Is the Wall Street Journal 'Paywall' Bad for Online News?

[notandywarhol]

Fox News is a diseased organs owned by Ruppert Murdoch who curries favour with prime ministers in the UK and has always gotten what he wants. The fact that his employees hacked into murdered children's parents telephones to feed off their misery for the sake of a story, shows you what Murdoch's organisation is capable of and the brainwashing from Fox News indicates an unfit organisation incapable of providing truth and honesty for mass-consumption. He should be charged and held accountable

[givebirthathome]

LOL..anything done by Rupert Murdoch is "trustworthy"? Well, I suppose you can trust it to be manipulative and exploitative.

[realisoph]

Financial journals... could they be any less fraudulently biased as the financial system itself... in terms of "success" and content?

Today it seems, "quality" financial journalism is about as valuable as war-journalism... both serve very particular inerests ...the underlying system of which the world is better of without.

[coastwalker]

The wsj is full of last century philosophy. I wont miss it., good riddance.

[joshy666]

All of the information with in the wall street journal can be found for free on the internet. Until that changes the WSJ payment structure will have no impact on online news. They are an old school gate keeper unable to accept the reality that everyone has the keys to their gate.

[dmlauffer]

They do give a lot for free, but there is content you have to pay for. The WSJ is the healthiest major newspaper in the US, I think its because they don't just give it all for free and the fact that they cater to somewhat of a niche.

[VAR1UM]

Free the information. Newspapers are never going to survive if they are more passionate about making money.

To put a price on current events is absurd.

[liber8me]

free the information? i dont know what fantasy world you're living in but its actually bloody expensive to employ hundreds of journalists, fly them all around the world and all the equipment they need to report the news

[VAR1UM]

Thats why we have the internet.

[m0nkeybl1tz]

@VAR1UM But where does the Internet get its stories from? It costs money to send out reporters and gather information, so somebody's gotta pay at some point.

[VAR1UM]

Thousands of organisations have been very capable of spreading the news without charging people.

People dont subscribe to the wall street journal for the news. They like the frame of mind.

[dmlauffer]

What is absurd is to think you can produce a publication, online or in paper, and give it away for free.

[liber8me]

lmao how many free blogs do you know that have hundreds of journalists working for them all over the world writing, recording and videoing footage for reports? good journalism is not free and if you think it is then you're living in a fantasy world. if you pay peanuts you know what you get? monkeys. you dont pay, then dont complain about the shitty quality news you get.

[VAR1UM]

@liber8me

For one its called advertising and sponsorship. In this day and age it would be ridiculous to rely on subscriptions.

Its not a fantasy world. You went ahead and jumped the gun before you even realized where you were talking about it.

I dont remember giving FORA . TV money for their journalism. Do you?

[liber8me]

fora tv does not have anywhere near the overheads that companies like news corp has. i did a year of journalism at uni so i actually know what im talking about - advertising on the internet is chickenfeed compared to what they got in the printed paper. now with people no longer reading newspapers there's no real money in either realm. thats why i stopped studying it - the profession is screwed because the only way it will make money is if people pay for it

[VAR1UM]

News corp.? Dont they operate primarily on cable tv? Granted they do papers as well but they are also in the entertainment field.

It would be wiser i suppose to fund itself entirely on subscription. To keep the news fair and balanced. If sponsorship were to interfere than obviously only certain subjects would be articulated.

Take PBS for example... Or FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC, yada yada. You can get the news pretty much for free as it is. Its a matter of how you like it being told to you.

[liber8me]

the only way that sponsorship or advertising can pay for quality journalism is if it has a massive audience - thats why newspapers and tv have been leaking money - people have stopped watching and reading it as much.

if news does not end up with people paying for it you'll end up with only a few groups able to make money out of the massive share of the market they have, which is very bad for balance when you concentrate info in just a few sources.

[VAR1UM]

could some one please explain what liber8me is saying? i know he's trying to speak.. i just know it!

[liber8me]

if you knew anything about professional journalism then you would have understood what I had written.

you just appear to be another idiot on youtube with more opinions than brains.

[VAR1UM]

unh hunh.

[CivilRadiant]

If you want to know the truth behind all this smoke and mirrors you should watch a documentary called,

"The Power of Nightmares"

Available on Google video or torrent.

~~

Did you know that Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is running for US Senate in Kentucky? He is currently -ahead- in the latest poll! Support Rand Paul for US Senate, the next big moneybomb is on December 16th, on the 2 year anniversary that his dad raised over 6 million in one day. Pledge today at w w w . randsteaparty . c o m