But is that even an option? I used to pay for NYT and WSJ (not cheap) and was still bombarded with ads.

or less blogspam. the explosion of mostly-blind news-regurgitation isn't a good thing, and it's largely chasing ad dollars because nobody would voluntarily pay for it.

They do have a third option: unobtrusive ads.

Those are worth very little when untargeted.

Quite the contrary: https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exc....

Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079

The NYT is a different story. There's a critical mass after which it becomes worthwhile to just target your audience. I doubt these guys are at it.

Don't believe me, though. Talk to ad execs (spending money on this) or ad ops (using the money on this) and see what they think.

In fact, since you won't have the GDPR hassles if you go untargeted, you should consider following this thesis to its logical untargeted exchange conclusion because with CCPA and GDPR you could push the targeted guys out of business and that's a many billion dollar market. If you're convinced of your thesis, then you're on the cusp of mega money.

Good luck.