of how honest and thorough I think it is and its agreement with my own beliefs. That determination comes from a track record, and I'm not going to pay for it before I see it. That's entirely incompatible with the idea of journalism that massive conglomerates with conflicts so universal that they just have to generally support the status quo, try to propagate. I send money to journalism online that I rarely read. I read journalism online that I'd never give a penny to. I have read David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and George Will. I'm not paying for that.

I read plenty of stuff from people I despise. I've spent hours reading white supremacist message boards. I'm supposed to send them money or else remain wilfully ignorant of their publicly expressed opinions? Not a chance. I collect John Birch material; its material that I personally think the world would be better off if it never had been written. I should feel an ethical obligation to the authors and give them money? Let them come get it.

edit: What's being discovered is that "publishers" were actually sellers of decorated paper. Once we didn't need paper, we didn't need them; the only reason they were ever considered managers of truth is because they were extremely large dealers of very detailed paper.