Comments on: Wall Street Journal to stop charging for Web content
News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch tells investors he thinks The Wall Street Journalcan make more money from advertising than from paid subscriptions.
Most Popular
With eye to the future, try raw photos today
Raw photos are a hassle compared to JPEG. But if you like photography, the list of their image quality advantages is long and getting longer.
Inside the Apple, er, Microsoft Store
Although Redmond's foray into retail bears a big resemblance to Apple's approach, Microsoft has added some distinctive features to draw casual PC buyers and techies alike.
About News Blog
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
- Murdoch would rather have his slime available to the masses
- by AndrewRich November 13, 2007 1:01 PM PST
- It's easier for his Fox Noise scheme machine mouthpieces to tell the sheep to "go look it up on the WSJ" if the WSJ is free.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Have you ever read the WSJ?
- by Penguinisto November 13, 2007 4:38 PM PST
- Outside of the op-ed pages, the paper is considered as a financial and business analogue to The Bible. They simply don't do political or ideological slants in any section of the paper that isn't the op-ed section.
- Like this
-
- WSJ is closer to reality
- by stfxavier November 13, 2007 5:38 PM PST
- We all know the news industry has a liberal bias, and therefore slants new reports with a liberal bias.
- Like this
-
(3 Comments)Incidentally, the WSJ's op-ed section has always been freely viewable to the public at http://www.opinionjournal.com
/P
Take away the slant, and what you get is a more conservative reality.
WSJ is right on the money. And that's why Fox News is doing better than the rest of the industry; they actually relate to the people.
People were willing to pay for the WSJ. Would anyone pay a cent for the Liberal Bible.. the New York Times? I think not.