Should the Wall street journal........

[Scientific Playa]

free enterprise, they can choose to charge and readers can choose to either pay or not to pay....i've have several subscriptions to the wsj and barrons but no longer find anything worth paying for. there are too many free business news feeds today.

 

[Kritic]

the only company which i miss is hoover's online. how many of you remember when it was free and could get any company info and news free?
when they changed it i stopped paying attention to financial news altogether.

 

[JasonSJackson]

I seriously hope your trolling with this thread...

Im not. Why would you hope that?

monopoly seems like a poorly used word

They are the only media source in possesion of the stories. They control the supply of those stories. How is monopoly a poorly used word to describe the situation.

, though i am sympathetic to the struggle, you have to pay for things that are expensive to produce

actual investigative reporting costs money


since these are not government institutions, they have to be allowed to find a way to monetize what they do, or they simply will not do it. you can go from a pay wall to no investigation or informed analysis at all. that, of course, is a net reduction. the whole point should be to find ways to increase the impact of news on society. come up with a new way to monetize before you take away the current one.
now personally, i think if somebody is that broke, financial news is not even a priority

You said all this to say what exactly? That people dont have a right to freely access information on things that happen in the world?

that's why most news has become opinion instead of investigation.

Most news is not opinion. WTF are you talkign about?

now personally, i think if somebody is that broke, financial news is not even a priority

The fact that i never said 'financial news' aside, Your personal opinion is stupid.

just regoogle the article...

Did i ask how to break the lock or imply in any way that that is the issue im attempting to discuss? My issue is on the lock itself and wether or not you feel it has a right to be there in the first place. Discuss that or stfu, bytch.

this is my opinion.
i think they charge because they can. i don't think their income doesn't depend on subscription. it's advertising. just like tv.
with the internet now news moves fast so one doesn't have to subscribe it them. but if i were into finance i'd try it for a year to see whether i'd really need it.

this has nothing to do with the issue i am attempting to discuss

free enterprise, they can choose to charge and readers and choose to either pay or not to pay....i've have several subscriptions to the wsj and barrons but no longer find anything worth paying for. there are too many free business news feeds today.

this doesnt address the question i posed

the only company which i miss is hoover's online. how many of you remember when it was free and could get any company info and news free?
when they changed it i stopped paying attention to financial news altogether.

and another post that fails to address the issue.


Its amazing to me how poor you all's critical thinking skills are. Every single post has failed to directly address or answer the simple question i posed. If a question is not clear to you an intelligent person asks questions to fully understand what is being asked before answering. Not you all tho, you are completly content with not fully understanding the question posed and basing your responses on that unclear understanding. Thats foolish.

All bullshyt aside, as someone who is interested in addressing inequalities in this world.....It's really sad to see how you all minds work.

 

[Slystallion]

read seekingalpha.com

there is a boat load of finance news sites like bloomberg and yahoo finance

zerohedge.com is a good place to get econ news and he has a shyt load of link on the side of the site that relate to finance and econ

 

[Bernie Madoff]

I'm speechless.

 

[unit321]

My question is, should any company be able to monopolize the news in the manner the wall street journal does or should there always be a free alternate available for everyone?

There's no monopoly on providing finance news.
Any special articles they write are owned by them. But, nothing is stopping anyone from trying to do the same research and providing a similar article.

 

[JasonSJackson]

Where did i say anything about finance news??????????????????????

please quote that

 

[JasonSJackson]

I'm speechless.

thats due to stupidity

 

[Bernie Madoff]

thats due to stupidity

That hurt my feelings

 

[JasonSJackson]

That hurt my feelings

what exactly is the purpose of your posts?

 

[Serious]

what exactly is the purpose of your posts?

HL has unaimously spoken.

go back to TLR

 

[Bernie Madoff]

what exactly is the purpose of your posts?

Brb reading this article on the Wall Street journal website

 

[Robbie3000]

The WSJ is a private enterprise and can charge whatever they want for information that they collect. OP, What do you do for a living?

 

[ill]

Im not. Why would you hope that?

They are the only media source in possesion of the stories. They control the supply of those stories. How is monopoly a poorly used word to describe the situation.



You said all this to say what exactly? That people dont have a right to freely access information on things that happen in the world?



Most news is not opinion. WTF are you talkign about?





The fact that i never said 'financial news' aside, Your personal opinion is stupid.



Did i ask how to break the lock or imply in any way that that is the issue im attempting to discuss? My issue is on the lock itself and wether or not you feel it has a right to be there in the first place. Discuss that or stfu, bytch.



this has nothing to do with the issue i am attempting to discuss



this doesnt address the question i posed



and another post that fails to address the issue.


Its amazing to me how poor you all's critical thinking skills are. Every single post has failed to directly address or answer the simple question i posed. If a question is not clear to you an intelligent person asks questions to fully understand what is being asked before answering. Not you all tho, you are completly content with not fully understanding the question posed and basing your responses on that unclear understanding. Thats foolish.

All bullshyt aside, as someone who is interested in addressing inequalities in this world.....It's really sad to see how you all minds work.

You failed at getting an education, huh? Telling US we don't have critical thinking skills? C'monnnn mannnnn. Literally every single person in this thread has told you the deal and you can't seem to grasp it. If I own a story, then it is mine to do whatever i want with it. Wether it be release it for free or charge for it. I own that story. Not you. Not the public. ME. If you want that story from ME, then you PAY ME, bytch! If the news is public domain, then the public will find a way to find out about the news. If its a private story that only I have access to, then you will have to pay me for it. I really don't understand whats so hard to grasp about this concept.

 

[JasonSJackson]

You failed at getting an education, huh? Telling US we don't have critical thinking skills? C'monnnn mannnnn. Literally every single person in this thread has told you the deal and you can't seem to grasp it. If I own a story, then it is mine to do whatever i want with it. Wether it be release it for free or charge for it. I own that story. Not you. Not the public. ME. If you want that story from ME, then you PAY ME, bytch! If the news is public domain, then the public will find a way to find out about the news. If its a private story that only I have access to, then you will have to pay me for it. I really don't understand whats so hard to grasp about this concept.

If you were critically thinking you would see my question isnt if the wall street journal can legally do what they are doing now............it is, SHOULD they legally be able to do what they are doing now. Should the news be treated in the same regard as any other commercial product????????

Does the fact that I am the only person able to afford a trip to fukashima to see the nuclear reactor leaking into the ocean make me the owner of that information or does the world have an inherent right to that information?

Is poverty reason enough for someone to lose the right to be informed?????????

Should a person not have the right to know certain things because they dont have the money to pay for a subscription to this paper????????????

If yes, do you feel that way about the news as a a whole or just certain faucets of it.........LIKE THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION (that you dikkheads seem to be singly focused on)

What happens if the news is one day priced in an amount that most people can not afford?????? News that is relevant to things that directly effect them. Is that ok with you???

This is a logical streamline of thought for the question i posed.....not the shyt thats being posted in this thread.

No one in this thread has touched on the point im making.

The fact is, there are stories on the wallstreet journal about things that are happening in the world that are no where else on the internet. These stories dont make the news and without a wallstreet journal subscription you would be unable to know about them.

I really dont understand whats so hard to grasp about this concept

Also, you say if the news is public domain then the public will find a way to find out about the news...........wtf does that mean????? Are you implying that simply because the news is not top secret anyone should be able to find it if they want to? HOW WOULD THEY KNOW TO LOOK FOR IT IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF ITS EXSISTANCE

If you have gotten an education, it has failed you.