Now that all? of the nation's major media orgs are behind paywalls I kind of wonder what the point of even writing this article is?
The few rich dudes on the coasts with WSJ subs found this read interesting I'm sure, and will talk about with their friends at a party maybe. The history of Hong Kong is truly fascinating.
I didn't read it. A bunch of other commenters will chime in without reading it. No regular or poor people subscribe to any of these media paywalls, so who are you informing? Who gets to be part of the debate? Who are you writing for and why?
There is another WSJ article floating around today that I would really like to read, it's defending the history and practice of share buybacks. Nobody but rich white dudes will read that and use it to continue their ever increasing share buybacks. I would really like to understand their thinking, but I can't.
The few rich dudes on the coasts with WSJ subs found this read interesting I'm sure, and will talk about with their friends at a party maybe. The history of Hong Kong is truly fascinating.
I didn't read it. A bunch of other commenters will chime in without reading it. No regular or poor people subscribe to any of these media paywalls, so who are you informing? Who gets to be part of the debate? Who are you writing for and why?
There is another WSJ article floating around today that I would really like to read, it's defending the history and practice of share buybacks. Nobody but rich white dudes will read that and use it to continue their ever increasing share buybacks. I would really like to understand their thinking, but I can't.
Does anyone else see the problem here?