Posted Wednesday 14th November 2007 16:15 GMT
Slowly he takes over the west. He's using the make it free to make it sound like hes a fluffy bunny and in no way ever exerts pressure on editors to spin stories the way his political mates want them.
Posted Wednesday 14th November 2007 16:15 GMT
"Meanwhile, overnight the WSJ site became populated with Digg buttons, firing off rumours in the blobbysphere that Murdoch's firm will imminently buy the Web 2.0 news aggregator."
What for? They only Spread and Share the News, they don't Make IT. And that is surely much more Rupert's Wont. In Aspiration that would aKin to Destiny rather than a Victim of Fate and Circumstance.
Posted Wednesday 14th November 2007 16:59 GMT
... even if the more readers are no longer paying anything for content...
.. does that also mean more viewers, even if they're not paying, is also better?
So when does Sky UK content go free-to-view then?
Posted Wednesday 14th November 2007 18:26 GMT
Murdoch is gambling that he can run the site via online advertisements thus he won't need to charge for content.
Readership increased because of free online access to print subscribers.
The concern is that it costs to create the level and quality of content found in the WSJ. Can Murdoch sustain it as well as keep up print subscriptions if he offers the content for free?
Back to the article
