×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Murdoch Says, "We'll Charge For All Our Sites"

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the subverting-the-dominant-paradigm dept.

The Media 881

Oracle Goddess writes "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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

881 comments

suicidal. (5, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966863)

That's one way to ensure nobody reads his stuff.

Re:suicidal. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966917)

That's one way to ensure nobody reads his stuff.

Yes, I was just thinking what wonderfully good news this is!

Re:suicidal. (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967031)

Will people pay to read The Sun online? Interesting idea, but seems unlikely.

Re:suicidal. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967077)

They might be willing, but will they be able to work out *how*?

Re:suicidal. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967093)

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, either.

This is a good thing (0, Flamebait)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966869)

Anything that reduces the number of sheep reading right wing echo chambers can only help America.

As opposed to sheep reading left wing echo? (0, Flamebait)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966943)

Left wingers are lemmings through and through.

Re:As opposed to sheep reading left wing echo? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967147)

All of you idiot political fanbois are lemmings through and through.

To paraphrase the dead guy's lyrics: It don't matter if you're left or right..

Re:As opposed to sheep reading left wing echo? (4, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967239)

People that labels themselves and refuse to consider those they disagree are competent are lemmings.

Re:This is a good thing (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966945)

Oh yes, because the left wing jackoffs in power for the last 2+ years are doing a bang-up job with our economy.

Wake up you fucking sheep.

Re:This is a good thing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966981)

Right. It's so fucking easy to clean up 8 years of unmitigated spending, 10 trillion dollar deficit and the fallout for artificially leaving interest rates so low for so long.

2 years should be a piece of cake!

Re:This is a good thing (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967011)

As opposed to the lack of spending in the current administration? Bush wasn't great, but Obama isn't good either.

BUT JOHN MCCAIN WAS TOTALLY A WINNAR (0, Troll)

earls (1367951) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967195)

WOOOO YEAH BOY never happy and proud of it!1 "Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING." Wow, gee, that's totally not want I wanted to convey.

Re:This is a good thing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967033)

So you clean up by doubling the deficit within 6 months? That'll make things MUCH better. Good show. Sheep.

Re:This is a good thing (4, Insightful)

JonBuck (112195) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966993)

Because a sheep-like mentality is limited to the right wing only?

The absolute worst thing anybody can do is dehumanize their opposition by calling them sheep or assume that they're not intelligent.

Re:This is a good thing (4, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967051)

The absolute worst thing anybody can do is dehumanize their opposition by calling them sheep or assume that they're not intelligent.

No... here let me help you...

The absolute worst thing anybody can do is dehumanize their opposition by calling them sheep and then put them all in ovens.

Re:This is a good thing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967001)

Silly Americans with their "right wing" vs "left wing" so-called political opinions...

Nothing in real life is black or white, it's always shades of grey.

WAKE UP.

Re:This is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967105)

Sure, if you are color blind. :)

Re:This is a good thing (0, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967235)

Nothing in real life is black or white, it's always shades of grey.

So what shade of grey was Michael Jackson, before decomposition set in and he started turning green?

Re:This is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967005)

Stick a boy in a bubble, and he might not catch as many colds, but he will never be as healthy as one exposed to dirt.

On the other hand, I like the invisible hand smacking stupid businesses good and hard.

Re:This is a good thing (1)

grrrl (110084) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967043)

agreed - in a more general anything that gets people reading less TRASHY news sources, right-wing or no!!

Re:This is a good thing (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967215)

Yea, as long as the left can control the media for those left without access, any lie can be told uncontested and opinions will be shaped regardless of the truth.

Well, (5, Funny)

rapturizer (733607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966871)

Then instead of people not reading their print editions, then they will ignore the web edition as well. Sounds like a solid business plan to me.

Re:Well, (5, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966915)

Well. It might be a decent business plan. He might gain more money but less readership. Long term, i'm not sure that's such a good strategy but in the short term it might work just fine. Ad revenue can't be that good.

