Rupert Murdoch has confirmed that his company is unlikely to hit its June deadline for putting up paywalls around its newspaper websites. Murdoch also seemed to confirm that the move to charging for online content would not be made by News Corp alone but with several major publishers acting together (not as a cartel, of course, …
Fox took over the Republican party
Surprising he failed to boast about the Fox takeover of the Republican party.
GOP chose a mainstream Republican Dede Scozzafava for New York. Fox employees, Glenn Beck, Carl Rove, Hannity etc. decided they would chose a different candidate, got Palin as a front and drove her out of the race.
Fox now runs the Republicans, and main stream Republicanism is dead. It will be the provisional wing of the Republican party from now on, as long as Murdoch's boys are in control.
So does this mean search engines will not be able index News Corp sites then? So their search traffic will go to zero? Shame.
Its not going to happen
So Murdoch charges for content. Daily Hate (Daily Mail) doesn't - for example. All the right wing loonies that Murdoch thinks will pay money for what is frankly crap (www.timesonline.co.uk) will just shift to other online crap.
The best thing that could happen to the UK is if Murdoch and his odious organs got ignored. We make fun of the Aussies and their insane ministers (comms minister etc) but Murdoch and his offspring have driven UK society into the shitheap with their "news"papers and right wing shit on Sky.
I am no fan of Brown and his sycophantic bunch of underachievers (or indeed "New Labour" and their 4000 new laws), but Murdoch has done more damage to the UK than any other person IMO.
Lets stop pretending that Murdoch gives the remotest shit about anyone other than himself eh?
I read The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail online (apologies for the latter, I just like to keep my eye-in on the concerns of the average angry Englishman). They're all free of course. If they implement a pay-wall, I will no longer read them, period. Or course neither will the majority of other people, which probably means hard-copy sales will rise a little (I wouldn't bother buying a newspaper, except perhaps on a Sunday) and web revenue would drop like a stone (advertising revenue, because not many people are going to pay to read it).
Given that I can get free news from the BBC online (ok, it isn't free; I pay a licence fee!), or from CNN, or any other organisation, Murdoch must be murdering his revenue projections with some kind of magic formula. It's going to fail of course. The pay-walls will go up and then they will all come down again.
Maybe he's finally realised...
that the only way people will come to his site is if it's FREE.
Note to Rupe; your days as a media mogul are almost over
seems the neocon creep has realised that no ones willing to pay to read his right wing pro-israel crap
How can this ever work??
I just DO NOT GET IT.
Surely this is suicide for Murodoch. I've spent enough time on the t'internetwebs to know that every news story is regurgitated, often quote for quote, across a multitude of media outlets.
I'll just go somewhere else to read the news. Unless there really is an immoral and illegal cartel behind this manouver to prevent this.
I'm sure Google News will continue to keep pulling in the headlines, whether from a Murdoch publication or other.
Can anyone explain to me how he expects to monetize this?
Charging for news content...
I would not mind paying a reasonable amount for real news reporting...
The problem is, very few organizations dealing in 'news' do that.
Instead of real reporting, which real customers want...
You get tripe such as put out by the NY and LA Times, mostly being windbag bogus stories supporting candidates or causes, having little to do with fact, and mostly to do with agenda.
That is the REAL REASON most papers are losing client base. They publish tripe and chum instead of news.
Because of the 'major media' (hereafter referred to as MHM (meat head media)) and their cronies, most people could not answer a simple test correctly.
1) How many weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq?
2) Many senators only voted for the Iraq war, because of George W. Bush saying Iraq had Nuclear weapons. T or F
3) Did Iraq have any 'yellow cake' (What the uranium for nuclear weapons come from, or can be used to make a dirty bomb)?
1) as of June 2006, over 500
(Google, if you will the parameters (don't use question marks) " 500 weapons Iraq "
2) F. Most of the laws to invade Iraq were passed when Clinton was president. Well before George W. Bush was elected. Any statements to the contrary, are lies.
3) A freighter full was sent from Iraq to Canada, Well after the invasion.
Again (Google if you will, the parameters " Yellow Cake Shipment Iraq Canada " and find out the real things the media hides and lies about. )
This does not include such things as Three Democratic Sentors going to Iraq and telling the leaders, unless they fulfill Environment Requirements (which, the Three by the Constitution are not allowed to dictate, Mr. Kerry) The Iraqis now sell their oil to India and China, mostly, ignoring the west... Thanks Mr, JF Kerry....
I wouldn't mind paying for news if there was some quality around.
Lately I noticed that if I have a little bit of knowledge of a subject reported in a newspaper, the newspaper makes very easy to prevent mistakes.
And lets not get started on writing proper sentences or proof reading articles.
At this moment I think aljazeera will become a primary news source for me.
C'mon Rupie Boy...
we're on your interwebs stealing your news, better hurry up and clamp it off before you go bankrupt.
Shhh... Don't tell him he's going down anyway...
@the old rang
I find your comment intresting and would like the following clarifcations
1. what is calses as a WMD in this case
2. what where these laws you are refering to and did tehre passing make war inivatible or did they only allow action if another vote was passed
3.a hole ship full of the sort of stuff that would justifie the war not being reported seams a bit suspissuous to me I would look harder into it
@The old rang
I did look up the Yellow Cake shipment, because it sounded highly suspicious, have a looksie what I found: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
@the old rang
in my own investergations on your points
1. googling 500 weapons iraq
"The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "
"Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”"
so the weapons they forund where old (pre first gulf war) no longer active (after 10 years these things degrade) and where only sort range battlefeild munitions even when they where active and so there where not WMD
to quote my favtore author "the truth may be out there but all the lies are in your head"
Paying minority vs freetard majority
Murdoch's market is clearly more select than mere webscrapers and freetards:
I confidently predict that any paper that sells itself as Kindle or iPhone subscriptions will make more money than the advertisers give to the current free sites even with all and sundry viewing them.
