Murdoch: We will charge for all news sites

Source: Market Watch Aug 5, 2009, 5:45 p.m. EST

Chairman Rupert Murdoch said Wednesday that the company intends to charge for all of its news Web sites. "Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting," Murdoch said.



Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/murdoch-we-will-charge-for-all-news-sites-2009-08-05

---

Here is a response from the Freepturds

Rupert Murdoch is now planning to charge for all of the Newscorps. online sites. In a bold move, Murdoch told investors, that among other things, traditional newspapers must change and that he must start charging for all online sites, including sites like Foxnews.com. Murdoch told investors: “The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution,” . . . “But it has not made content free. Accordingly we intend to charge for all our news websites,” he said.


While normally I respect Murdoch as a savvy business man, he has built what was a joke of a UHF channel into a world-wide presence that owns such respected publications as the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe and of course Fox News, which kills it’s competitors at almost all time slots. However, this is just a plain boneheaded move. I am a fan of Foxnews, I go there ever day nearly. However, I will not pay a single dime for a news site. If the most ardent conservative isn’t going to pay for this, just who does he think is going to? I understand charging for the WSJ. The WSJ gives very vertical analysis and unique perspectives that you perhaps cannot get anywhere else (although I’d argue that there are many sources where you can). However, the same cannot be said of sites like Foxnews or Marketwatch. I can get the exact same data from places like Reuters and Google. The fundamental problem with pay to view schemes like this is that there will always be a free alternative. Unless you have some added value, people are not going to pay for news. Murdoch complains that revenues are down, yet reports are that that Foxnews’ profits are up 50% over last year, and that is in a down economy.

So, if Murdoch doesn’t want to “give” us his material, fine, I will stop going to his web page, starting now. I won’t go to marketwatch or foxnews.com. The big winner out of moves like this from both the AP and Newscorps. is going to be Reuters. While Reuters may not be the most conservative site ever, indeed they have the same liberal bias as the rest of the MSM, they provide very good coverage of the news and they have never made any rumblings about charging for their data. Reuters has lots of companies (such as Westlaw and Reuters Financial) that charge for services, but their general news sites (including their financial analysis) is quite good and free. Of course, there is also the BBC, CNN, Barons, Bloomberg, etc. that will also benefit from this same move.

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4527

BAWWWHHHHH


Times and Sun readers to pay as loss-making Murdoch declares end to free-for-all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/06/rupert-murdoch-website-charges

I believe that the uninformed Freeper might be confusing Mr. Murdoch with Mr. Ted Turner, who turned the joke that was WTCG, Channel 17 in Atlanta, into WTBS, which begat CNN, from which all other evil has arisen.

I wonder if he knows that Paul McCartney was in another band before Wings.

Talk about a no brainer.

That was great. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

CNN, he hates that the Saudi's own such a big chunk of American news (CNN/TimeWarner).

"Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" backwards you find out Paul is dead.

Sucks to be him.

Does this mean I can no longer study and memorize all my news facts at foxnews.com for free?

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO US????

as a side dish for my new enterprise: Prairie Dog Pate` Puffs.

I mean, those cute little things are far too stringy to be any good as pate.

Suet. Lots of suet.

Ugh. And I was starting to feel better......................

Want melba toast?

...that was enough for me to stop clicking on AP stories, the moment I found out. I also don't post AP stories.

- Fuck 'em, I say....

That's gotta be pretty difficult, considering all the things controlled by NewsCorp.

...and since advertisers pay base on click/rates, I prefer not putting money in Rupert's pockets. It's a small thing, but we do what we can.

:puke:

We saw what a roaring success "Times Select" was when the NYT tried it. The one thing that Freeper was right about was when he said that the sites would need to have added value in order to charge their readers, or people just won't go there.

I guess that to a far right winger something like Fox News might have "added value."

fails to explain how that relates to what HE does. ZINGG!

There are way too many places to get better "news" for free. People aren't going to pay for his shit. The WSJ is the only one of his properties I'd ever remotely consider subscribing to, and there's no way in hell that's going to happen at the current rate of $2 a week.

News Corp owns the Boston Globe now? I bet the NY Times Company is interested to learn that.

...because your network is the biggest piece of shit to come floating down the air waves since black and white TV, end of the night, national anthem broad cast sign offs!

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Quality Journalism? Does he think we're stupid or something?

:evilgrin:

Only a republicon homelander would toss a penny to that creep and his digital propaganda pumps...

The Freepturds SWARE by FAUX news, not realizing it is OWNED by an Australian and NOT an American.