What a nice gift to progressives (5, Interesting)

bl968 (190792) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966883)

Fox News and the other Rupert Murdoch properties charging for access is the best thing the Dems and Obama could ask for. It will limit the reach of the biased news content put out by his properties and limit the public exposure. Also as a publisher of a small Online Community Newspaper, I hope that Gannett and the other big news publishing companies follow suit. It's win win for me.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (5, Interesting)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966953)

Also as a publisher of a small Online Community Newspaper, I hope that Gannett and the other big news publishing companies follow suit. It's win win for me.

I often see how independent small publishers break stories, only for larger organisations to source from, but not attribute their source, several days later. This is especially true of quality blogs and online communities in niche interest or geographical areas - I run one of these. Not attributing and mandatory charging for a derivative work is not good form.

I would like to know the IP range that Murdoch companies use, in order to block them from my content.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967029)

You couldn't block other sources that get their information from you and then Murdoch takes from them, making your IP blocking useless.

What you need to do is make specific typos and mistakes in the text, weird sentence structures, etc. If nobody corrects them when copying your text then you'll have proof that they ripped-off from you. I'm not sure how solid that proof would be if it's for legal reasons, but still that's better than blocking IPs IMHO.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (1)

bl968 (190792) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967103)

I have broken several stories and regularly notify the CNN news desk when stories break that they would be interested in. Don't knock local media as local media is generally the source for the larger broadcasters and publishers.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (2, Insightful)

Nikkos (544004) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967035)

The fact that you claim Murdoch's organizations are biased just proves your paper is as well. You want to find the truth? Research it for yourself instead of reporting on whatever is said by whoever you tend to agree with.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (5, Informative)

bl968 (190792) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967079)

It proves nothing. You can call a rose,a rose; and a pig, a pig; without being one your self. The history of Fox news is documented even in court cases...

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States...During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, "It's vindication for WTVT, and we're very pleased... It's the case we've been making for two years. She never had a legal claim."

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (0)

Nikkos (544004) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967221)

So your basing your opinion on that? Appalling, but legally correct. Look deeper into the case and think about the ramifications.

Regardless, All the other networks have been blasted for inaccurate reporting as well. All the other networks are considered biased by someone. The fact that you single out FOX and only FOX leads to the assumption that you are just as polarized.

I watch both Fox and CNN, and if there's something I hear that isn't being broadcast or that I think is inaccurate, I research it. I'm not saying trust Fox, I'm saying don't trust anyone to make your conclusions for you.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (2, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967275)

Dan Rather: "Fake but accurate." Thank you, I'll be here all night.

You're just another shill who has a bent, nothing more and nothing less. Take off the rose colored glasses, and stop pretending that only one part of the media manipulates.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (1, Flamebait)

mrsam (12205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967281)

It proves nothing. You can call a rose,a rose; and a pig, a pig; without being one your self. The history of Fox news is documented even in court cases...

The only thing that's really documented is your mindless parroting of the left-wing talking points that "Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States".

The real story is not exactly that. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson sued under Florida's whistleblower law, which provides protection only for employees who report misconduct which is against an "adopted law, rule, or regulation". Unfortunately, what Akre & Wilson site wasn't a law, but an FCC policy, so the appellate court ruled that the state whistleblower law did not apply. Which is a far cry from the left-wing kook fringe's mischaracterization of Fox News' position that "there are no written rules against distoring news in the media.

You should really stop mindlessly parroting what you read on your left-wing kook sites, and think for yourself.

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (2, Insightful)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967087)

What the hell? Care to explain that little logical implication to me?

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967245)

A -> B
A

Therefore,
A -> C

Makes perfect sense if you're willing to pay for FoxNews content...

Re:What a nice gift to progressives (1)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967045)

Also as a publisher of a small Online Community Newspaper

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966885)

Oh, Rupert! Internet Fail!

