DISQUS

Leonardo Aranda · 4 weeks ago

I'll take anything that makes his companies less relevant. This is great news.

E. Montag · 4 weeks ago

You took the words out of my mouth.

Steve · 4 weeks ago

Can he hide his TV networks too? Please.

advocatus · 4 weeks ago

That man needs a serious wakeup call.

People Search · 4 weeks ago

I agree. Murdoch is obviously a smart business man and mass media mogul, but this decision makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe "MySpace creep" is taking over his mind.

Mike Stenger · 4 weeks ago

What a greedy old fool. If all these news sites would think smarter and stop focusing so much on "Oh no! Google is losing me money!", they might find some good ways to monetize instead of being all closed about it.

And Mr. Murdoch, once you make your sites closed, do you really think anyone is going to visit and pay all this money? Nope. However, chances are you'll do loads better if you stop acting like a sore loser and realize that we're rolling out of the old age of media and into the new one.

Adopt it or get out. 'Nuff said

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

"they might find some good ways to monetize instead of being all closed about it."

Any suggestions?

facebook-562439659 · 4 weeks ago

One thing they've failed to do is distributing their content to application vendors, archives, tools and other online additions. They have tons of content that no other service can levy. Imagine if they monetized the decades and decades of archives they have piled up in libraries at these major papers (most of them are in paper still of course) and allow applications to purchase licenses to use them for their services.

Second to that, they need to re-evaluate worth now that subscribers aren't (and haven't) been their main channel of profit. Subscriber levels dictated advertiser rates. That was fine when they had rising numbers but they've had a hard time selling ads at old rates with subscriptions plummeting.

Not concrete ideas but then again, its not rocket science to realize that doing it how they did it 20 years ago isn't working.

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

i agree, they need to figure out a way to monetize their archives. but, what would be the most profitable way of doing that?

the reason i asked if Mike has any suggestions is because, personally i cant think of anything else that will make them enough money.

ads - are not working
what else could they try?

instead of crying about it - i cant see why we cant send them a list of other things they should try first?

Mike Stenger · 4 weeks ago

Suggestions? You crazy? I'm not going to give away genius that easy...LOL

Just kidding, I'm sure with some thought I could come up with some good stuff. That reminds me....my local newspaper (Cincinnati Enquirer) only called about 5 times last week.

Sounds like they need an online strategy too!

nodebtworldtravel.com · 4 weeks ago

Murdoch is just another in a long line of execs who don't understand the technology. They just hear Google is making A GAZILLION dollars and think they are getting ripped off.

The more Google can see you, the more people will find you Rupert. If you need a consultant to explain this to you, I am more than available for hire!

Jeff Swanson · 4 weeks ago

I don't know about all of this hiding from Google stuff, but I don't see any reason to discredit the notion of having a Web site that requires a subscription, like the WSJ.

If it's already an established brand with quality content, it might be a good strategy to take what you can get from subscribers. You can use the argument that this didn't work in the past, but that was early in the Internet days when everyone was still figuring things out. I think that users have gotten a taste of some of the free content that's out there and there will still be a market for people willing to pay for content that they have followed for years. If Sports Illustrated, for example, required payment - I would pay because I think they have great writers.

I think advertising works for some content providers and subscriptions could work for others, although not for everyone. The provider would have to have amazing content or the user would be able to find it elsewhere.

Andrew Wilson · 4 weeks ago

Great comment, Jeff!

By the way, people, there are plenty of people like Jeff who are willing to pay for quality content. Funnily enough, you don't see them on sites like Mashable because they're the same types who aren't in social media. You have a very biased viewpoint when your opinions are formed solely by what discussion is happening in your little online community.

When you've amassed the same fortune from social media – or even influence, if that's what you value – as Murdoch has from traditional media, he may listen to your advice. Until then, he probably doesn't care too much about your 4000 Facebook friends and your 2000 'I'll follow you so you follow me' Twitter followers. Although he may care about your MySpace friends. :-P

Jeff Korhan · 4 weeks ago

A paradigm is a very powerful thing. However, this paradigm that helped to build his wealth is becoming a dead end street. Murdoch can't comprehend why you would give your content away,and never will. I do believe people will still pay, just not nearly as much as they used to. I still pay for the WSJ. They do a very good job in most instances. However, I'm paying about 25% of what I used to pay. I suspect that number will continue to shrink.

