Thread by @jeffjarvis

No, The Times own version of its strategy is flawed. Without the huge audience that free brought, The Times would not have been able to convert the number of readers it has to subscription.
nytimes.com/2021/04/10/bus…
See: digitalriptide.org/chapter-4-the-…

Later, the same story demonstrates the point: You have to have large sampling (read: free) to convert people to subs (read: paid).

Frustrating that the story about the WSJ barely touches the GOP elephant in the room: Murdoch's politics and the right's racism. This is his bully pulpit.
nytimes.com/2021/04/10/bus…

Oops. Left out the most revealing quote.

The larger point: If one wonders how Murdoch--or any proprietor--promulgates a worldview through his (yes, his) publication, these snippets provide a small case study. How is, say, the internet covered? Or race? Editors & culture exert influence. They are black boxes.

BTW, whatever became of the vaunted committee that was supposed to oversee & assure the "independence" of Dow Jones & the WSJ. Independence from whom? It's owner? Yeah, sure.
Original slate: wsj.com/articles/SB119…
Latest sighting: nasdaq.com/press-release/…
What has it ever done?

Grrrr. *its.