Gee... (1)

SoCalledNotion (1548979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966893)

What a lovely coincidence. I deleted my MySpace account this afternoon. See you in hell, Tila Tequila.

Re:Gee... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967091)

Tila Nguyen (aka Tequila) is the most annoying little brat ever. She's had so much plastic surgery now that she's hardly recognisable as the same person. All her pictures in Playboy are so airbrushed that she looks like she's made of plastic. Now she thinks she's an "artist" because she had a semi-successful novelty bimbo song, and she thinks she's a gay rights activists because she pretends to be bisexual for the cameras. I can't stand her and the rest of her, "Look at me! I'm an Asian slut!" kind.

Fox News (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966895)

Accordingly we intend to charge for all our news websites,' Murdoch said.

At least Fox News [foxnews.com] will still be free.

The Best Quote (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966905)

"Quality journalism is not cheap..."

Yeah, and no amount of money is going to change the quality of any rag run by Murdoch.

It won't work. (4, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966911)

I think it's really quite sad that Rupert Murdoch thinks this will work, given the number of quality, professional news sources online that are free.

I think Rupert's eying the success of the Wall Street Journal as an online subscription site a little too much. What works for the WSJ won't work for other papers, IMO.

Re:It won't work. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967003)

Yes, but he doesn't compete with quality, professional news sources.

Re:It won't work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967025)

I agree that the Wall Street Journal is a special case. Many people who work in finance have a subscription to Wall Street Journal because it's a necessity for their career and it is the only source of some relevant business news. Non-business news sites are more often used for entertainment and must therefore compete with all other forms of entertainment.

Re:It won't work. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967237)

I think it's really quite sad that Rupert Murdoch thinks this will work, given the number of quality, professional news sources online that are free.

The dunce bought MySpace for over half a billion thus winning runner-up for long-term stupid -ebay buying skype for 2.5 billion being the winner of that particular race. He may have been a business talent back in they days of paper dinosaurs and celluloid heroes, but when it comes to the net, he's just following all the other sheep.

Total crap in the news anway (2, Interesting)

enigma32 (128601) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966921)

So, when I watch the news or read the paper, the only good stuff to read is international news anyway.

Will they be offering a cheaper or more expensive option to ignore all of the BS stories that they ram down our throats? (swine flu? little girl saves cat from tree?)

I have become so bored by general news that I literally only pay attention to international news and major US politics stories (being a US resident.)

I hope some of News Corp.'s competitors have a more forward thinking attitude about the matter, because Murdoch won't be getting one penny from me for the crap that I usually see portrayed as something I should care about.

One can only hope... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966935)

That this spells the end of Fox news. Although I'm pretty sure that the folks who watch that aren't bright enough to realize that they can get the news for free from other sources.

Re:One can only hope... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966957)

but you can't get the "real" news from anywhere else. *snicker*

This might work (1, Troll)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966949)

Consider the ~30% of the population who honestly thinks George W. Bush was a great president. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that some of them might be willing to pay a monthly fee to get access to foxnews.com, if the alternatives are left-leaning sites like msnbc.com or blogs they've never heard of.

Re:This might work (0)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967279)

A lot of people tend to think that "If it costs money, it must be worth it" regardless of the actual quality. I don't mean to go all tin-foil-hatty, but I see it becoming very 1984-ish in some (more) ways, polarizing the media even more into an "us or them", making the independent/free journalism seem like terrorists, running around behind the cameras, spreading the awful truth about what's actually going on, becoming physically locked out of more and more things, until they basically have to become a sort of terrorist (in the loose "war on terror" meaning) just to actually find out what the hell is going on.

Not like this is "new"(s), it's been happening for, well almost forever, just getting more in-your-face about it now. How long before the internet itself gets split in two? The paid-for/tracked/censored/"legitimate" internet, it's 12 websites in pale shades of happy colors, and the underground/hacker/truth-seekers that are "destroying the world as we know it, they're coming for your kids constantly being rounded up and thrown in pits by the World Communications Agency's new "Communications Synergy & Harmony Squad" in some weird war of the web. I digress.

