DISQUS

Arthur Sabintsev · 4 months ago

If this actually worked, it would destroy sites like digg.

Dennis Jernberg · 4 months ago

It won't work. It didn't work for Salon, Slate, or the New York Times. It won't work for News Corp. either. Not that geriatric old-media warlord Murdoch will ever get it. After all, look at how he's ruined MySpace...

jyothiprakash · 4 months ago

Even if Murdoch convinces every media company in the world to start charging for news, can he stop bloggers and microbloggers (Twitter, FB etc.) from sharing???

jyothiprakash.wordpress.com

ckanal · 4 months ago

GREAT point.

oxyjen · 4 months ago

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time! hahaha

mike · 4 months ago

Hell no, I will not pay for News, when i can get it for free at http://WirePost.com

Dan Wilkinson · 4 months ago

Can't see it working to be honest, why pay for news when the BBC will be there for free (and I can't see them charging, certainly not in the UK at any rate).

Adam · 4 months ago

The BBC is paid for in the UK by the TV licensing fee, so I'd imagine it's likely they can't actually charge any more than that anyway.

Dan Wilkinson · 4 months ago

Exactly, can you imagine it if they did? There would be an uproar if they charged more for news on the license fee. Although thinking more for people outside of the UK, the BBC news site actually has web ads to cover costs.. If this "pay for news" thing takes off, its a possibility, a slim one though.

Ryan Willis · 4 months ago

And pirates like me will find ways to get it for free.... :P

Wabba · 4 months ago

I love it when people have to point out that they are pirates. It's like "oh, you are just so cool because you steal stuff." No need to brag, no one IRL will like you more.

Anyways, I hope it works. I'd love to see people on blogs freak out.

doktormcnasty · 3 months ago

you need to tone it down with the pirate-slagging, mate.

ckanal · 4 months ago

I give Murdoch a lot of credit for trying this. At this point, why not? Some major company had to be the first and he's right, if they're successful, others will follow.

Fox News in particular has a loyal audience, like WSJ. I think it makes sense for them to try charging and it could work out for them just fine. For others, I'm not so sure, but it's worth trying...

b · 4 months ago

it will only work if all news outlets start charging, and i hope they do! i'm willing to pay a fee for a daily newspaper, why not access to a daily online newspaper? SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL PAPER AND BUY ONE TODAY!!

Anterpreet Singh · 4 months ago

It won't work, they should find other ways for revenue

Alan Kohl · 4 months ago

So doomed to failure .... Here's a list of the ways that this won't work and looking at their stock prices evidence that the market aint convinced either.

Mike Murray · 4 months ago

NTY papers started considering a return to paying for news too within the last few months. I don't have a problem paying for the WSJ because it's a better newspaper than anything else, and that's the same for online. Not everybody will agree, but I'd imagine that many of the people who absolutely wouldn't pay for the WSJ wouldn't read it regularly anyway.

redwall_hp · 4 months ago

No. I would never pay for news, and I don't think anyone else would either. If ye olde newspaper companies start charging, new companies will spring up to fill the void where the then-dead company had occupied.

Yes, good journalism isn't cheap. But there isn't much good journalism coming from anyone these days, Murdoch's companies least of all.

Amílcar Tavares · 4 months ago

I would pay if I know that is the only way to get ALL the good stuff I like. They have to give me a checkmate!

Mike Murray · 4 months ago

NTY papers started considering a return to paying for news too within the last few months. I don't have a problem paying for the WSJ because it's a better newspaper than anything else, and that's the same for online. Not everybody will agree, but I'd imagine that many of the people who absolutely wouldn't pay for the WSJ wouldn't read it regularly anyway.

tweetamar · 4 months ago

Ohhhhh, I can't wait for Rupert to start charging for news. The day he does that, is the day I open a free newswire. It'll be the shortest-lived plan he's ever had. What's he thinking? It's like swimming up-stream!

Phil Novara · 4 months ago

How are they going to pull a feat like that off? Pay for it? Readers will simply find alternative sources...I agree, this wont work. Find a better revenue stream.

wecandobiz · 4 months ago

Readers who aren't paying anything? Where's the loss there? The ad model is broken and Murdoch figures that he can make more from subscribers.

