Newspapers have websites that are dogged down by advertising, poor design, and after-thought composition in general that is geared toward harvesting clicks with lesser thought going into providing a pleasant reading experience. It's one reason that one of my "pro life tips" is to consume media sites via Facebook if they have a presence there. Facebook structures presentation and limits the kind of crap profit-thinkers at newspapers otherwise doom their own sites with. It's ironic, but there it is.
Therefore it does not surprise me that the Wall Street Journal is going to simultaneously port all of its stories to Facebook as though Facebook itself were some kind of Internet -- which for all intent and purposes perhaps it has become in the same way AOL once wanted to "be" the Internet. Except that in this case Facebook seems to be pulling it off.
More significantly this is "Facebook as a content management system" for companies like WSJ which has merit, at least once you buy into the idea that any of this is "right" at all. I believe in raw web publishing because I believe in the positive ideals of an independent web, so I can't put myself in that category, but I get what the rest of the consuming world wants and they don't even want to learn what any of that means. To too many people now Facebook is the Internet, and now, it's a publishing platform.
What's next? WSJ or some other publisher deciding they don't want their own websites at all. When you think about it if you believe that there is no way to drum up enough straight-line traffic to your site, why bother? As noted, Facebook offers a connection to billions of people without the hassle of production costs or web services management so it's a great way to get back to the practice of compiling news stories and cranking out paper if one wants.