But I imagine that simple subscriptions, isn't their ends, but just a means to their desired goal of partitioning the internet the same way Cable TV is/was... "channels" of internet, Fox "Network", Comedy "Network", Outdoor Life "Network" a lot of their names wouldn't even have to change, you "log on" to their weird little virtual reality (suddenly reminded of Strange Days [imdb.com] ) all Matrix style, not that the technology is bad, just "their" (my idea of their) idea of how it should be used.

Hello alternative media (2, Funny)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966961)

Time to read :
http://maxkeiser.com/ [maxkeiser.com]
http://cryptogon.com/ [cryptogon.com]
http://cryptome.org/ [cryptome.org]
http://exiledonline.com/ [exiledonline.com]
http://www.truthnews.us/ [truthnews.us]
Get a few days or weeks or months heads up on what the tame mainstream press with 'discover' if and when they are allowed to.

Re:Hello alternative media (2, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967067)

I hope we can come up with better alternatives than that. While what gets reported by the MSM might be selective, at least most of the facts aren't in dispute. I have no desire to wade through the "news" trying to figure out who has a scoop and who simply forgot to take their meds. Alex Jones??? I think I'm gonna puke.

Re:Hello alternative media (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967071)

I get all my news and rumors from a little unknown website called "slashdot" [slashdot.org] .

The news are always fresh, they never repeat their news and the views of the editors are impartial, especially to corporations like Microsoft and Apple. They also have a moderation system that is so brilliantly designed that it cannot be messed with, even by monsters known as "trolls".

Oh, did I mention they never repeat their news?

Thank you Jesus (-1, Troll)

linzeal (197905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966963)

For convincing the glorious R. Murdoch to charge for his top notch news reporting. That way the good and godly wealthy right-wingers will be able to get even higher quality information from Fox ( because all that money will be used to hire some real reporters, right?) and those misguided poor right wingers can get all of their newsly needs met by the likes of the Drudge Report and Christian Singles forums ( becoming ever more prone to riot as rumors of race riots eventually start them ).

Thank you Jesus.

Re:Thank you Jesus (4, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967085)

Are you implying Rupert Murdoch cares what Jesus says? Rupert was probably one of the guys that got chased from the temple.

Great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966971)

His obvious genius should be amply rewarded.

I'm going to predict that this will work. (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966987)

I'm going to predict that this will work.

Who cares about how many hits you have, when the real key is profitability. The WSJ is pretty good online and its worth the subscription.

Obviously Fox News's site is a different animal but if you just had a Fox media site with reporting that was real, it could work.
But for that to happen, you have to give people content they are willing to pay for, and that means that Murdoch has to invest in journalism if he wants people to pay for it.

Technologically, what the media needs is a micro-payments system setup so that you can have a single billing identity that lets you get all the stories... it would cover Fox, CBS, etc, and a bunch of news sites.

Re:I'm going to predict that this will work. (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967231)

Obviously Fox News's site is a different animal but if you just had a Fox media site with reporting that was real, it could work.

You mean in a different universe not like our one, it's a workable plan.

Advertising Not Cutting it? (1)

Cytos (605351) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966989)

NY Times, WSJ, Myspace, Foxsports, Hulu (45%), askmen, rottentomatoes, photobucket, IGN, gamespy... Seriously, these sites all have tons of advertising all over the place. What will a pay-for model get them other than a major loss of market share?

How does this work? (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967007)

So if Rupert sends me a bill for something that I've never ordered, do I have to pay him?

If not, how does he expect to make any money?

If so, I think I'll send him a rather large bill for a bridge that I just sold him.

not good idea (1)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967009)

good luck with that rupert. but i bet there are a good row of suckers that will pay in time that he tries this, before it goes away.