You know there are a whoole heap of people who pay for news today already at the newstand, even in the face of free competitors. If we all swap tabloid for tablets, why should we not want to pay for QUALITY news coverage that way too?

It's brave and I hope he pulls it off. If he does, I wonder whether bloggers will try and leap on the bandwagon.

Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz

Yeti · 4 months ago

"QUALITY news coverage" ... just because you pay for it doesn't mean you get quality. So much of the news is twisted one way or another. Is there such a thing as quality news coverage ?

Pay for news ? not me.

Denisslamalice · 4 months ago

It can work, but it will take time. If all news websites follow, but here also there will be always others free ways to get news (TV, Blogs, Radio... Google News). If people subscribe they will only pay for one news website, the competition will be rude as all websites have almost the same content. I think people are not ready to pay, plus news is not vital. Get news once a day on tv it is sufficient for most people. There are so many useless articles today...

Bios Element · 4 months ago

Not a chance. I'll get it for free or not at all.

pfk98 · 4 months ago

I hope the free market system deals with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News in a fair and balanced manor. Say goodbye to the wingnuts.

Joel Ray · 4 months ago

Poor business model.

Jason White · 4 months ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! FOX start charging for NEWS! IN fact you should charge so much that my cable company drops you. Actually you should send me a letter explaining how my lack of subscription payment has forced you to recuse yourself from my life forever (oh crap said too much)

AHEM.

DEar Fox, I LOVE you I WATCH you like 25 hours out of every 23 (I only sleep long enough to rest my ever vigilant eye - lest someone should sneak up on me during my restful moments and attempt to change the channel I could never live without -) and I would definitely pay you for your exceedingly brilliant content only please don't charge me too much, I don't work really and I tend to get angry and violent when I leave the house so making money is pretty tricky for me but I definitely don't want to live without your awesome, inspiring, uplifting, TRUTHFUL NEWS, which makes me worried that I might not be able to afford the rent. Oh Well don't YOU worry about it. I guess I can cut back on diapers for the babies and make it work that way. Just what ever you do... Keep it Coming! I love your Sh%T!

Sincerely,
Youreverlovingmonkey

bombtune · 4 months ago

I think people will pay for quality content. The problem is that quality content became pirated and now it's contradicted by the free amateur content. No one will pay for a kid's uploaded video but they will for a professional video. And if they won't pay, they will pay with attention and sit through an ad to watch it. Murdoch is on to something but the payment service may just look a little different than he expects. No micropayments, but freemiums and upsells on the cheap.

Phil Novara · 4 months ago

I dont think its a matter of paying for quality content. Its no secret that these subscriptions would be far better quality than joe schmoe down the street reporting the news.

Its a matter of filtering the news. Why pay for a bunch of stuff you care nothing about? If they could enforce a model that allowed you to filter "select news" topics than it may be worth paying for.

Otherwise, just paying for quality is useless...

Y · 4 months ago

Al Delgado · 4 months ago

I would pay for NY Times... Not Fox News!

Y · 4 months ago

No, for the answer as a read-aholic BUT....U have to make money..how about from advertising companies? Another way around from " tele carriers " ( to share our cost)

ArticlesFYI · 4 months ago

Rupert Murdoch, I ask you, why would I pay to read the trash you try to pass off as news. Your a bias, manipulating mogul trying to direct the future of the world through your media empire. To put it another way, "pull ya head in mate" from one Aussie to another ex-pat.

Twilightred · 4 months ago

If this makes fewer people read Fox News stories then it's a fantastic idea.

Colleen · 4 months ago

Digitally where is the consistency? WSJ online might charge, yet WSJ iPhone app is free. They create their own loopholes.

Z Thompson · 4 months ago

Being old doesn't make you smart.

Jan van der Reis · 4 months ago

You are damn right!!

Phil Novara · 4 months ago

Yes, but it has been proven that old business models are repeated throughout history. They just have to be reinvented. Simply saying "people will pay for it" without changing the game will not work.

He knows the business model, now he just has to reinvent it.

