The Wall Street Journal gets greedy

As the newspaper's quality degrades, Murdoch plans to charge more for "premium" content.


Andrew Leonard
April 13, 2010 4:01AM (UTC)

I can't remember exactly when I first signed up for the Wall Street Journal's online edition, but it wasn't too long after its inception in 1995. It's possible I've been a subscriber for 15 years, which isn't an easy thing to achieve with an Internet-delivered periodical.

But today, I visited the Wall Street Journal's home page, and saw, scattered all about, the word "PRO" followed by a link to additional content the Journal's editors suspected might  be of interest. For example, immediately after the news story, "Senate Probe: WaMu Ignored Warnings," there's a related story link titled PRO: Bank Regulators Under Fire.

Advertisement:

Now it just so happens that I am the kind of guy who actually might be interested in a story with such a headline, so I clicked through to see what the "Professional" version of the Wall Street Journal might offer me, for an additional $25 dollars a month. But I didn't see much more than a mishmash of search results from a query of the Dow Jones Factiva database, along with a few articles chosen by WSJ editors from other sources, such as American Banker and the Albuquerque Journal.

I already pay $197 a year for my online subscription to the Journal. In an era where there are so many demands on my online attention, I feel like that is a pretty penny. Heck, the New Yorker will sell me a subscription to their print magazine for $29. I find myself deeply annoyed at this attempt to extract even more of my income. Is it wrong for me to expect that when I log on to the Journal, a service for which I am a paying customer, that I will enjoy the opportunity to read everything linked to from that page, without forking over an additional $300 dollars?

Perhaps I am not in the proper demographic for this service, but I have to agree with TheDeal's Matthew Wurtzel, who tweeted that "I feel like WSJ Pro is the content we used to get before Murdoch turned WSJ into a conservative NYT."

Yes. The Wall Street Journal now offers me a degraded product, full of topical stories on politics and culture the likes of which I can find in numerous places, and yet expects me to more than double what I am currently paying to get the kind of content I originally signed up for. I'm not sure that's the way the new Internet economy really works.


Andrew Leonard

Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.

MORE FROM Andrew LeonardFOLLOW koxinga21LIKE Andrew Leonard

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

How The World Works Media Criticism Rupert Murdoch Wall Street

BROWSE SALON.COM
COMPLETELY AD FREE,
FOR THE NEXT HOUR

Read Now, Pay Later - no upfront
registration for 1-Hour Access

Click Here
7-Day Access and Monthly
Subscriptions also available
No tracking or personal data collection
beyond name and email address

•••






Fearless journalism
in your inbox every day

Sign up for our free newsletter

• • •