1. Wall off content 2. ???? 3. PROFIT! (1)

bl968 (190792) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967015)

What he is most likely hoping for is that the eight other giant publishing companies follow his lead and as act together as an oligopoly.

Firms often collude in an attempt to stabilise unstable markets, so as to reduce the risks inherent in these markets for investment and product development. There are legal restrictions on such collusion in most countries. There does not have to be a formal agreement for collusion to take place (although for the act to be illegal there must be a real communication between companies) - for example, in some industries, there may be an acknowledged market leader which informally sets prices to which other producers respond, known as price leadership.- Wikipedia

In this case the big publishing companies held a meeting with antitrust lawyers watching every step to map out a strategy to do just this.

Re:1. Wall off content 2. ???? 3. PROFIT! (1)

C18H27NO3 (1282172) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967197)

Wasn't it a few years ago that cnn.com started requiring payment to view their videos until they scrapped the idea relatively shortly thereafter?

No Spin Zone... (5, Insightful)

dmartine40 (1571035) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967023)

"In what appears to be a carefully planned suicide..." Is it possible to mod a story submission as flamebait?

Re:No Spin Zone... (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967259)

"In what appears to be a carefully planned suicide..." Is it possible to mod a story submission as flamebait?

I've seen the flamebait tag get used often around here, however this wouldn't be the first time I'm thinking it's a valid comment.

A man that should call everything by it's right name would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy. --Lord Halifax

Syndicated News programs en masse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967037)

95% news is organized lies to steer the herds of cow a certain direction. However, now these cows must poop on the grass they eat to make it grow faster to supply their new eating habits.

People have been spoiled... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967041)

Since the beginning of the Web, things have largely been free. Free cannot last forever. Ads will not continue to pay for bandwidth, servers, people, etc.

Newspapers are not free, books are not free, movies are not free. All these mediums have people behind them. People like you that like to eat. To buy clothes. To ensure their kids have a great Christmas.

It's about time that things were not free. I disagree with free webmail. The amount of spam would go way down if people had to pay.

Nothing in this world is free. People have to get paid.

Re:People have been spoiled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967249)

Spam would go down? What obviously non-free crack pipe have you been smoking? Do you honestly thing that spammers use web mail accounts to spam others? If you really think so, then you really have no idea how the internet works. Sure the amount of spam would decrease in terms of less people having email but the percentages would most likely stay the same.

As for your other points, it really seems like companies like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are doing pretty damn well off of the free ad supported web mail model. You see, since you are a moron, you cannot comprehend having several tiers of service, with free being the most accessible at the bottom, costing next to nothing, and premium services going up the ladder providing support and enhancements above and beyond the free model.

You are right people need to get paid for their work however, trying to force the market to an outdated business model isn't going to work. If all the big businesses decided to close their sites and create a pay model. Some smaller company will come out and grab the rest of the people unwilling to pay and do business in a less rigid fashion.

Nobody is entitled to profit, you have to work for that shit and if you can't work it out, you deserve to go out of business. So please spare me the whole, "people need to eat...have a nice christmas" sort of thing. If news sites felt so strongly about this, they would have charged for their news content from the get go. Now they have a consumer base that expects to hit a news site, and read an article or two and deal with some ads. I actually don't expect anything different from these media conglomerates anyway. They have been trying to kill off the internet since the 90s and will continue to get dragged into progress kicking and screaming.

Please let this be true! (2, Insightful)

rusl (1255318) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967047)

Let's just be quiet and encouraging everyone. This could be the best thing since sliced bread. Imagine, disinformation suddenly declines 30% on its own accord. Hold off on the jeering until it is a done deal because you might tip them off!

Best news I've heard in a while (0, Redundant)

Logic Worshipper (1518487) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967053)

I would pay never to see his shit again. Pay to read Murdoch's pathetic excuse for news? What a hoot. Please, please, make fox's site pay only. Save the rest of us from their nonsense.