Always makes me giggle when I think about the Evening Standard switching to a free model, shortly after Murdoch pulled the London Paper and announced everything that is free should be paid for... Almost makes me wish for it's success just to spite him.
@How can this ever work??
My thoughts are that the proposed bill in the US (Internet Freedom Act), put up by technology Luddite Republican John McCain, which is to end an neutral net delivery will accommodate Murdochs wishes. US bill, I know but if it passes expect it too come to a globalized country you live in soon.
Your internet will end up like paytv, in that you can choose packages etc. (doublespeak Freedom) Thats my read anyway.
Replies to the old rang
1) Yellow cake has several uses. Amoung others, it can be used in minor reductions, to make 'dirty bombs'... those are bombs, where there is no nuclear reaction, but, much dispersal of radiation. That Sadam had the yellow cake is not a question of fact. Only those types still arguing about the moon landings, disbelieve (or readers of diverting efforts such as the New York times did, on NOT reporting other news, and reporting damaging information about how Al-Quaida and Taliban operatives are traced by bank transactions - or earlier cell communications. Nice of them to help the enemy and lose American lives)...
What he would do with the yellow cake is... But, why did the media not cover it??
2) RE: Mass destruction weapons. The definition, for your question, since you and so many are not aware, include Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons, If you check, two of the three types had been known and found, monitored for a time, and the media covered most tracks and definitions at will. Some were old. I do not dispute. Some were not. Media does not mention, for the most part. Iraq is big. Not all has been found, and Sadam made many efforts to hide. That is not in dispute either. The UN and other non allies of the United States, also transported much out of the country, before the war. That was known, but the media made sure most was not reported. It did not serve their objectives, and would have proven much of what they said to be false... Still you anti-Bushers will argue and squeal, but... You found and you saw. Even your 'Scopes' uses limited sources to say the yellow cake was not for nuclear weapons... not the yellow cake did not exist. 500 tonnes was only for getting Scooter Libby to be charged with something he was not originally investigated for, about a leak the investigator knew the source of, on day one. Yep that is the only reason Sadam had 500 tonnes of Yellow Cake. To nail Scooter Libby over bull charges for the left...
So, why did the media not cover it??
3) Lastly... You all seem to have found sources disputing some of the interpretations of what I stated... Not what I stated was not covered as much. But that leaves the other part...
YOU DID NOT KNOW ANY OF IT, BEFORE, SINCE YOU ONLY LISTEN TO WHAT YOU WANT, NOT LEARN WHAT THE MEDIA HIDES...
You are spoon fed the lies and refuse to understand what is hidden. Like much of Sadams actions that the media hides, and the over blowing of what we did, right or wrong. Sheep is what the media wants, and gets.
Noting also no one seemed to challenge the lies of the congressmen about the war laws they voted on... before Bush was president... Why not??
And the media does not expose them... Why not??
And why does the media lie about those lies themselves??
Because, the media's credibility will not stand on that either.
Bush could have gone to war, by the laws and UN agreements in place, from the Clinton era, on the day he took office. Why didn't he??
Simple. The Clinton administration had used up most of the needed criteria for waging the war (weapons) destroying aspirin factories, empty training camps and other things to distract from his Monica and other worries. Any chance to divert the very willing media, was at a cost to what we could do. The denigration of the CIA's abilities and stupid breaking of communications between the CIA and FBI further weakened our ability to gather intelligence for what was going one. It took time to rebuild what we could, and try to get more people in various departments, who cared. The hanger ons from Clinton era didn't.
The 9/11 attacks must not have happened. The media doesn't like having that in the news. They show alleged abuses daily about Abou-Grab, but people dying or burning towers are too tragic to remember... Which is why our children don't...
Like Obama doesn't want anyone to recognize the downing of the Berlin Wall... It doesn't make his news look good.
Why is the media overlooking that??
Look at facts, any way you wish. That is your choice and privilege.
Dispute them by the interpretation you find and enjoy..
But, you didn't ask why you didn't know them.... That is the reason the media so devoutly tells you otherwise.
Keep in mind the midas goat... I now name it the main stream meat head media. MHM
Follow as sheep... or question as free... that is your choice. I have known of the medias bent for 50 years. You obviously think I am wrong...
But you don't question the MHM... Is it just that you have been well trained? or sheared?
Last Question... Bet you don't know who was the first president of the United States....
(or who first declared Thanksgiving... and what really happened for the first one)...
Look those up too...
A fool's errand
Rupert wants the Internet to stop so can get off. It doesn't quite work that way, does it?
re: A fool's errand
But, you seem to forget... he has to keep the people working to put those stories where you find them...
and is not getting what might be called just compensation.
The thirst for real news is still our there...
As I said in my first post.
Unless it is real news, rather that the daydreams of so called news reporters and ersatz journalists...
...I would pay for it, and willingly.
But, with the sewage from the likes of the NY Times being passed off as jorunalism...
Narry wo' a sou.
But, there are many out there that think it is reporting... and for their tastes, they should be soak...
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Sysadmins and devs: Do these job descriptions make any sense?