'Paying for the privilege' maybe wasn't as clear a statement as it might have been.
We have two different situations. First as a casual purchaser buying a magazine in a shop, for example, you can look through it pre-purchase and then decided whether or not to buy – if you see content that you don't like, you probably won't buy. By contrast as a subscriber you have already pre-bought and therefore are stuck with whatever the publisher presents to you – like it or not, any element of choice has been removed. I don't subscribe to a magazine with a view to only reading parts and having to ignore others, I feel short changed if that's the case.
I do take the view that if I buy a magazine that's dedicated to a particular topic/hobby then I have a reasonable expectation that the contents will be directly relevant to that topic/hobby, not irrelevant extraneous matter, as I was trying to point out originally.
As I've said before, I fully accept the need for relevant advertising, but equally there is a need for there to be satisfied readers/subscribers too, and perhaps those of us who have been supporting the magazines for many many decades are more sensitive to this as we can compare editions over much longer periods.