Easy to Copy (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967075)

Murdoch, owner of Fox "News", the NY Post and other hysterical tabloids, should know better than anyone else that his news is popular because it's easy to distribute, not because it's any good, or at all accurate.

Making his content hard to redistribute, even by linking, will make it entirely worthless.

Hooray and good riddance to bad rubbish.

Continue to pay what it's worth to me (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967081)

Its worth nothing to me, and that's what I'll continue to pay. I don't pay for advertising and fluff. If I'm given it for free maybe I'll look.

Good luck to him. He's going to need it. Suicide is only a slight overstatement.

This doesn't affect their most powerful medium: (3, Insightful)

SilasMortimer (1612867) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967111)

television. The FOX News crowd tends to be an older one (not to forget those of you younger people that watch it, but the demographic is older) and often not very technically inclined. I'd also say that, on average, it is an affluent group compared to the demographic of most other news sources. So I think they're not really going to lose many viewers over this.

I agree with those who say that they are biased and skew their news toward that bias - they hardly hide it. However, we can't deny an overall bias from corporate news sources. I think the majority of journalists prefer to at least attempt an unbiased reporting of the news, but simple business interests often dictate not only how the news is presented, but what news is presented in the first place. And then there's independent media (which at least usually has the decency to make no bones about their bias). I myself listen to Democracy Now and can be fairly assured that I can trust the honesty of Amy Goodman, but I also know that I need to verify things at least to see if I agree with her take on it, with which I don't always agree.

HHGTG (3, Funny)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967135)

I am reminded of Deep thoughts response when told he could cause a philosophers strike.

"And whom will that inconveience"

Too much choice (3, Funny)

unreadepitaph (1537383) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967149)

There's way too many free news sights for people to pay for spelling/gramatical errors and right wing propaganda.

Don't worry (1)

GhostGuy (708750) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967153)

It looks like he'll be dead soon anyway, then we can finally have a little less background noise. Unless you provide a service that people can't get anywhere else easily, give it to them free and make what you can from advertising. Maybe make a paid perks system, like an ad-free version of the site, or extra commentary, or SOMETHING unique and marketable. But to think that people won't go to another news site that they can access for free is just silly. Sure, you have idiots that can't use google, and you have diehard fans of his sites that will pay the money, but he's just limiting his audience here.

He has a point (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967185)

If nothing else, I think we can all agree that it costs money to create this content.

Of dispute is how to make money off of this investment. Murdoch seems to think his content is worth more than he's able to acquire from ad funds. As history has shown, this will likely backfire on him.

But maybe not. Maybe he can squeeze his customers enough to make this plan work. All the luck for him, but I don't think this will work.

We'll charge (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967191)

For our slashdot comments.

Oops, you read some of my comment, now you owe me $5.

What? You'll read someone else's free comments instead?

Don't worry, we're a big news organization, we'll buy out any high-quality commenters who try to give them away for free.

Our readers who never paid a dime for our **** will suddenly start wanting to pay as soon as they hear about how hip our new site design is, and how all our other big and popular commenters will start charging too.

Murdoch - not your average supervillain (4, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967193)

It seems that, despite (or rather, because of) Murdoch's strangehold on your media, most people really don't understand the megabadness of Murdoch.

I know, I know, soooo 20th Century... so I'll boil it down for you geeks: You know the Jedi Emperor? Murdoch doesn't just look like that guy - in the cast of malignities afflicting the planet, he *is* that guy.

Google for more. You'll be surprised what you didn't know about old Rupe.

Re:Murdoch - not your average supervillain (4, Insightful)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967273)

Regretably, Rupert made his start in the news business here in good old Adelaide SA, where he had his first newspaper an afternoon tabloid, called "The News" we also had a excellent morning broadshhet paper called The Advertiser which was a family owned business that stayed independant for many years.

Up until quite recently the News corp AGM was held here.

In the end Murdoch got hold of The Advertiser and turned it into exactly the same crap tabloid as The News, which was then closed. When the original editor retired, he appointed of course a right wing loony.

