[eddie willers]

I think it is legit to include the WSJ online subscriptions as, unlike the other fishwraps, you really do have to pay to get their paper.

There version is just another means of distribution.

[browardchad]

I think it is legit to include the WSJ online subscriptions as, unlike the other fishwraps, you really do have to pay to get their paper.

Agreed.

[DmBarch]

I think it is legit to include the WSJ online subscriptions as, unlike the other fishwraps, you really do have to pay to get their paper. There version is just another means of distribution.

To qualify the on-line suscription must be at least 25% of the cost of the print paper. If you don't get the print paper, the on-line is $79/yr. If you get the paper, it is $39, which doesn't meet the 25% standard. About 400,000 people get both.

[reformed_democrat]

I think it is legit to include the WSJ online subscriptions as, unlike the other fishwraps, you really do have to pay to get their paper.

Their version is just another means of distribution.

I would agree. I'm an on-line subscriber because I hate dealing with used newspapers. If there's an article I want to keep, I save it to my hard drive. There it's filed and indexed so I can find it again, unlike my husband's four crates of 20 year old clippings.