News Websites owned by News Corp want to make you pay for News.
55 replies, posted
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/06/rupert-murdoch-internet-pay[/url]
[quote]
The era of the free read will shortly be over – if Rupert Murdoch has anything to do with it. Internet users will soon have to pay for accessing any of his newspapers' content, from the latest snaps of Angelina Jolie to reportage from the Afghan front line or analysis of MPs' expenses.
In a daring move intended to clear a cloud of financial gloom hanging over Fleet Street, the uncompromising Australian-born media mogul has lost patience with giving away his expensively produced journalism on the internet for nothing.
"We intend to be platform neutral but never free," said Murdoch yesterday, as he set out his plans to dig his News Corporation out of a loss-making hole. "We're certainly satisfied we can produce significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content."
A top-level team at News Corp, including Murdoch's son, James, and Dow Jones's chief, Les Hinton, is studying the most lucrative method of imposing a "fee barrier" on websites without losing so many readers that online advertisers flee. In Murdoch's eyes, a collapse in print advertising during the recession has left papers with few options.
"The extent of the downturn has only increased the drumbeat for change," said Murdoch. "Classified revenues will never again reach the levels once seen in print."
Murdoch hinted in May that his thoughts were moving in the direction of online charges. But after his media empire suffered a swingeing $3.4bn (£2bn) annual loss, he pledged that he would take the jump by the end of the company's financial year in June 2010. Once reliable moneyspinners, News Corp's British newspapers suffered a 14% drop in year-end advertising revenue. Profits across the group's global newspaper division slumped from $786m to $466m.
The 78-year-old proprietor is hardly alone in pondering such a move. The New York Times and the Independent have all indicated, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, that they are looking at the possibility of charges. But analysts say the move carries heavy risks.
"The previous trend online has been that whenever pay walls have gone up, people flee fairly quickly, at the flick of a finger, to other content that may not be equal but that seems good enough," said Ken Doctor, a newspaper expert at a US consultancy, Outsell. "Clearly, in this environment, there's plenty of good enough content out there."
The precise nature of potential fees is unclear – the New York Times has said it is pondering a "metering" model of charging for content, or a "membership" barrier.
Most media experts agree that for newspapers to survive, something needs to happen. The financial sage Warren Buffett recently warned that papers face the possibility of "just unending losses" unless they find a new business model, while former US presidential candidate John Kerry observed that "newspapers look like an endangered species".
Among Fleet Street titles, the Independent is struggling with debts and has spent nearly three months trying to negotiate refinancing with creditors.
The News Corp boss pointed to the Telegraph's recent run of scoops about MPs' expenses as an example of journalism readers would pay to read: "I'm sure people would be very happy to pay for that."
Rarely afraid of a confrontation, Murdoch made it clear that he was gearing up for a bruising fight: "Our policy is to win."
[/quote]
Considering that this Murdoch guy owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Myspace, among other things, as well as throwing his weight around Bush during the 2004 and 2001 elections...
Remember how bad that campaign against Kerry was? Or Gore? Thank him. He owns how you stay informed.
Also, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation] here's a list of other things Murdoch owns.[/url]
EDIT: Also, this dude owns the Dow Jones as well.
Fox is the only news broadcasting company that he owns?
[nothing of value etc]
Murdoch can shove a dildo up his ass.
The only important thing I see is the Wall Street Journal.
[quote]Internet users will soon have to pay for accessing any of his newspapers' content[/quote]
There goes all of his users. We have a lot more news websites
Don't they have enough money as is?
"Hey look, if it isn't a wittle news mogul. Wook at how cute he is!"
"I'm going to make everyone in the world pay for news on the internet!"
"Shouldn't you tell him there are a bajillion more popular news sources on the internet?"
"Don't shatter his illusion. He thinks he's smart.
[url]www.cnn.com[/url]
[url]www.bbc.com[/url]
:lol:
its just fox, myspace, and wallstreet
i don't like any of those
Nothing of value was lost.
Isn't this the same guy that said "If the newspaper was invented after the computer it would replace internet news sites" on the daily show?
It was funny when Jon Stewart called him out saying that was BS.
[QUOTE=Thlis;16511557]Isn't this the same guy that said "If the newspaper was invented after the computer it would replace internet news sites" on the daily show?[/QUOTE]
Considering he owns Fox news, it wouldn't surprise me.
Just wait until some major tragedy or a terrorist attack, then NewsCorp will be accused of making money off of a terrorist attack...
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;16510081]The only important thing I see is the liberal paper.[/QUOTE]
Oh really?
[QUOTE=Panda X;16510052]Murdoch can shove a dildo up his ass.[/QUOTE]
He has to take the stick out first.
[QUOTE=Master117;16511697]He has to take the stick out first.[/QUOTE]
but where will he put the stick?! there is already sand in his vagina :ohdear:.
Murdoch- "I'll make everyone pay for online news!"
CNN- "Now to some viewer comments posted on our blog, Twitter and Facebook"
[QUOTE=It.;16511627]Oh really?[/QUOTE]
Wall Street Journal? The Liberal paper?
whaa?
[editline]10:09PM[/editline]
also, towards the OP
hahaahhhahh, ahhahahhahah, ahHHahhahahahahahahhahahahhhaahha
I'm ashamed to be Australian, he comes from my home state of South Australia.
You guys are under estimating him, and the stupidity of other people, MySpace, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are quite influential on their own (to stupid people of course, but there are ALOT of stupid people in the world) so if he decides to make them all paying services, he won't lose all that many viewers.
[QUOTE=Godwin;16513491]You guys are under estimating him, and the stupidity of other people, MySpace, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are quite influential on their own (to stupid people of course, but there are ALOT of stupid people in the world) so if he decides to make them all paying services, he won't lose all that many viewers.[/QUOTE]
i don't use them why should i care
And when that happens, there will be a hundred other websites to take its place.
Oh well.
I get all my news from television and Facepunch, anyway.
Bye news..
[QUOTE=TotallyRad;16514078]Bye news..[/QUOTE]
Have a box.
Big deal. News is moving out of the hands of the media and into the hands of the masses, anyway. People will know the truth, no matter how [B]bad[/B] it hurts.
And now, some music.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iN_QubRs0[/media]
[url]www.telegraph.co.uk[/url]
Cya fox news, I never watched fox anyway, not like anything worthy is lost.
[quote= source]guardian.co.uk[/quote]
# News International
* United Kingdom
o The Sun
o News of the World
o The Times
o Sunday Times
o thelondonpaper (a free newspaper)
Can't imagine why The Guardian'll be up in arms about this
If I have to pay for the news, I'm going to start reading.
If it's just america, I'm moving to Scottland/Ireland/Australia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.