So, my view is Murdoch is part right and part wrong. He's adapting to the transition, while also holding on pretty tight. Let's see what this looks like in a year.

Dave · 4 weeks ago

People pay for the WSJ because it helps them to make money. No one is going to pay for a subscription to Fox News. News Corp can't fade into irrelevancy fast enough.

jaysal · 4 weeks ago

This is why newspapers are on a downward spiral. People like Murdoch are why that downward spiral is likely to continue.

Kutuzov · 4 weeks ago

It's really easy for Mashable to ridicule this idea: it would never work for Mashable. Why? Because Mashable doesn't produce quality material that's worth money. All Mashable does it reporting on news, and while that's useful, you can get it from anywhere and that's why it's not worth money. If Newsweek.com were to charge money though, for example, I and a lot of other people would not hesitate to pay. Why? Because Newsweek provide insightful analysis you cannot get anywhere else. The same goes for Economist.com, and they have capitalized on that fact for a long time now. So stop being so narrow-minded and jealous, Mashable!

Sherri · 4 weeks ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Mashable became a subscription-based site sometime during the next few years. I think they could pull it off IF they keep the fee low.

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

i agree Sherri. personally, i would pay for mashable.
but, what do you call 'low'?

Murdoch, mentioned that the fee will be less than a cost of a newspaper (in australia they are usually less than $2)

However, if you read these comments, alot of Mashable-readers dont like the idea of paying for content.

Sherri · 3 weeks ago

Tough question. I need information about Mashable's audience. Who are they? What's their income? Age/generation? Occupation? Who would pay for the subscription (their employer)?

What content do they value? How long is the subscription & what’s included in it? (New posts only or archive posts too)

The WSJ is charging $103 per year ($1.99/wk) for an online subscription. I don't believe readers would pay that much to read Mashable posts.

Mashable may need to sweeten the deal by giving subscribers advanced access to or in-depth coverage of breaking news & trending topics.

I’d like the option of customizing my subscription to reduce or eliminate coverage of certain topics. I’d happily exchange some iPhone related posts for something else.

malexandria · 4 weeks ago

Even though he's an evil SOB, I agree with Murdoch 100%. As someone who has run a content site for 10 years, it's frustrating that it's never made much money. Online advertising is a joke for small sites like ours. You have to get insane traffic just to get a couple of thousand a month, that alone enough to really earn a living at it. We've always gotten pretty decent traffic, but if we received that same traffic for a Print Publications I could actually live on the ad revenue it would generate. People get on the internet and all of a sudden think everything should be free and just get advertising.

Most of the top ad money goes to about 10% of all Internet sites and most of it to the top 3 or 5 sites in each genre. Then if you run advertising those same people complain about it and threaten to leave the site for somewhere else.

malexandria · 4 weeks ago

When I was in PR for awhile in the early 90s we were all about getting quality traffic for clients. A million people checking out an article here and there because they saw a link on Google is useless if those million people aren't paying, aren't loyal, and only visit frequently. I'm sure for someone like Murdoch a hundred thousand people paying is better than the million not. It's how I've felt for years but never had the guts to do it - I'd rather have 200 people paying than the 50 - 100,000 we average now.

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

Good on him.

Honestly, if this is the path he wants to walk down - who are we to question his methods?
this guy has probably made more money than all of us put together.

Personally, i am going to sit back and watch him do his thing.
it will either be entertaining, or something i wished i came up with!

Andrew Wilson · 4 weeks ago

Ah, someone who gets it. Full points to you, sir.

JohnSawyer · 4 weeks ago

And we all know that the person who has "made more money than all of us put together" is the one whose methods are not to be questioned.

That's like the naive grade school taunt, "If you're so smart, how come you're not rich?"

Eric Heinzman · 4 weeks ago

Fascinating. It will be interesting to see how this ultimately plays out if he makes good on his "threat." It appears that Murdoch sees content as an end in itself, while to an ever-increasing extent content (most of it, anyway) is becoming more of a means to an end. See content marketing. His proposed firewall could have the efect of making his properties the North Korea of media - internally "pure," but closed off from the opportunites afforded through interaction with the outside world. And ultimately, stagnant and irrelevant, save for the "crazy guy with a nuke" factor.

JohnSawyer · 4 weeks ago

I don't think Murdoch sees content as an end in itself--he sees it as an ends towards making money, and political influence.