I will have a rant on this tomorrow I am too too tired tonight, but it will be a good one.

has a huge position in Faux News...I think the 2nd largest holding. I wonder if they realize the influence Saudi Arabia has on their favorite place for propaganda?

on my cable box. Fuck him and the boat he rides in on. This should force the dumb asses who listen to or watch or read his rags to find alternative news sources.

Now that most of the entire print media is on its last rope, and realizes how very non-lucrative online advertising rates are in comparison, competing outlets realize that whatever income they get for having 10k more hits on a story than NYT isn't going to put food on the table.


FYI, the problem isn't just that online rates are lower, it's that the labor is far more intensive and equipment is more costly.

There's been a bit of a dust-up between WaPo and Gawker, over a story that Gawker lifted several direct passages and doesn't credit until the very end.

One of the fascinating tidbits in it is that Gawker now wants to go after aggregators while at the same time, thinking what they do is peachy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073102476_3.html

Anyway, check this out:

David Marburger is a First Amendment lawyer who, along with his economist brother Daniel, is stirring a minor controversy in the blogosphere with a proposal that might empower newspapers, or any news organization that spends the bulk of its budget on original reporting. They want to amend the copyright law so that it restores "unfair competition rights" -- which once gave us the power to sue rivals if our stories were being pirated. That change would give news organizations rights that they could enforce in court if "parasitic" free-rider Web sites (the heavy excerpters) refused to bargain with them for a fee or a contract. Marburger said media outlets could seek an order requiring the free-rider to postpone its commercial use or even hand over some advertising revenue linked to the free-riding.

I'm all for it. While we're amusing ourselves to death on content based on what's written by paid professionals at mediocre salaries, at best (most of them, anyway), the source is drying up.

Bye, bye, Rupert.

Just wait until he puts the Kool Aid in a vending machine.

:spray: :rofl:

:wow:

Let's see how long you stay in business, Murdoch, you alien scum!

http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/the-obama-file-is-closed/

LOL.

competition has gone up. These outlets would have been charging from the get go- when they finally got off their asses and jumped onto the internet- if there weren't others already out there doing better reporting on the blogs. Media news and its profits have gone down the drain because of the quality of internet news. Charging for that content now will only help the internet-based journalists and bloggers. Hopefully it will create a competitive income source for these real journalists who've been eeking a meager sum out of their efforts. In the end Murdoch may have set the stage for more mainstream success of real competitive journalism.

I'm sick and tired of these mainstream news outlets getting around to "reporting" stories that we've already known about four days prior, because we got our news from bloggers and citizen journalists. The US Attorney firings, for instance, began as a tiny blurb in the back pages of the Whoreshington Post, almost as though it was an afterthought. It was Josh Marshall and TPM who shined the light on the cockroaches, and it was US who kept the story alive and circulated. WE were the ones who brought down Alberto Gonzales, IMO. Unless these mainstream outlets can bring back REAL investigative journalism, rather than piggybacking off of something that's already been available for a few days online, they'll go the way of the dinosaur.

:rofl:

:think:

Olbermann no doubt made him Worst Person in the World just so he can do the accent again. (Just guessing; no TV here.)

They are going to force him to make a living will and take away his health care.

Quality journalism isn't cheap, so Rupert wouldn't know it if it bit him on the ass. Forcing those who enjoy Rupert's propaganda to actually pay for it is a wonderful idea. I mean, they're suckers anyway, so why not find out how tight you can turn the screw?

If, in the meantime, it destroys the print and Internet publications which News Corp controls, well, it's not as if the truth will suffer for it. No actual journalists will be harmed in the collapse.

Reminds me a little bit of the Chinese sending a bill to the family for the bullet which was used to murder their son.

:rofl:

though I suppose people dumb enough to think he offers news probably deserve to be parted from their money...

It just means he should be paying us for the drivel he calls "journalism".

severe cuts on the expense sheet side.

You can only do so much cutting.

This news is a sign that Murdoch is in trouble.

Who knew.

today via DU..that covered Bill Clinton's successful trip(with a little help from his friends) to NK.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8570602

his "loyal" readership drops when he starts charging.

Charging for Fox news ought to reduce his audience by at least half. A hearty thanx to Rupert for doing what no one else has been able to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4001991

Looking pretty desperate!

"quality journalism isn't cheap".


And that right there is why they go with whatever they're using now. Ertsaz journalism.

I'm going to look the other way and whistle softly while ignoring the drowning murdoch and his news corp.

Q3JR4.
Yep...I'm a bitch like that.

By this logic, not only should his offered "journalism" be free, but we should be paid for being subjected to it.

...and the elephant he rode in on.

- K&R

don't they know that Freepdom isn't free???

