There are paywalled sites that seem to be doing well enough. If your site is worth something, why not charge for access? If it's worth something to me, something more than a free site that I can adblock, then I'll pay for access. I've done it in the past.
Until accessing your ad infested site (and I use 'infested' on purpose) guarantees I won't get some malware or other drive by load of poo, I will block ads.
By all means, paywall. Sites like the New York Times try it. And they've found that it has made them irrelevant on the Internet, so they are loosening and may eventually drop it.
Fact of the matter is, there aren't any "professional" journalists anymore that do their jobs so well they deserve to be paid to read their crap, OR to put up with blinking, throbbing, pop over, pop under, cover up the content advertisements.
Especially since so-called "professional" journalists and news organizations get scooped by the "amateurs" every time, something that goes back to the 1990's and Matt Drudge (a name I expect to get modded down just for mentioning). But the fact he changed reporting FOREVER cannot be denied.
The Internet was the END of any corporate/politically biased media organization's ability to CONTROL what news is disseminated and what is hidden FOREVER.