I agree with your analogy comparing Murdoch to the "crazy guy with a nuke".

ME Living · 4 weeks ago

I am completely in favor of paid content. However, I'm only in favor of paid content when the quality of the content is far and away better than the free content. On top of that, there needs to be a market for people willing to pay the extra for the content. Rupert Murdoch is just completely out of touch with the paid content market over the Internet. Basically, I don't think there is much of a market for paid news. There is an abundance of quality news articles written by journalists on news sites and blogs that are accessible for free. I completely did not understand the conversion of WSJ.com to a pay model. I can receive the same and/or better news articles from other online sources for free. When they changed to a pay model I just turned the page and went to other sites.

ctiberius · 4 weeks ago

I think it is scary that you call it a 'social media movement'. There's nothing new about the internet and web2.0 that economics hasn't seen before. It still boils down to supply and demand. If Murdoch believes there is a demand for his content and that people will pay for it, then he's simply taking advantage of the best business model as he sees it.

I'm not clear on why the technorati are so indignant. Is it because people like Murdoch diminish the supposed revolutionary nature of social media?

brian fanslau · 4 weeks ago

This guy is off his rocker. Hide from Google? All anyone would need to do is simply bookmark his "secret sites" and tag them with Rupert Murdoch, secret site. Well at least I would do that simply because it makes no sense to hide yourself from Google.

IMUU · 4 weeks ago

Nobody can hide from us. We are everywhere. We know everything. You are being foolish to think you can hide from the google monster. We come at you in your sleep !

damiansen · 4 weeks ago

Cant understand why so much surprise. This is pretty simple. Google has grown into linking to content holder, and they keep pushing the line. Few people can do anything about it. Mr Murdoch is one. By threathening this he will sit in the table with Google to "Talk" about it. More, as Calacanis once said very well, imagine if Bing has access to his sites and google doesnt??? Competition in the search may be steaming hot pretty soon since no would want to google if some big names are not there.
Remember, Twitter is selling content to google and bing. Why not sell murdoch's content then?

Jason McCabe Calacanis · 4 weeks ago

What episode of This Week in Startups did I talk about that, do you remember?

damiansen · 4 weeks ago

#23 or with Gary, cant remember. Search what people say on videos doesn't work that well yet... ;-) crap.

PS: Nice blog, good to listen to. (either your blog or chicken soup made me better after a Scandinavian flue grounded me :-) )

Andrew Wilson · 4 weeks ago

Blah blah blah... once again a bunch of social media people show why 'the establishment' don't get them, and reminding people why those more level-headed amongst us are fighting an uphill battle in getting big corporations to embrace social media. The tone of this 'article' reminds me of a petulant child trying to explain to their mother why they NEED the latest toy and HOW COME THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND?? *stomps feet*

Come on, there are things called 'commercial realities', which social media people seem to forget. This may be largely driven by the fact that the major social media platforms themselves (yes, that's Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace) seem to have ignored them. Each of the major sites has sucked millions and millions of investors' money (including Mr Murdoch's) and is yet to show how it is commercially viable. 'Oh, but the whole world is using it'. So what – if it doesn't turn a profit, why would you invest in it? There's a concept known as 'ROI'. These things are not charitable ventures.

The same applies to media. Is he greedy to want sites to make more than a million or so dollars, or is he reflecting the business acumen that many social media people lack because he's comparing them to papers that make TENS or HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS? If the web content costs as much to produce but provides a small percentage of the return, where is the commercial incentive? It's not greed, people, it's capitalism. People invest where they will get the best return for their money.

I'm not saying that he's got the right approach, but I am sick of people carrying on like a class of teenagers rioting against the principle when they slag off 'old guys like Murdoch that just don't get it'. People should grow up and read a textbook on economics or something before they offer the world any more of the weary 'social media or death' vitriol.

Jeff (14 above), thanks for bringing some enlightened discussion to the debate.

tuxme2 · 4 weeks ago

I don't know why Murdoch is attempting to hide News Corporation sites from Google.

You need to get a audience. One way is to be indexed by search engines, and Google is a large one. If you can't get a audience, you have a worthless site.

If News Corporation sites are not able to be indexed by search engines (including Google), the News Corporation won't get much money.

Johny Ho · 4 weeks ago

Well Murdoch been gaga for the last several years. Not surprised he'd attempt what he's attempting.
I really feel sorry for the people working for him on Myspace, still making an amazing effort try to save that sinking ship.

