guardian is surviving by slowly becoming a tabloid. not sure if i would have paid for it anyway, and im not sure if this was preventable by paying for it in the first place.

Paying for journalism is ideal, but unfortunately makes it difficult to cite/link to a source the way Wikipedia needs as a way to ensure the information remains open and accessible.

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with these outlets enough to know if those paywalls are significant, but the problem with direct article links is that those links can change. Archival services (I suppose not archive[.]is) are important for ensuring those articles remain accessible in the format they were presented in.

I've come across a number of older Wikipedia articles about more minor or obscure events where links lead to local new outlet websites that no longer exist or were consumed by larger media outlets and as a result no longer provide an appropriate citation.

Paying for journalism simply promotes that those who don't pay it don't get it ie.: more paywalls, not less.

Also remember the journalists that need support the most are local papers and news stations. The big ones have plenty of donors, and while it's worth the support, they are less likely to completely collapse than the news that is run in your city.

Go look for that independent source. They will report more news that actually affects you as well.