[symesc]

No kidding. I dropped WSJ.com last year and don't miss it.

The Internet delivers a WORLD of news sites meaning the traditional publishers have less of a voice than they did when paper was the sole medium.

Their proposed pay wall may ensnare existing readers, but who in his right mind is going to subscribe having never had a relationship with this provider before? "Oh, you want money for that story, the same story I can see a 1,000 versions of in Google News? Buh-bye."

I'd love to see the evidence that supports this decision. This reeks of someone trying to save his job.

[robg]

Aren't most of those other sites derivative though? They opine on the news reported by others (or just copy/paste), and often poorly without relevant context. Moreover, I kinda like one-stop shopping for World, National, Business, and Technology news. It's not perfect, given journalistic biases, but it's often good enough.

I may be biased though. I grew up delivering and reading the newspaper.

[Quarrelsome]

I grew up delivering and reading newspapers and this has only shown me that the vast majority of "news" is just re-hashed press releases, or opinionated FUD.

The vast majority of my round bought the Daily Mail (who supported the facists in the UK, "hoorah the black shirts") or The Sun (famous for their "HIV is only catchable by homosexuals" opinion).

The world would be a better place without most of the newspapers out there. Quality reporting is another matter all together and is NOT synonymous with the term "newspapers".

[robg]

I grew up delivering a state paper. They did quality reporting about the small state. They still do. But I don't see how they survive without going hyperlocal. The problem is my parents (i.e., the generation that still subscribes) want a general news product in addition to the local stuff.