Johnny · 4 months ago

Get Bent Murdoch

advocatus · 4 months ago

They're going to fall flat on their face.

brett · 4 months ago

As long as AP.org is free, they can charge all they want.
Every one of them uses AP so why should I pay for it when its everywhere else.

Don't be surprised if every newspaper jumps on the bandwagon when Rupert moves them to a pay model.

Dennis Jernberg · 4 months ago

Just don't quote anything from the AP. Haven't you heard? It now charges $5 a word for every word you quote from them, even the title! Sooner or later, the AP too will follow Murdoch's example as he leads the whole newspaper industry off the cliff like so many lemmings.

Kirk M · 4 months ago

Well hell, guess I'm in trouble then not to mention the million or so other bloggers out there who quote excerpts from the AP and other news sources in our posts (complete with links back to the original article). I don't remember seeing any disclaimer stating that I have to pay them for using bits of text from their news articles. There were no anti-context (right-click) menu protection built into the site that carried these articles that would prevent me from copying the text I wished to quote. Sure there's the Copyright notice at the bottom of each article, I have the same thing on my site but it hardly keeps anyone from using my home spun content if they want to.

xericwit · 4 months ago

Media Moguls to put out contract on interwebs free info. I can see Murdoch, Turner whoever is running Disney these days, AP reps, & misc other media moguls, having a sitdown to discuss the most unfortunate loss of revenue stemming from the meddling interwebs. They'll realize it was all their fault for giving it away for free in the first place. Payment structures will be put in place. A yearly fee for the RSS feed(s)? A pay-per-view charge? Also they'll have to figure out a way to put the third-party bloggers on ice. They'll go AP on all our a**es - charge for every mention, every blurb or pull quote. Borrow a page from the Music Industry to sue every high school student who tries to quote or site an article without prior payment. Charge to leave comments too! Brother what a fight the people will see, glory be.

Dare I hope this would mean they would print something worth reading that I can't just watch on their 24 hour news networks?

DocHobbes · 4 months ago

...OR this move will cement the failure of the old news mogul. Personally I'd never pay for news as on line content. Too many places offer it for free and too many people share said information. Although on the plus side it would be nice to see Fox News go away.

M E Smith · 4 months ago

*sigh* They just don't learn, do they? You can make money on the internet, but you can't do it the same way you do offline. It just doesn't work. It's a different entity, you have to use different methods. Attempting to plow through and ignore the problems will get him nowhere fast.

stagingworks · 4 months ago

Benn..News Corps will have to face the fierce and open competition in the cyberspace. As the internet users are various, diverse, and complicated to understand exactly what, why, and how. Murdoch's intention is fine to make a new move. Yet, it won't be enough. Remember that Everybody can be a media today with internet. From Toronto Home Stager

Andrew · 4 months ago

G'luck with that one NewsCorp. After so strongly demonstrating his knowledge (Murdoch) of driving profit on the internet (see its annualized loss on MySpace out today of $363M) there is no way he could be wrong. If this is his attempt to float the idea, he should consider the concept dead in the water & trying being slightly more innovative - you know like Facebook!

Phil Novara · 4 months ago

I couldnt agree more, there isnt much value to justify paying for it. They can add value, but its time to innovate it.

Devaraja Swami · 4 months ago

Of course, being a parasitic blogger, you'll say you're not so sure that people will pay for content.
You depend on free content from original content providers that you can rewrite or rip off or repeat outright.

Personally, I pay $33/quarter for my local newspaper. I am ready to spend $100/quarter for news [roughly $1/day] for ORIGINAL news. For example, if Carol Bartz were to start charging for my My Yahoo subscription, I would pay in a flash.

For blogs, I will pay $0/lifetime.

Jan van der Reis · 4 months ago

Mainstream media suck soooooo much . . . and now Murdoch pretends to charge for his crap . . . and believes all media will follow . . . gimme a break and . . . no wonder twitter is trembling . . . LMAO

mika. · 4 months ago

Why would anyone pay for fascist programming? More and more people are becoming aware of the con that is the car/oil/military/msm/advertising/banking mafia. The story of the imperialist gangsters with their Washington corruptocrats and corporate monopolies will soon come to an end. That includes you, Mr Murdoch. You and your Islamonazi Saudi friends.

marc sobel · 4 months ago

I think it's a great idea. The sooner that Murdock and Fox News goes out of business, the better.

britard · 4 months ago

haahaha

Devaraja Swami · 4 months ago

The short history of the Internet is littered with failed "free" sites, as anyone old enough to go to college might remember - Lycos, Excite, Netscape.com, Friendster, Business 2.0, Industry Standard, etc and now MySpace [I give it 2 years at most] and soon Twitter [I'll give it the same time to die]. On the Internet the next hot free site is always around the corner.