Sam Jaictin · 4 weeks ago

Impossible! He did not get the hang of modern and easiest way to earn: cheap/free = world wide costumers. Information today are mostly "not" for sale, it is shared. Hope he will really make $$$$ in the long run.

vegas · 4 weeks ago

He sounds like the average 13 yo kid who wants to be an internet entrepreneur - "I'll make a website, charge people $20/month and make 1 billion in 1 year!!!".

tonyrush · 4 weeks ago

The issue regarding news media and Google is that Google gets to index and provide all the recent news in their search results (which is their PRODUCT)....and they get to do it for free. The news media believe there should be some structure in which Google should have to pay to display news stories and headlines to the world that they didn't create.

From a capitalistic standpoint, it's a valid argument. It sounds good and looks good on paper....

...the only problem is that it's not going to work. What Murdoch is proposing is that the media companies would have proprietary control over their news.

Good for them. How the heck do they think people are supposed to find it? :)

Tony

Jay · 4 weeks ago

....EXCEPT that Google doesn't make any money off of the site. Ever see adwords and Google News. NOOO !!!! Google is the value add and if any one should be charging it should be them as they drive website traffic to the website.

Newspapers are losing money mainly because of craigslist plain and simple.

Ryan Murphy · 4 weeks ago

"but I’m afraid his army will be fighting windmills" Oh Mr. Murdoch you silly ole' dog. Time for your meds.

IMUU · 4 weeks ago

The man has proved vaginas can talk !

Stencil · 4 weeks ago

Strange announcement when MySpace just partnered on music search with Google...

U Parker · 4 weeks ago

RM is an old media fart who probably thinks an iPhone has something to do with blinking at your mobile phone. Geezers like this need to get with the times: We make the media, not you.

LIAD · 4 weeks ago

i respect him a lot, but it doesnt seem that he is completely with it in this interview or that he has been briefed properly on what they're talking about

social media press will tear him apart

Kristopher Saim Photography · 4 weeks ago

Ok, this is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. First off, anyone that pays for the WSJ has a screw loose. There is nothing in the WSJ that you CANNOT find for free on the internet by using Google.

For a CEO, or whatever his title is, to be this clueless about the power of the internet and search engines, is a disgrace to the companies he represents. If I were on the board of directors, you can bet I would be raising some questions about his ability to lead a company in these tough economic times.

Hello Rubert Murdoch, this is the year 2009.

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

"Ok, this is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. First off, anyone that pays for the WSJ has a screw loose. There is nothing in the WSJ that you CANNOT find for free on the internet by using Google."

I must have a screw loose.
i value my time, i would rather have all my news served up on a silver plater rather than searching for 5 hours.

Kristopher Saim Photography · 4 weeks ago

I would be willing to bet a Google search for a specific topic would get you the results you are looking for much faster than searching the WSJ website...so if you value your time, you might want to reconsider how you find your news. Not to mention, the fact that you then have a choice of where you get your information from...

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

ok, lets say a plane crashed somewhere, google wont come up to me and say "heres what has happened today".

google and newscorp are two seperate things.
newscorp is a "heres what has happened today" thing.
and
google is a "what do you want to know about" thing.

like i said
"i would rather have all my news served up on a silver plater"

Max · 4 weeks ago

Sort of similar to Google news, Yahoo news, Bloomberg.com, Ft.com which all serve up news (on a silver platter) but are free.

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

Google News lets anyone and their dogs onto their system and it is completely automated.

they let niche blogs like mashable into it, they let cooking 'news' sites onto it, they let 'how do dogs poop' news sites onto it. if you can call yourself a 'news' website - then they will let you in.

mashable posts articles like 'how to get followers on twitter' - and it shows up on google news - now, dont get me wrong - i love thoes posts, but its not news, and when im looking for news, i want news. "twitter gets sued" that is news. if google manually moderated each post, then it would be a completely different story.

its completely automated and gives you 'information overload' - which is what im trying to reduce in my life.

personally, i will pay for a premium service to cut the crap and save my time.

