2 ms·

I'm not sure about that. I think thinks like the WSJ will suffer greatly but his big audience, the Fox News crowd, will pay to get that slop they call news. The

by chez17 17y ago

I'm not sure about that. I think thinks like the WSJ will suffer greatly but his big audience, the Fox News crowd, will pay to get that slop they call news. The Fox News/Noecon relationship is a lifestyle now, not just a political idea. I can see a lot of those people paying for the one news source that they have based their reality on.

DannoHung 17y ago
Actually, I think the opposite is true. People reading the WSJ find the news contained there within valuable enough to pay for it. People reading Fox News just need something to make them angry, of which there are hundreds if not thousands of acceptable sites ready and willing to to provide sufficient rage material for free.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Exactly. The last audience you want to target with a for-pay news site is the Fox News audience.
  - CalmQuiet 17y ago
    Yes. You can find gossip everywhere online. And news that requires no actual research/journalism can_be/is replicated everywhere - and without Murdoch's overhead.
- chez17 17y ago
  >People reading the WSJ find the news contained there within valuable enough to pay for it. I would disagree. I think that the people who would pay for the WSJ are already paying for it. I don't see why people who aren't paying for it now would start paying for it when there are so many other free news sites out there. Maybe they could hook up some subscribers with devices like Kindle, but I think the people who are currently browsing it for free will not see the value in paying for it. Just a thought. >People reading Fox News just need something to make them angry, of which there are hundreds if not thousands of acceptable sites ready and willing to to provide sufficient rage material for free. Good point. I don't know the level of dedication to Fox people like this have. Maybe they won't pay for it, maybe they'll go to who ever screams about gays and socialism the loudest. Back to my original point, is there really that much information the WSJ has that other organizations don't? Couldn't your second argument apply to directly to counter your first?
  - DannoHung 17y ago
    Well, there's the Financial Times, but they already have a paywall. Bloggers don't have as much clout in finance as they do elsewhere. Mainly because there are more security guards to kick them out and it costs a lot more to get into industry events. Also, if you're an insider and you blog the wrong thing, you can lose your job and get arrested.

by chez17 17y ago

DannoHung 17y ago

Actually, I think the opposite is true. People reading the WSJ find the news contained there within valuable enough to pay for it. People reading Fox News just need something to make them angry, of which there are hundreds if not thousands of acceptable sites ready and willing to to provide sufficient rage material for free.

jacquesm 17y ago
Exactly. The last audience you want to target with a for-pay news site is the Fox News audience.
- CalmQuiet 17y ago
  Yes. You can find gossip everywhere online. And news that requires no actual research/journalism can_be/is replicated everywhere - and without Murdoch's overhead.
chez17 17y ago
>People reading the WSJ find the news contained there within valuable enough to pay for it. I would disagree. I think that the people who would pay for the WSJ are already paying for it. I don't see why people who aren't paying for it now would start paying for it when there are so many other free news sites out there. Maybe they could hook up some subscribers with devices like Kindle, but I think the people who are currently browsing it for free will not see the value in paying for it. Just a thought. >People reading Fox News just need something to make them angry, of which there are hundreds if not thousands of acceptable sites ready and willing to to provide sufficient rage material for free. Good point. I don't know the level of dedication to Fox people like this have. Maybe they won't pay for it, maybe they'll go to who ever screams about gays and socialism the loudest. Back to my original point, is there really that much information the WSJ has that other organizations don't? Couldn't your second argument apply to directly to counter your first?
- DannoHung 17y ago
  Well, there's the Financial Times, but they already have a paywall. Bloggers don't have as much clout in finance as they do elsewhere. Mainly because there are more security guards to kick them out and it costs a lot more to get into industry events. Also, if you're an insider and you blog the wrong thing, you can lose your job and get arrested.