Blogs will go the same way save for those few whose authors actually produce original/investigative content.

I may not pay for Fox news, but I'll gladly pay for NYT, WSJ and My Yahoo.
I already pay for my local newspaper and IEEE digital.

The only question, to paraphrase Keynes, is whether the "free/ parasitic" sites can persist longer than some original content providers can remain solvent. Today it seems that many small town newspapers can't stay solvent long enough for the parasites to be eradicated. However, it is highly likely that the big media properties can and will be able to hold on.

We consumers have gotten greedy, thinking that we can get most things for free and the rest on sale at Walmart. May be the case still, but won't be for too long.

Push Start · 4 months ago

Mr. Murdoch, I can't afford to be nickel-and-dimed for news, no matter the quality. The economy sucks and I have to deal with corrupt insurance companies and overpriced gas as it is. I just get my news for free wherever I can.

Startpoint · 4 months ago

Once upon a time Bill Gates contemplated charging for email. He thought it would be a good idea. And Hotmail got shrunk to 2 meg of file size for stored messages, which I felt, was the first move towards limiting services and then offering a paid upgrade.

But then Gmail busted out with one gig free webmail.

I can't see Murdoch being able to get the cat back in the bag. He might go to user pays, but I doubt that others will follow or that he'll find ongoing success. If he does move towards it I think it will help bloggers, and indeed blogger co-ops, become extremely successful.

Startpoint · 4 months ago

Once upon a time Bill Gates contemplated charging for email. He thought it would be a good idea. And Hotmail got shrunk to 2 meg of file size for stored messages, which I felt, was the first move towards limiting services and then offering a paid upgrade.

But then Gmail busted out with one gig free webmail.

I can't see Murdoch being able to get the cat back in the bag. He might go to user pays, but I doubt that others will follow or that he'll find ongoing success. If he does move towards it I think it will help bloggers, and indeed blogger co-ops, become extremely successful.

Tom Muir · 4 months ago

Well he can do what he likes as far as I'm concerned. I avoid _all_ news services under Murdoch's umbrella - and always have done since the 60s. Hardcopy, TV and Internet. But as somebody else said, he won't get the cat back in the bag. He and his executives clearly lack adeptitude.

Ben Appleby · 4 months ago

Big Newspapers = Big Salaries = Huge overheads. Student Journalist = On the pulse, Free, Location aware, Blogged, Linked to and Credited. The Newspaper model needs to wake up and smell the internet

rozz · 4 months ago

Well, blame the newspapers who put their content online. Blame CNN, AP, etc..etc...

K. B. McFarland · 4 months ago

Well, I guess if he wants to charge for his content rather than get revenue from the other proven methods and the ones still being tried that don't directly cost the information consumer, he has that right. However I think he'll be surprised at just how marginal his information product becomes when 90% of his current consumers opt for other venues. He seems to think that people will pay a premium for scoop content from celebrities, and I think he must not have looked at who views that kind of thing--people with little money to spend on such things. No one needs the breaking news for a fee when they can wait a few minutes and see t on MSNBC or E! news. I guess you can't teach an old dog how not to drown in his own excrement. I stopped using WSJ for anything meaningful beyond wrapping glassware since he took it over from Dow Jones, and the more barriers he puts up to accessing his information properties, the less his information will become "consumed" by me and a vast majority of his other "current" consumers. The only place this has worked is in the music industry, where people are willing to view songs, which they listen to over and over again, as "product," and it hasn't worked very well, despite the best--or in most cases, worst--efforts of the RIAA. I doubt anyone will ever want to buy articles from the WSJ or shows from Fox on a mass scale because most of these are one-offs, read casually then forgotten or disposed of immediately after consumption. I'm fine with him doing it, though. The effect will be to strengthen the burgeoning movement against conservative hypercapitalist corporate autocracy while marginalizing the views he has imbued his information properties with. Putting his mindset behind a wall you have to pay to see means he just put himself in a cage in a Zoo. "Come see the Cranky Old Fossil--his Ideas are as addled as his soul is curdled!"

