Reuters Blogs

MediaFile

Where media and technology meet

16:06 January 24th, 2008

Murdoch says WSJ.com (sort of, almost, not really) free!

Posted by: Paul Thomasch
Tags: Mediafile

murdoch.jpgSo much for ditching your paid subscription to WSJ.com.

News Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch made clear that readers will have to pay for access to at least part of WSJ.com, throwing cold water on many who expected the site to go free under the new leadership.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum, Murdoch said:

“We’re sort of dividing it up. Those things that you can get more or less as a commodity on different sites about finance, that will certainly be free at the Wall Street Journal.”

“The really specialised (material) giving the greatest insights, that will still be a subscription service.”

The WSJ.com itself reports even worse news. Forget about free, you may be paying even more to read parts of the newspaper online, it quotes Murdoch as saying.

Until now, nobody could be blamed for thinking that subsciptions would be scrapped. After all, Murdoch and other executives had clearly hinted at it on more than one occasion.

But more expensive? Few saw that coming. After all, who can afford to pay more to read that they are about to lose their job, their house and their 401(k)?

(Photo: Reuters)

One comment so far

The ‘current’ question to ask of ‘Murdoch’ is how much money has been invested into the companies that make the Diebold and Sequoia vote counting machines that are ‘currently’ being used in the elections in the USA and are at the centre of vote fraud enquiries.
USA today, UK and the rest of the world tomorrow.
Look at http://www.votefraud.org. http://www.devvy.com and www,newswithviews.com

- Posted by bill

Post Your Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous information.