Comments on: Murdoch: Free News Era Over

By: Mike P

Mike P — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:14:13 +0000

Yeah, I think people need to be careful when they go on their "The New York Times sucks at life" kind of rants. Does the Times have a left leaning bent? Of course it does, as anyone who reads their op-ed page could attest. And, yes, sometimes the feelings of the editorial board bleed into some of the political coverage, but, that aside, a lot of the rest of the paper is top notch and is fairly free of the bias that people accuse the paper of having in all of its pages.

By: Tlaloc

Tlaloc — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:01:37 +0000

Pretty much everyone who has tried to charge for online news has failed. WSJ has been something of an exception but only because they’re selling specialized content to a niche audience ~~with a strong incentive to pay for information.~~ with more dollars than sense.

fixed.

By: Brett

Brett — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:01:04 +0000

I'm not entirely convinced on Dave's point (the NYT still has quite a bit of excellent reporting), but I agree that the WSJ (and possibly the Financial Times, its British counterpart) have a niche in that both provide specialized business news that people are willing to pay a subscription for. Even Murdoch makes this distinction with regards to the Wall Street Journal. If you go to the WSJ website, you notice that next to all of the business writing is under the subscription firewall, but everything else (including some very good international news reporting) is available free on-line. Maybe that's the future of on-line newspapers. They offer something that a solid group of customers is willing to pay for, some specialized products. That's what many newspapers were anyways, back before the 19th century (when the business model started shifting towards reliance on advertising instead of subscriptions).

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:32:04 +0000

To make a comparison the New York Times has been busily undermining its own reputation as a reliable daily news journal by failing to draw a firm line between its news department and its editorial department and, frankly, I don't think there's a market for a daily journal of opinion.

I'm far from convinced on this last point. Then again, I'm biased; I write a daily journal of opinion, and make a fair dollar doing it.

By: floyd

floyd — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:08:39 +0000

Will it be good for wrapping phish?(ing)

By: MichaelB

MichaelB — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:36:26 +0000

How many of those WSJ subscriptions are individual? I know a lot of people who get it at work, through their employer. I don't know anyone who personally pays out of pocket for it. I'm skeptical about expanding the paid content market from work to home.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:10:38 +0000

The Wall Street Journal is a distinct although possibly not unique case. The WSJ has established itself as a daily business journal on which people can rely for timely business news. It's been pretty fair at separating its news department from its editorial department. And people have been willing to pay for up-to-the minute business news. There may be some other niches in which that's the case but I don't believe it's a viable model for the general news business. I see little evidence of willingness to pay. To make a comparison the New York Times has been busily undermining its own reputation as a reliable daily news journal by failing to draw a firm line between its news department and its editorial department and, frankly, I don't think there's a market for a daily journal of opinion.