Rupert Murdoch, the Chief Executive of NewsCorp (which recently purchased the Wall Street Journal) has announced that, contrary to industry trends, the newspaper will not offer all of its content online to people without a subscription. So if you’re hoping to read the Wall Street Journal online for free, you’re out of luck.

Which means that the headline of this post might as well be “I Will Continue to Get My News from Sources Other Than the Wall Street Journal.”

The web changed things, folks. Every newspaper groaned and whined as they slowly realized that there was enough free news online that people simply weren’t willing to pay a subscription fee to access a paper’s website. Heck, real-world subscriptions have continued to take a nosedive over the last few years as well. And why not? I know that I can go to Google and search the news section by topic and location and find just about anything I need to know in the world of news. Why would I pay for a paper or online newspaper subscription?

But Murdoch is betting that folks see some extra value in the Wall Street Journal name, so while he is going to offer more free content on the site, there will still be premium features and services that only come with a $99/year subscription. Here’s a quote:

“The really specialized (material) giving the greatest insights, that will still be a subscription service.”

I hear tell they have some finance insight that is apparently of great value. Great. Good for them. Know what? There are tons of free finance-advice sites that I can go to. I have a hard time believing that the Wall Street Journal has cornered the market on insights. I don’t read the Wall Street Journal…never have. But I know that some people who do read it are pretty devoted to it. Maybe their writers have some unique insight into the world’s news that other newspapers’ writers don’t have… but I’m struggling to see the value.

Instead, what I see is an old-world media magnate who wants to cling stubbornly to an archaic business model. In the world of the web, advertising dollars are everything. Advertising is the fuel of the web, and that’s why you see more and more free content online that you used to have to pay for in the real world. Like cable television shows that you can now stream for free on sites like Comcast’s Fancast or at Hulu.

As recently as a few years ago it was a big deal when shows like Lost started streaming episodes online for free the day after they aired. Networks realized that as long as their shows get viewers, it doesn’t matter if they come from TV or online. And viewers equal advertising dollars.

There is no better time of year to discuss this issue than now, with the Super Bowl coming up. It is the mother of all advertising-driven events. The Super Bowl is viewed by more than 100 million people, and yet you don’t have to pay a penny for it. It’s the biggest event of the year in terms of viewership and popularity and buzz….but it’s entirely free. Why do you think that is? It’s because the NFL is not stupid. And by making it free to everyone instead of a pay-per-view event like a boxing match, they get more viewers. And more viewers means they can charge even more for ad time ($2.6 million this year).

Look, there are thousands of new rich people who made their money by starting a website and getting enough traffic to it that they could sell advertising. There’s a 17-year-old gal who makes $70,000 a month from advertising by giving away free “skins” for MySpace profile pages. So the old-school business model would be to charge a few bucks a pop for each MySpace skin. But that wouldn’t be nearly as popular a site as one that touts “free MySpace skins.” The new business model is “give stuff away, and then sell ads.”

And you would think that Murdoch would get this, since his NewsCorp owns MySpace (and paid hundreds of millions of dollars for it). And MySpace is a site that’s free to use. Free to its over-180-Million users. So how are they monetizing it? Advertising.

Geez, I’m repeating myself so much that even I’m starting to think I’m a broken record.

So it just baffles the mind that you still cannot read the Wall Street Journal online for free, and won’t be able to do so anytime soon. And that this news comes on the heels of this article that talks about how newspaper websites are soaring in terms of readership. I’d be tempted to call it a shame, if I couldn’t just go find my news for free at… oh…. any other news site on the Internet! Don’t mistake my ranting for anger. I have no ill will toward Mr. Murdoch or his fancy newspaper. And if they can get people to pay $99/year to read the “special insights,” then more power to them. They are among the more popular subscription sites on the web.

But how many more people would bookmark the site and read the Wall Street Journal online if it were free?

UPDATE:  Here’s a new article detailing another way that the Wall Street Journal demonstrates their disdain for web users.  Apparently, they recently set up accounts so that you can’t have simultaneous logins on separate computers for one account.  So if you log in at home, and forget to manually log out (closing the browser doesn’t do it) and then try to log in on your work computer… you’re stuck.  The system locks your account and you have to call in on a telephone to get it reset.  Ugh.  What a mess.  I really don’t think the WSJ understands how to deal with the Internet or its users.