६ मार्च, २०१०
I keep wanting to blog editorials in the Wall Street Journal.
But I can't, because they're all just teasers that go behind a subscription wall. My getting a subscription wouldn't make these things bloggable, and if I can't blog it, I go looking for something else to read. I wish they'd reconsider!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७ टिप्पण्या:
Come on, Ann Althouse not paying the paywall fee to the WSJ to read the national news the NY Times won't give you? I paid only $100 per year (as an add on to my print subscription). It's cheap and rewarding.
And for you it's deductable as a business expense.
Actually the WSJ paywall let's a lot of referring links straight through, so you may want to experiment a bit; for example DIGG links go through the paywall, so your links might, too. In fact you can read any WSJ article by Googling the headline; even Google search links clear the paywall.
Go to Peggynoonan.com
WSJ editorials haven't been that great since the 70s, when they took the trouble to explain.
Jude Wanniski was their great explainer.
He went 'round the bend later; he never stopped explaining, but was always getting things wrong.
Yep.
There was a great editorial on wind power vs natural gas that I saw in the dead-tree version and wanted to write about.... but the article is behind the on-line firewall, so no go.
I wonder if the WJS and Murdoch will learn the lesson of the NYT, or if his attempt to create a new paradigm within the news industry will gain legs and change the way internet writers operate.
It used to be you could see all that (editorials and opinion pieces) at OpinionJournal. That went away a few months ago, but, yes, everything was open to all without a fee.
And, no, you shouldn't have to shell out for that stuff now when it was free a few months ago.
WV "holtums" Unbroken antacid tablets.
Well if you lived in China where they don't respect intellectual property you could.....
Which brings up the new media question of the day "Which is more valuable: liberal or conservative opinion? And the market says....
Don't blog what's behind the pay wall ... Google it first.
You'll frequently find the exact same Wall Street editorial commentary that they charge you to read at wsj.com has also been syndicated to another website where it is free for all to read.
In other words: the pay wall is just a myth. They're charging people what you can get for free elsewhere.
But it's the exact same content.
Brilliant!
I love this model. It punishes the rich idiots who pay for shit and rewards people who understand just how depraved Rupert Murdock really is to charge people for shit he's giving away free a few doors down.
The moral of my tale is this: you want to blog the content ... not the delivery vehicle. Link to where the content is free. It's out there, you just have to look for it sometimes and Google is your friend.
wsj.com - the website - is merely an information delivery vehicle. That delivery vehicle costs money to use. So, don't use it.
The content, the words themesleves, are many times freely available elsewhere on the internet.
Link to there.
I imagine the train of thought went like this:
1) We get a lot more traffic on these Opinion Journal pages than we do on the paid news pages.
2) Let's monetize that traffic by making people pay for opinion articles.
3) Hey, where'd the traffic go?
Sorry, but the only scribblers I'd pay to read are Micheal Yon and Mark Steyn.
I love the WSJ, but putting it behind a sub wall is stupid.
WSJ editorials and opinions sre FREE - just go to opinionjournal.com.
That's their FREE opinion site. And they'll email them to you every AM for free - just sign up.
WSJ editorials and opinions sre FREE - just go to opinionjournal.com.
That's their FREE opinion site. And they will also send you an AM email listing the editorials and opnion pieces, for FREE
@Tom When I go to that page and click through to a column, I can only read the first paragraph or so and then I need to subscribe to read more.
Ann,
Here's a perfect example:
If you try to read this column on wsj.com ... of course it's behind Rupert's paywall.
But the exact same column is available here, in full, for free. Because the Wall Street Journal syndicates this column.
So, if you're interested in blogging about what someone wrote, then link to the source providing the column for free.
Information isn't valuable if it's locked up in a safe.
Expanding on this topic a bit (because I used to be a Rupert Murdock):
In the old days, when you bought a newspaper subscription, you weren't actually buying the content (the words and picturs). You were buying the packaging and home delivery. That was value you were receiving in return for your money ... after all the newspaper was being brought to you so you didn't have to drive to the store to buy the paper. And the news itself was being presented thoughtfully by professionals earning a living understanding how to do that well.
It was always the advertisers who paid for the creation of the content (the news stories and columns and editorials).
You paid for the newsprint/ink, packaging, and delivery (the subscription costs).
Extending this analogy to today's technology then: The Wall Street Journal website is like a subscription in that you're paying for the neato, thoughtful well-designed packaging; not the words and pictures. Advertisers still pay for the creation of the words and pictures (the content), which is then placed into the package (the website).
The content is (frequently) available for free in lower-cost packaging (a different website).
So link to the free website.
@NewHam That site is just ripping off the WSJ. It's not the content syndicated to them. I wouldn't link to that.
It's a communist plot, and it's taken the WSJ.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा