3 ms·
This is Murdoch's attempt to hurt the online ad world which subsidizes many sites Murdoch thinks should be paid. And because they are not paid, they are hurting
by zaidf 16y ago
This is Murdoch's attempt to hurt the online ad world which subsidizes many sites Murdoch thinks should be paid. And because they are not paid, they are hurting sites that are going paid...such as the WSJ.
Ah Murdoch.
- pavs 16y agoI dislike Murdoch (and WSJ) as much as the next guy, but from what I understand, Nicholas Carr has been writing this type of articles all over the place recently (not only on Murdoch's newspapers) to promote his book "The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains".
- zaidf 16y agoFair enough. Though I think this goes beyond Nicholas Carr. WSJ's been doing hit pieces on cookies and online advertising pretty regularly the past few months. In that case, Carr may be someone they invited to join their attack team.
- pavs 16y agoIf you try hard enough eventually you will find a reason to justify a conclusion you have already reached in your mind. While I can only assume why Carr was invited to write on WSJ on this specific topic, it would seem that promoting his book would be the most probable reason. Carr has some very valid points however.
- zaidf 16y agoNote that it is unlikely that WSJ would invite Carr so that he could promote his book. WSJ doesn't really give a shit about Carr. They do give a shit about certain stances and promoting them.
- hga 16y agoThe Wall Street Journal is famous for always having been a on-line subscription site and apparently a successful one. Murdoch would only care about this in the context of his trying to transform the WSJ into a replacement for The New York Times ... and I'm not sure how that would work.... (On the other hand he has more than a few other newpaper properties where he thinks he has a problem, something he's experimenting with by putting the London Times behind a pay-wall in stages.)
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- hexis 16y agoThe WSJ also ran an editorial taking the opposite view, which I just submitted - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1586680 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1586680