JohnSawyer · 4 weeks ago

Chris: if used properly (it's not difficult), Google can also be easily used as a "here's what has happened today" thing. And with the benefit Kris mentioned: you then have a choice of where you get your information from. The trouble with having all your news served to you on a silver platter, is who's holding that platter, and is what they're serving nutritious? And do you necessarily know what they put into your food? You're trading being informed, for convenience, and not necessarily winding up being informed. All of Murdoch's enterprises are often slanted, and that includes the WSJ. Why trust any news organization not to slant things, especially one that has been proven to, over and over? If you want to restrict your information to a very few, and especially just one source, just to feel like you're part of some trusted, enveloping granddaddy, self-referential team, you're going to become out of touch with what's really happening.

Chris Clayton · 4 weeks ago

"Why trust any news organization not to slant things, especially one that has been proven to, over and over?"

... do you trust your friends? they could slant things!
... do you trust a doctor? they could slant things!

look, everything here is everyones own personal opinions.
personally, i believe newscorp does a great job with their news - sure their not perfect - but neither is your doctor.

vegas · 4 weeks ago

"Ok, this is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. First off, anyone that pays for the WSJ has a screw loose. There is nothing in the WSJ that you CANNOT find for free on the internet by using Google."

This. I can't understand it either.

robertmc · 4 weeks ago

Rupert doesn't get it, does he? Another 20th century man baffled by the new millennia?

Chris V. · 4 weeks ago

He can hide Faux News also. He is becoming a Dinosaur.

Gareth Murran · 4 weeks ago

"Some maybe break even, or make a couple of million"

That one sentence says everything.

Andrew Wilson · 4 weeks ago

Dude, read my comment above. If something was tying up 50 million dollars of capital and turned a profit of 'even a couple of million', it's not a good investment. Simple.

JohnSawyer · 4 weeks ago

Thankfully, there are still a lot of news providers who don't see their efforts merely in terms of "investment" and "profit". For many (not all) companies involved in crucial public service enterprises such as news, breaking even is a worthy business model. If one wants to make gobs of money, they should go into some other line of work.

Mauritius · 4 weeks ago

Hello Stan Schroeder, i would like to compliment you for your great article. Especially your comments and analysis of the statements of Mr. Murdoch. It was really like reading a page turner book because your comments were deep and so true! Greetings from the island of Mauritius. Its very hot here at the moment. Guess you guys are having summer right now!?
I have retweeted your article.

Carl Barron · 4 weeks ago

Cut your nose off to spite your face comes to mind.

Advertising revenue is News Corps biggest revenue stream by reducing access to your Sites will reduce revenues.

Signed Carl Barron Chairman of agpcuk

Mega · 4 weeks ago

news has never been free. I dont see a problem in him trying to find a way for people to pay for a service his company provides.

zbowling · 4 weeks ago

Rupert Murdoch is so out of touch with reality.

sssence · 4 weeks ago

It's scary to think how much money and power this guy holds, yet with such little knowledge of what's truly happening around him in the online and social media landscape...

Arch · 4 weeks ago

It's not a negative thing that he seems to have no knowledge about the true media revolution. As one of the most powerful men in the world (he dominates the majority of the global media landscape, excluding copiers), he fucked up the minds of the people way more than enough already.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays, father of PR, nephew of S. Freud

"There is no such thing in America as an independent press unless it is in the country towns. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dare express an honest opinion. If you express it you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid... for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things....

The business of the New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and sell his country and race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same thing, his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an 'independent press.' We are tools, and the vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, all are the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, Chief Editorial Writer of the New York Times, 1880

sssence · 4 weeks ago

you're right, he has fucked up many minds thus far. what I'm saying is that it's scary to think that he's still doing it, and doing it with misinformation re: the new media revolution...we already have enough stupid people around...

Arch · 4 weeks ago

That he might be able to destroy the internet as we want it with all his money and power, right? Like a giant, blind elephant from the jungle tumbling on the newly built roads.
So we must prove that this age is not about money and power anymore.

Andrew Wilson · 4 weeks ago

Yes, a quote from 1880. That'll demonstrate a point about the modern media landscape nicely.

Arch · 4 weeks ago

Well, you think these things suddenly changed for the better when you see the money masters controlling everything and hear Murdoch talking? He constantly talked about regulation, he's a total control freak.

JohnSawyer · 4 weeks ago

Yes, it demonstrates that not much has changed since then, for major segments of the news media.

pinoytutorial · 4 weeks ago

This just proved the old saying "you can't old dogs new tricks". I guess Mr. Murdoch cannot adapt with the current trend technology is going. We don't have to worry because we know that in business everything is cyclical. Currently we're in the information age whether he like it or not.