Thanks for throwing a spoke in your own wheel. Now maybe we can get back to the business of dismantling your putrid empire of greed and larceny....

Elad Kehat · 4 months ago

Murdoch says I will? Well I say I won't.
I'm used by now to getting all of my news for free (as I only read news online). There's no going back. As long as there's content of some quality, I'll just avoid the paid versions.

K. B. McFarland · 4 months ago

Well, I guess if he wants to charge for his content rather than get revenue from the other proven methods and the ones still being tried that don't directly cost the information consumer, he has that right. However I think he'll be surprised at just how marginal his information product becomes when 90% of his current consumers opt for other venues. He seems to think that people will pay a premium for scoop content from celebrities, and I think he must not have looked at who views that kind of thing--people with little money to spend on such things. No one needs the breaking news for a fee when they can wait a few minutes and see t on MSNBC or E! news. I guess you can't teach an old dog how not to drown in his own excrement. I stopped using WSJ for anything meaningful beyond wrapping glassware since he took it over from Dow Jones, and the more barriers he puts up to accessing his information properties, the less his information will become "consumed" by me and a vast majority of his other "current" consumers. The only place this has worked is in the music industry, where people are willing to view songs, which they listen to over and over again, as "product," and it hasn't worked very well, despite the best--or in most cases, worst--efforts of the RIAA. I doubt anyone will ever want to buy articles from the WSJ or shows from Fox on a mass scale because most of these are one-offs, read casually then forgotten or disposed of immediately after consumption. I'm fine with him doing it, though. The effect will be to strengthen the burgeoning movement against conservative hypercapitalist corporate autocracy while marginalizing the views he has imbued his information properties with. Putting his mindset behind a wall you have to pay to see means he just put himself in a cage in a Zoo. "Come see the Cranky Old Fossil--his Ideas are as addled as his soul is curdled!"

Thanks for throwing a spoke in your own wheel. Now maybe we can get back to the business of dismantling your putrid empire of greed and larceny....

K. B. McFarland · 4 months ago

Well, I guess if he wants to charge for his content rather than get revenue from the other proven methods and the ones still being tried that don't directly cost the information consumer, he has that right. However I think he'll be surprised at just how marginal his information product becomes when 90% of his current consumers opt for other venues. He seems to think that people will pay a premium for scoop content from celebrities, and I think he must not have looked at who views that kind of thing--people with little money to spend on such things. No one needs the breaking news for a fee when they can wait a few minutes and see t on MSNBC or E! news. I guess you can't teach an old dog how not to drown in his own excrement. I stopped using WSJ for anything meaningful beyond wrapping glassware since he took it over from Dow Jones, and the more barriers he puts up to accessing his information properties, the less his information will become "consumed" by me and a vast majority of his other "current" consumers. The only place this has worked is in the music industry, where people are willing to view songs, which they listen to over and over again, as "product," and it hasn't worked very well, despite the best--or in most cases, worst--efforts of the RIAA. I doubt anyone will ever want to buy articles from the WSJ or shows from Fox on a mass scale because most of these are one-offs, read casually then forgotten or disposed of immediately after consumption. I'm fine with him doing it, though. The effect will be to strengthen the burgeoning movement against conservative hypercapitalist corporate autocracy while marginalizing the views he has imbued his information properties with. Putting his mindset behind a wall you have to pay to see means he just put himself in a cage in a Zoo. "Come see the Cranky Old Fossil--his Ideas are as addled as his soul is curdled!"

Thanks for throwing a spoke in your own wheel. Now maybe we can get back to the business of dismantling your putrid empire of greed and larceny....

neverendingly · 4 months ago

I wouldn't read news controlled by Murdoch if u paid ME

edh · 4 months ago

OK - in 2006 Murdoch says “Technology is shifting the power away from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, the media elite. Now it’s the people who are in control” http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/murdoc....

