I am not sure the WSJ cares much about click throughs. They are a subscription based-service. There are no ads on that page, at least not when I open up a browser with no adblocker.

Occam's razor only applies to theories that actually explain all the available evidence. That theory does not.

It's getting to the point where whenever I see someone invoke Occam's Razor, I stop reading. People seem to think it means "The explanation is always simple", but what it actually means is "the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

On the disappearance of MH730 it seems a lot of people are happy to make the unfathomably large assumption that this was "probably" a catastrophic mechanical failure and that the plane has crashed into the sea, despite the conspicuous absence of any evidence for this scenario such as mayday calls, or a wreckage and now, in the face of overwhelming evidence that directly contradicts the theory that the plane has crashed (because it appears to have been under the control of a skilled pilot for five hours after it went missing, and skilled pilots are usually pretty good at landing planes) people are still positing the notion that the plane has crashed and that Occam's Razor somehow supports this point of view.

In short, "the most likely explanation" in this case, is the one that makes a boat load of wild assumptions.

It is also not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one.

That's a much more succinct dismissal of Occam's Razor than my rambling vitriol.

"makes me suspect they might have some credible leads"

Um, yes. Multiple radar base stations and immarsat pings.