About Me

  • I've spent more than 25 years at the intersection of traditional and digital journalism. I've helped to invent ways to read and interact with the news and advertising on computer screens and iPads, and before that, I wrote news stories on typewriters and six-ply paper. I co-founded WashingtonPost.com and hyperlocal pioneers Backfence.com and GrowthSpur; served as editor of Philly.com; taught media entrepreneurship at the University of Maryland; and have done product-development and strategy consulting for all sorts of media and Internet companies and startups. You can read more about me here.

January 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

« And That's The Way It Is | Main | Dead Magazine Walking »

July 20, 2009


young Owen

Can't argue. When I'm on the road I can get by without the Journal, though at home it's still one of my four subscriptions. And while I pay for the Kindle versions of the NYT and Chicago Tribune too, I wouldn't consider it for the WSJ--and I never even think of checking it on my iPhone. Mark has nailed it.


As you note, the move to general interest is a two-edged sword and the Journal's investigative coverage of business has slipped a lot, in my opinion.

Even though their coverage is really uneven and some of the reporters are pretty green, I find myself on the Bloomberg site more and more often, and on Rupert's Journal site somewhat less often than in the past.

About the supposed great success of the Journal in obtaining paid web site subscribers: Some evidence exists that once a paid subscription begins, it never ends even if the subscriber stops paying. I think the Journal finds unpaid "paid" subscriptions more valuable in setting its online ad rates than would be the case if it actually culled the freebies and restated its numbers.

The comments to this entry are closed.