>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

>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?