I may be naïve, but the idea was that the first paragraph would probably tell you whether reading the rest made any sense; my reasoning was that if you pay a flat fee which the content providers fight over based on what is being viewed, you do not care what you click - but the other side has everything to gain by making you click.
With micropayments, you can at least hope that content providers will be wary of leaving customers with the sense of being fooled into paying for a story.
Personally, I subscribe to the Guardian (the weekend papers, I live in London) and the London Review of Books. I like this model as I'm not buying the individual content so much as I'm buying into the ethos and output of both organisations. I don't really want to be deciding which of the items they do is best, I want them to maintain a machine that will keep surprising me with stuff I want to read.
I think aggregate subscriptions are going to have to become a thing though, likely as a side contribution, without all the benefits of full subscription, but still some access beyond the paywall. Good luck and godspeed to whoever manages to coordianate that.
With micropayments, you can at least hope that content providers will be wary of leaving customers with the sense of being fooled into paying for a story.
The keyword here being 'hope'. Sigh.