~~~~~

Respectfully, I disagree.

Consumer Reports does not manufacture the same product that a media company produces: an audience. Most websites publish content with the goal of manufacturing an audience that their clients (the advertisers) will be interested in purchasing (via ads). CR manufactures content that their clients (the audience) will be interested in purchasing. A company that tries to manufacture content for which one client is willing to pay and in which another client is willing to advertise has the (impossibly?) difficult task of balancing 2 competing interests.

Also, I learned in some textbook at some point (I know, DISGRACEFUL citation), that the phrase “exception that proves the rule” refers to the rule breaker that proves the rule true by failing. The word “proves” is used here as in the British version of “getting carded” at a bar: they get “proofed at the pub,” as in tested. Consumer Reports is not the exception that proves the rule, Consumer Reports is the exception that succeeds despite the rule… and proves the rule incorrect. The New York Times is the exception that proves the rule (they tried getting folks to pay for content which also contained ads, but that failed and they are now free with ads).

Alternatively, I just don’t know what the rule is :-)

</pedantic>