Patricia Skinner · 4 weeks ago

I thought he was dead already, which kind of says it all about how important print news is nowadays. Who cares what murdoch thinks about how the Net works? He'll find out, for sure.

bigeastfootballtrivia · 4 weeks ago

Wow, what is his issue. And you wonder why that whole industry is going down the toilet. Well I guess its more traffic for everyone else. YAY!

grahamjones · 4 weeks ago

Once again, this confirms that many people in the "old media" world fail to understand the online world. Having said that, to the likes of a multi-national CEO, a "couple of million" is a rounding error in a departmental account. In other words, to Murdoch's ilk, a couple of million is the same as nothing. It's not, as you say "obscene", merely a different perspective brought about by experience informing a way of thinking. Mr Murdoch has always, thus far, been an astute, wise and successful media businessman. However, his pronouncements in this interview suggest he was brilliant in the "old world" and has yet to truly understand the new one in which he finds himself.

MyBlackSon · 4 weeks ago

Doesn't make sense at all

Harry · 4 weeks ago

Good. We don't need you Mr. Murdoch. See ya.

Jessica McLaughlin · 4 weeks ago

I feel bad for the people who work for him. How frustrating it must be!!

rlsimmonsjr · 4 weeks ago

The smaller audience he gets, the better. Maybe Google would let us opt-out of his current links now, why wait. I wish his site links featured his name so I could filter them myself.

Todd Allison · 4 weeks ago

I've been waiting for all these "news sites" that constantly complain about Google stealing its content to just block Google - let's see what happens to their revenue then!

guiaslocal · 4 weeks ago

Rupert has a reason to be upset he is losing money. Most companies understand that you have to play nice with Google. His move is not very logical. Although it is worth a try.

facebook-562439659 · 4 weeks ago

Wow, luckily newspapers are doing great or I'd be worried by this interview. Oh. Right.

Erik · 4 weeks ago

If he hides his websites from search engines AND makes people pay to read articles, he's be losing money for sure. If websites are competing to provide the best *free* news, no one's gonna have any incentive to pay for it.

Sherri · 4 weeks ago

I don't know about his other papers, but the WSJ is loved by many people who happily pay $103 for access to the WSJ online. More power to him. I'm sure he'll find some degree of success with it.

Jay Purcell · 4 weeks ago

OK hiding your sites from Google search is a dumb idea, but I don't think that we should be so quick to chastise Murdoch on the news distribution issues here. No matter your personal opinions of the man, there is no denying that he is a very smart businessman, and making a lot of money for himself and others.

If more large news organizations move towards paid models, I think it could save the future of news and journalism. We all go to the likes of CNN, TIME, New York Times, etc, for our news fix because we know we are heading to an organization with the time and resources to properly report what is happening in the world. I think if all of these news destinations moved to a paid model, we would all pay for it! because the alternative is quite scary. Anyone can set up a blog or pose as a news website, but what are their motives and intentions? Will what they report be based on facts and research or will it be spun for a certain agenda? I know some of you will think that news organizations already spin for an agenda, but you have to admit that there does exist out there true reporting from great journalists. (Watergate?)
If news and other content remains free forever no one will ever make any money and the valuable services that exist today will die and be replaced by individuals with unknown intentions.

There has to be a certain cut-off point. The internet was invented to share knowledge, lets keep it that way, but lets also enable people to still make a living out of these important areas, journalism, music, film, etc. because if a living can't be made out of these areas the quality of the knowledge being shared will become worse and worse. If you can't make a living doing it, you can't spend the time to work on it. We will be heading back to a caveman era of human intelligence!

Our heating is powered because we pay for the energy.
Cars are still made because we pay to drive them.
Why can we keep some valuable/essential services alive but not others?

We are still in a transitional period where no one knows what to do or where things are heading. I don't think assumptions can really be made about old models vs. new models. We have still not settled on a new model, things are still changing rapidly. While social networking and Facebook and Twitter exist today, this could so totally change in an instant. They haven't been around that long you know!

JohnSawyer · 4 weeks ago

Jay: the other side to your observations has already been demonstrated by Murdoch: a company that makes gobs of money, and so could hire a news staff of stellar, honest capabilities, won't necessarily do that. Money doesn't equate to honesty or quality. As we've found, too often there's no connection. Having gobs of money can, as Murdoch shows, fuel a slanted enterprise. Many of the entities who now report important stories, aren't funded by massive enterprises, but by much smaller ones that currently make their money the old-fashioned way: through advertising. I don't like ads, but sometimes they help fund good work. There are even non-profit news bodies (there's a lot of news put together by such people that very few people know about), and private individuals.

