Wow... there is someone out there who thinks that Rupert Murdoch/He Who Must Not Be Named aquiring the Wall Street Journal is not a bad idea -- especially if he make WSJ.com free. According to Jeff Jarvis:
I’ll go that far — and farther. By going free and with Murdoch’s investment in the product — that is, in the reporting and services and with his promotion — WSJ.com can become the unquestioned leading financial information brand worldwide, winning over its many competitors: Yahoo, Reuters (now stronger with Thomson), AOL, FT.com, Forbes, MSN, CNBC.
But that will happen only if it goes free. The strategy of charging for access to WSJ.com was, I’ll argue, a result of the Bancrofts’ absentee ownership. It was a way to play safe, to get another revenue stream and not cannibalize the paper. And management executed it brilliantly. But that wasn’t big thinking. Free is big thinking. And Murdoch thinks big.
Full BuzzMachine post here. I doubt I'll ever start reading the thing, regardless. Then again, weirder things have happened, the weirdest of all would be me making money. So maybe I just might.