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.
About Webware
Say No to boxed software! The future of applications is online delivery and access. Software is passé. Webware is the new way to get things done.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Webware topics
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
- 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.