But I agree, at the same time, that your point has something to it.

Jay Purcell · 4 weeks ago

Hi John, I take on your comments. I'm not trying to make the point that only large enterprises with lots of money can fund honest/stellar reporting. My comment is more to say that we should all be aware that it costs money to create great journalism (and other content for that matter), and making it all free will in the long-run harm it's creation. Advertising is not always the best source of funding. The BBC is funded by tax payers, TIME Magazine and the New York Times also make money from paid subscriptions and most traditional newspapers also make money from subscriptions alongside advertising revenue and the sale of products. Murdoch's plan to charge online subscription fees is just shifting the venue from physical printed matter to digital media.

Advertising revenue is great, but is limited and can not be the only revenue source. At some point readers and audiences will need to start coughing up for content otherwise it simply won't get funded.
Maybe there are other ways revenue can be generated in the future. Maybe building costs into Internet connection fees? Similar to how cable TV channels are bundled? I don't want to defend Murdoch or News Corp, but I definitely think we should all be thinking of ways to fund and support news and other content. Free won't work in the end.

JohnSawyer · 4 weeks ago

Not only do things in the news business not work the way they used to any more, but Murdoch's brain doesn't work the way it used to any more.

hkl · 4 weeks ago

My hubby lost his job because of him!

lofa · 4 weeks ago

Good. Let him block his propaganda garbage from Google. Who cares about Murd(er)och. He's just another greedy money monster.

As the old saying goes, a fool and his money soon part.

Nick · 4 weeks ago

NewsCorp...not surprising sadly.

NewsCorp is trying very hard to not keep up with the times. It is trying to tie down progress and profit from no progress. NewsCorp has assets that the world likes, but the world is ready to kick NewsCorp to the curb if the company doesn't straighten up and catch up with modern times.

Question: If you're going to charge to watch NewsCorp stuff...what about us who wants to watch it on our laptops, etc? I can always press record on something on my DVR and transfer it to a dvd and watch it on my laptop. =/. When I do this, I SKIP the commercials. The online streaming content...I can't skip the commercial. So...why not just profit from the commercials we cannot skip?

Tyler Brown · 4 weeks ago

This article fails to mention that the Wall Street Journal is one of the few newspapers in America that is currently profitable. It currently has the largest circulation in the United States, and has actually profited off of the web via their half-paywall, unlike the New York Times.

Online advertising pays a pittance of what newspaper advertising still does (Look at Politico.) If you want quality journalism, quality overseas bureaus, quality investigative journalism, you have to pay for it. The WSJ has agressively defended their premium, and they've done well for it.

Pat · 4 weeks ago

You pay for Fox Channel and you get a bunch of Ads... What are you talking about?

Tyler Brown · 4 weeks ago

There is very little money in online advertising, but plenty of ad space. This has had a trickle-down effect on old media. Plenty of content, plenty of ad space. Organizations that have done well (Economist, WSJ) have done so by restricting their content and charging for the full monty.

Knock Murdoch all you want for going against the 'information is free' trope, but he's following a playbook that has had some financial success. That's a rare bird in journalism.

BruceMcF · 4 weeks ago

If he has all that manpower, why doesn't he clean up his own house? His MySpaceCDN servers may well be the most important free streams to support the cloud of bootleg free anime streaming sites, competing against the licensed streaming sites. But that is NewsCorp acting as a support base for copyright piracy, and Its OK If Your Newscorp.

SoSad · 3 weeks ago

It is so sad the this man is allowed to destroy our news outlets.

JJohnnerson · 3 weeks ago

He's just pissed becuase his social networking site myspace is no longer relevant.

DoubledownTandino · 2 weeks ago

BREAKING NEWS: BUCKWHEAT HAS BEEN SHOT!

Omar NightFlux · 1 week ago

The man is a dinosaur...a rich one but about to go extinct.

Lalit · 1 week ago

Govt must introduce healthy competition in the news industry. News Corp is seeing the emerging threat from Google News, so he is trying to get all media guys to challenge the Google Model in order to save his empire. What will happen when the RSS Feeds become paid service?