: The Wall Street Journal is beginning an experiment that should warm the hearts of bloggers. It is putting up a story today on the other side of its pay wall so bloggers can link to it.
The story today: An interview with John Kerry on his economic positions. (“I have historically always been what I would call a responsible, thoughtful Democrat who respects the laws of economics, and how money works, the psychology of the marketplace, the importance of confidence and fiscal responsibility.”)
This is the good work of Bill Grueskin, the managing editor of WSJ Online and a blog reader himself (I know because he caught me in a linking mistake; we exchanged email; we had lunch; we exchanged stories about online and 9/11 and blogs). Grueskin gets it.
This is an experiment; the Journal is not going to change the way it does business and get out of the subscription biz. Quite to the contrary, I think this could help build subscriptions to WSJ.com as more stories get quoted and linked and as new readers come to the Journal. This is good for bloggers and good for business. And it’s smart of the Journal to care about reaching out to this audience.
: If you’re in NY, be sure to come to the Apple store tonight, where I’ll referee Nick Denton and Jason Calacanis.
: Pegged to that event, Gothamist sneaked up on me for its interview.
: Jon Fine writes about blogs and business in Ad Age today. Sadly, it’s unlinkable. I blather about the potential for hyperlocal citizens’ media; Nick Denton plays the pooh-pooh pooba; Henry Copeland gets a nice quote and blog for BlogAds; Ana Marie Cox is quoted and called scabrous (her family must be so proud).
: And while I’m plugging, go to a chain bookstore near you today and buy a copy of The Nation with my story on the FCC, the First Amendment, and Howard Stern. Imagine their shock if Howard becomes the top-selling cover boy of the year!
: Update: See Steve Rubel on the Ad Age story.
The Daily Stern
: PRESCRIPTION: Doc Searls weighs in below on censorship and speech:
“Content” from a “producer” that is “loaded” into a “channel” for “transmission” or “distribution” through a “pipe” or a “path” or a “conduit” or a “medium” to a “receiver” for an “end user” or a “consumer” can only be conceived in terms of shipping. And shipping isn’t speech. That’s why we have so little trouble rationalizing the restriction of it.
So let’s call speech what it is, whether it’s Koppel, Sinclair, Stern, Searls or Jarvis doing the speaking. *That’s* what’s protected by the First Amendment.
Otherwise we don’t stand a chance.