But today reckons the power has shifted back to the publishers, establishment, media elite?

Interesting!

Bb Inthavong · 4 months ago

rupert murdoch - bush's friend; owns fox news!!
he's greedy and a racists lemme add that!!

Danny · 4 months ago

Murdoch's quote "“Quality journalism is not cheap". With that in mind, a subscription to any News Corp online sites should be only worth a nickel a year....

shreyashi ganguly · 4 months ago

Paid content will only make people go away. I can understand a very nominal subscription based system. Essentially that's what we do with physical papers, but unless people are allowed to choose what they read and how the news is delivered people will simply switch on their TV for the evening snippet or do a search on twitter to get the real time news.
This plan is may turn out to be counter-productive.

Zukav · 4 months ago

The people who watch fox news would pay for the right to keep getting hand fed what they already believe. Maybe he can make the same thing work for the foxnews web content.

For the rest of us, it's a non-starter.

Orlando Web Design · 4 months ago

I have mixed feelings on this post. True that anyone that can work a computer can write an article and put it up online. But doing that alone is not going to get readership and rss subscribers which is the replacement for newspaper subscribers.

I think it should be true that some information should be paid for. Memberships to private forums or content that the average joe shouldn't get.

But to think that people will pay for stupid stuff like what a celebrity ate for breakfast or the score to the Knicks game, I think not.

The man is smart, but he is not going to survive in this web world. Old attitudes like this that try to take what used to work in their world to the online world fall hard. I can't wait to see this eat the dust as well.

Jason · 4 months ago

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Michael · 4 months ago

No...the game has changed...Resistance is futile!

britard · 4 months ago

maybe old people would pay for this, but then again many old people dont even know that there is a task bar at the bottom of the screen. old man just doesn't 'Get' the internet.

Northwest Guy · 4 months ago

Rupert Murdoch is a menace. He is an example of someone who has gone power mad. His disregard (and contempt) for the rest of... humanity, is disgusting.

Seba · 4 months ago

Why pay for news when other media are free? May be for WSJ business critical information but for public non exclusive news.

Seba · 4 months ago

Why pay for news when other media are free? May be for WSJ business critical information but for public non exclusive news.

Northwest Guy · 4 months ago

For those of you supporting Murdoch's idea of charging for all the news, let me ask you: Do you really want people like Rupert Murdoch controlling what you can read? Just because you paid for it, would you really trust him to give you accurate and unbiased news? Without checks and balances, people like Murdoch would have us all become ultra conservative drones. Do you really think that Murdoch and his kind have your best interests at heart?

Hoff · 4 months ago

Extra! Extra! Old man has outdated idea!

Al Delgado · 4 months ago

Murdoch should get the GOP to pay for Fox News. They might as well make more money for schilling for them.

Chris R · 4 months ago

Wow Rupert! You really don't get the Internet do you?

Why would I pay for something I can get for free? Even if you have something that I can't get from sowhere else; why would I bother? There is just too much information out there.

tony · 4 months ago

Think about it...We don't pay to watch TV news (yes, we pay the cable company, for access to television, but we also already pay an ISP for internet access). We all already have enough bills to pay. We won't pay for online news, and only an idiot would pay for the drivel FOX puts out, anyway. Okay, sure, some people pay for magazine ... Read Moresubscriptions, but, I think even that is deteriorating.
There are plenty of community run, grassroots news sites, blogs, etc. where we can find news content that interests us, and people share information so fast on the internet (twitter, FB, etc.), that it just isn't a feasible business model. Why would anyone pay for news from some nauseating, highly biased, corporate news outlet? They are going down...

Matt Wilson · 4 months ago

What a terrible idea. People will just get their free news somewhere else

Vernon Sanchez · 4 months ago

wow, this is bad news for all the people tweeting right now!!

Kelly · 4 months ago

Visit www.silobreaker.com for free news from all around the world. No charge.

ahrcanum · 4 months ago

By all means take the Internet landscape from free to paid content, and allow them to see that they are not really a necessity at all.

The digital conversion took America by ransom on behalf of the cable industry -- why wouldn't the previously dominated newspaper industry try to do the same.

cherry picking the news in print, radio, internet, cable....