Source: Australia's Business Spectator

Media giant News Corporation Ltd intends to charge for all its news websites in a bid to lift revenues, as the transition towards online media permanently changes the advertising landscape.
News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch told analysts in a conference call after News Corp released its full-year results that the traditional newspaper business model has to change.
"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting," Mr Murdoch said.

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/News-Corp-to-charge-for-all-news-websites-pd20090806-UMS5P?OpenDocument

---

"Quality journalism?" .... "good reporting?"
This IS NewsCorp we're talking about, right?
In what appears to be a carefully planned suicide, Rupert Murdoch announced that his media giant News Corporation Ltd intends to charge for all its news websites in a bid to lift revenues, as the transition towards online media permanently changes the advertising landscape. 'The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution, but it has not made content free. Accordingly we intend to charge for all our news websites,' Murdoch said.

check out the original @ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4002282&mesg_id=4002282

The headline is "News Corp to charge for all news websites" and yours says "Newscorpse to charge for all news websites".

Must be a different company.

:hi:

Only dumbass republicans would pay for propaganda anyway!

kill 'em off once & for all...

:puke: :wtf: :puke: :wtf:

If it walked up and bit him in the ass.

:eyes:

XM II

:rofl: You want what Rupert? :spray: :rofl:

long before they're off the TV and radio?

is access to NEHGS, which actually provides factual information. I'm glad Murdoch is doing this--should kill off his online empire.

or, as it truly is, propaganda welfare for the freepturds ...

Think of the money he's lost on MySpace. And Screwpert just dumped the Weekly Standard for a mere million. Add the cinematic clunkers 20th Century Fox keeps churning out, and it's only a matter of time before Screwpert goes bankrupt!

Ill be damned if I start paying for the crap that passes as "journalism"

Ole' Rupert shouldn't be so naive to think that those he pandered to in order to make a buck will never part with their own money for his "news". Money is their god. Rupert just shat where he ate.

It doesn't get any better than this.

Source: BBC News

News Corp is set to start charging online customers for news content across all its websites.

The media giant is looking for additional revenue streams after announcing big losses.

The company lost $3.4bn (£2bn) in the year to the end of June, which chief executive Rupert Murdoch said had been "the most difficult in recent history".

News Corp owns the Times and Sun newspapers in the UK and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal in the US.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8186701.stm

I'm glad that your swill will stop polluting the internet.

eventually, there will be paid-for online news, or there will be no news at all.

News that makes a profit selling ad space! Whoa. Hold the presses. Thats revolutionary. If only they thought of that last century.

The lower cost of the actual media - online versus print, for instance - means that this is continued possibility. If airwave broadcast TV has been free, why not online? Just have ads.

but ad sales also generate far, far less revenue than print sales.

online ad pricing offers only a slim percentage of the revenue that print advertising does. Without other revenue sources an online-only publication cannot afford a full newsroom staff comparable to a daily newspaper -- and that means no original reporting.

On a side note, was the snarky tone really necessary? How 'bout a civil conversation?

Somebody will still have to publish "press reports" and will have to attract people to read them.

Although whether people will actually pay for real journalism online remains open to debate. The few investigative journalism entities that have been set up online -- ProPublica springs immediately to mind -- rely on grants from foundations.

I suspect that, in the end, the entire actual news industry will start to look like PBS/NPR. Hard to see what else would be viable.

Fake news (Fox etc) will continue unabated.

While I am sure that everything that these rags put online will eventually filter down to the assholes, via the Free Republic, RedState, and all of the right-wing blogs, there's still going to be a substantial number of folks who are simply going to tune out when the freaks start demanding money.

This can't be anything but a good thing.

He just pushes RW propaganda-he's the modern equivalent of Joseph Goebbels.

the same as the newspaper subscription.

that the Repug party and their corporate pimps can't come up with enough cash to keep the Mordoch spin machine running.

He sounded the death knell for "freedom of the press" long before this.:eyes: :grr:

What a money addict.

Does Murdoch even know what that means?

No loss here.

Doesn't apply to Murdock's ethical standards.

Yeah, his company lost money, so now the rat wants to sue everyone who wants to use his content. Give me a break. Perhaps he should be sued for some of the crimes he has committed against humanity!

Everyone claims the same thing, "We plan on charging for our content" yadda yadda, but everyone who's actually done so has failed within a few weeks or months.

How many Joe the Plumbers are going to pay for Republican Party propaganda?

If they do pay, they're idiots.

And if they don't pay, Roger Ailes will have to find another outlet to peddle his wares.

It's a win-win situation for America. I only hope they don't manage to motivate more right-wing murder and violence before they're swept into the dustbin of history.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

All of the cons I've ever known refuse to pay for anything.

He should pay us to receive his message -- but he couldn't pay enough to get me to do so.