With the news that the WSJ has essentially been all but sold to Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, there has been a resurrection of some conversation around the paywall around the WSJ.  Namely, that it might – or perhaps, should — be taken down.  This isn’t just the fever dream of cheap would-be media wonks (such as myself), but as Mat Ingram rightly points out, this is something that Rupert Murdoch himself mused out aloud to Time Magazine some months ago.

I understand and sympathize with the “make the online WSJ free” argument.  All things being equal I like free things too — and understand what kind of strategic benefits it might play out, both for its bottom line (although the numbers really have to be crunched out, and more than the helpful back-of-the envelope numbers courtesy of Fred Wilson) and the expansion of the WSJ brand.

The problem with a totally free paper, however, is that it becomes fully dependent on one of two things.  Advertising to bring in revenue, and the good graces of News Corp. to make up the shortfall if and when there is a deficit between what comes in through advertising, and what goes out (to pay for everything else).

That is, you suddenly become beholden not to your subscribers, but even *more* to your advertisers, or whomever makes up the shortfall.

For a company that is desperate to prove that its editorial content will be free of influence (and that’s exactly how their letter reads to the public), removing the paywall will only make things worse.  It will put a lot of psychological pressure from two angles, and it might even change the perception of their once paying public: well, its free now, but there’s a reason why its free, right?

And if that sentiment starts running rampant, there’s no amount of money in the world that will be able to shore up its brand reputation if the WSJ online is ever considered the lap dog of its advertisers or of News Corp at large.