F. R. Plank · 4 months ago

The post office is next to charge for all services,i.e. ebill, epay, etc.

peter · 4 months ago

Well I would say - too little, too late. What does he expect? News corporation do not have monopoly for news. News spread even faster via the Twitter then via "news websites". As for the wsj - this is an exemption - it is thematic journal address to business people and is needed for people do their job, so most likely they will pay for it. But all the rest - "leisure news" - I don't think he could get any money from. Just like tobacco industry is slowly disappearing, the news industry had its peak already...
I think similar will happen with copyrights... Internet changed it all - copyrights in their current form are obsolete ... I am willing to pay for a song or for a movie, but I will not allow to be robed by the phonographic industry as they were doing it uptillnow. They wanted to milk the money and keep the status quo as long as possible selling obsolete CDs ... people found a way around it - so now they are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube... Good luck. And if they found an adequate business model to sell reasonably content it might have worked.
Globalisation works both ways gentlemen ... and now it is the time for the masses to gain from globalisation, not only the rich few should profit from it.
In my humble opinion it is too late ... you were too greedy to adapt to changes so now you lost it all.

peter · 4 months ago

Well I would say - too little, too late. What does he expect? News corporation do not have monopoly for news. News spread even faster via the Twitter then via "news websites". As for the wsj - this is an exemption - it is thematic journal address to business people and is needed for people do their job, so most likely they will pay for it. But all the rest - "leisure news" - I don't think he could get any money from. Just like tobacco industry is slowly disappearing, the news industry had its peak already...
I think similar will happen with copyrights... Internet changed it all - copyrights in their current form are obsolete ... I am willing to pay for a song or for a movie, but I will not allow to be robed by the phonographic industry as they were doing it uptillnow. They wanted to milk the money and keep the status quo as long as possible selling obsolete CDs ... people found a way around it - so now they are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube... Good luck. And if they found an adequate business model to sell reasonably content it might have worked.
Globalisation works both ways gentlemen ... and now it is the time for the masses to gain from globalisation, not only the rich few should profit from it.
In my humble opinion it is too late ... you were too greedy to adapt to changes so now you lost it all.

Castemelijn · 4 months ago

Paying for news content is my opinion one of the worst things you can do as a newspaper. If you're running a news agency, one of the key values you need is openness. If you can provide your content to the world in a fast an easy way, your news will be evaluated next to other news agencies. This empowers the objectivity of your article (which is a basic rule among good journalism), and makes your company strive for more originality and more profoundness in the article. Competition in the news world makes news better, more reliable and profounder. And paying for news does exactly the opposite, cause no one will pay two subscriptions, just to lay 2 articles side by side and check if they hit the same points.
It is the task of a news agency to find a way to earn money while staying open and reliable to the world. And this is not hard: look at how the Guardian has opened up their API. This makes their content easy to share, yet they include advertisements in the content as well, which let them earn money.
And apart from that, the internet has always been free, and will stay free. Making you pay for a news website will not stop people from sharing the content, or copy-pasting it into their own blog or website.
Murdoch should open up and see what great advantages the next generation of the internet has to offer to news agencies. Only then he will see openness, individuality, originality and interaction are the only values that really matter.

Robert · 3 months ago

He's gonna buy Twitter and charge you to tweet and to read tweets!

jefbrown · 3 months ago

It may indeed happen, but not at the behest of Rupert Murdoch. If the legitimate press collapses from lack of revenue, what the world will be left with is nothing but crap journalism, inuendo and unverifiable false alarms (you can already see a rise in this). But likely only after this jounalism cull will a market emerge that will pay for verifiable, reliable "Walter Cronkite" news.

Chris Wilkins · 3 months ago

The problem with free content is eventually there will be no news. A journalist who is starving because he got fired from his local paper is not going to keep blogging for altruistic reasons. He will go off and do something else.

And online advertising is just not cutting it. If it was, all the thousands of fired journalists would get a blog, put adsense on, and away they go. But they aren't. So advertising can't be the cure for this.

What about the idea of micropayments and getting some fair exchange going? Is it really totally unfair to pay a journalist a cent or two to read an article they spent the better part of a day writing?