<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"There\u2019s been a shift in the Wall Street Journal\u2019s online business model. A partial one, to be precise. And by a partial one I mean a poorly contrived one.\nThe undisputed nexus of the business journalism world, the WSJ is moving along at a measured pace with its transition to its new life as Rupert Murdoch\u2019s most respected of fiefdoms. The paper\u2019s new owner has so far made himself quite at home with a freshly-upholstered office. He\u2019s also paid the company board a good number of visits and made his feelings known about his desired change of news coverage. (He wants it to encompass, well, more kinds of stuff that the New York Times would highlight on any given day.) And, if he gets to live up to his very famous showman\u2019s character profile, he may also push to the fore a good bit of flash to accompany all the stock-speak. (In other words, fewer words; more doodles and crayon-colored graphs and things.)\nMurdoch has also made clear his intentions to drive the company\u2019s Web presence to new heights. He and his recently-installed management circle have said quite openly: More video! More spice! More ad-driven moolah! And they\u2019re likely to accomplish those goals - within short time, too.\nAnd that is what puzzles me about the company\u2019s very peculiar move as far its partial drop of subscription requirements are concerned. As mentioned earlier this morning by Staci D Kramer at PaidContent.org, the administrators running things at WSJ.com presently decided to remove the subscription barrier for those who wish to read the paper\u2019s editorial (opinion) content.\nYep, just editorial. Strange it is that the company board has chosen to keep the majority of material located elsewhere on the site behind that paid-for wall they\u2019ve maintained for many years. One would think they\u2019d exercise some tact in the reverse sense: free all the news, while keeping the work of the columnists and guest writers under that 79-plus-dollar-a-year wrap. But apparently they\u2019ve gone left where NYTimes.com went right.\nWell, okay, to be politically correct about it, the WSJ probably went right where the NYT went left. But you get the idea. Murdoch &amp; Co seem to be doing things with reverse logic. Which\u2026you know\u2026why?!\nIt\u2019s really rather bizarre how the new heads at the WSJ haven\u2019t yet done what they\u2019ve been widely expected to do: free the whole shebang. The news, the Opinion pages. The lot of \u2018em. That\u2019s presumably where things are headed, given that Murdoch\u2019s main competition already went down that path several months ago.\nSo why not quit \u201Ccarefully considering\u201D the pros and cons of the subscription vs. non-subscription models? They know very well what fate belies them in the seasons ahead. To be so circumspect about the whole transition process isn\u2019t very He-Man-bull-man-Wall-Street-man of the Journal\u2019s new egomaniac in chief. He was so gung-ho about making the paper his own. Now he and his people are being antsy about the online business? What garbage.\nI say pony up, Murdoch. Quit stalling. Just give us the stories, and stop asking for our credit card info when registering accounts. Yes, we know, you like making the most money you can. But as we all know, news on the Net is now news without fees. Give in, dude. Now. Or at least soon. There\u2019s simply no point in holding out any longer."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2008/01/10/message-to-r-murdoch-just-free-the-wsj-already/>