One of my very favourite Murdoch comments was after an interview with the Australian public broadcaster, the ABC, who questioned him very well, asking questions he really did not want to answer.

  After the end of the interview his mic was left on and he was clearly heard to say "Fucking ABC bastards", much to the listeners amusement.

Thank God (1)

speedlaw (878924) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967205)

A typical Fox "news" person, happily swallowing the swill the elites pump out, can't afford to pay, as his life is limited and defined by the world those elites suggest. The folks most protesting "obamacare" would most benefit. Charge a lot !

Brilliant (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967207)

Actually, I think this is brilliant. Think about it, Fox News does not compete with CNN or the other "real" news sources. People who go to Fox are specifically looking for Right Wing pandering blowhards like Bill O'Rielly. Since these people cant stand the "liberal media" they will happily pay money to Rupert in order to get the same slanted stories and cheap tricks that they want. People who use services like Google News tend to ignore outlets with an obvious bias, so they were not going to use Rupert's services anyhow.

keeps getting better and better (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967225)

the national faces of the right now appear to be somewhere between rush limbaugh, dick cheney, and sarah palin, all 3 with obvious problems appealing to anyone besides screeching rightards

then we have the birthers and their paranoid schizophrenic thinly veiled racism. dividing, discouraging and polarizing the right wing base, so wacky they make 9/11 truthers look levelheaded

and now the principle propaganda wing of the right is committing fiscal suicide because the boss is so old and venal and out of touch with the reality of modern media

seriously, can it get any better?

i am really quite amazed at how fast the right wing has imploded after the presidential election

buffoons and absurdities, all that seems to be on the landscape on the right right now. hilarious and wonderful. i'm actually looking forward to the next act of seppuku on the right

oh look, here it is!:

If you live in or around Pensacola, it just got harder to be a creationist who wants to see giant statues of dinosaurs. Dinosaur Adventure Land, which was packed with educational exhibits devoted to unmasking the lies of evolution, will be no more. No longer will children be taught how dinosaurs walked the earth 6000 years ago. All because park's owners, Kent and Jo Hovind, owed the IRS just under half a million dollars in employee taxes.

According to the Pensacola News Journal:

[Kent Hovind] was found guilty in November 2006 on 58 counts, including failure to pay employee taxes and making threats against investigators.
The conviction culminated 17 years of Hovind sparring with the IRS. Saying he was employed by God and his ministers were not subject to payroll taxes, he claimed no income or property.

huzzah!

keep it up, angry, ineffectual low iq losers on the right

all the news is cheer nowadays

enjoy your march into the sunset

Murdoch's other statements (2, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967243)

Murdoch went on to mention that other site changes came at the request of his dog, Billy, who said that they were not sufficiently canine-accessible. The new design, apparently, will feature images of small rubber toys as the links - these will squeak when clicked upon. Also, in addition to password authentication, the site will support olfactory authentication via a newly-developed USB peripheral.

Some of those in Murdoch's immediate vicinity responded negatively to these claims: one man complained that Murdoch in fact did not even have a dog. Referring to Murdoch as a "crazy fool", he went on to say that Murdoch's presence was not necessary, as there was no present need for his unique skills.

thepiratenews.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967267)

What a glorious future.

It's a knee-jerk reaction to say "this will fail" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28967289)

I could work provided there are any sites of theirs that I like enough to pay for. So, are there? I mean, there are things online that I pay for all the time. I paid a dollar just yesterday to play Bookworm on my iPhone. I pay for songs. If there's a Murdoch site that has content I value enough, I'd pay for it, sure.

I'd probably pay a dollar a month for access to all the Gawker blogs, for example. I dunno if I'd pay more than that, since their competitors are all pretty close to them in content and quality. But still.
I'd probably pay a dollar a month to use Google Reader.

I'm just sayin', just because somebody says "we're going to start charging" doesn't automatically mean they're going to fail, just because Slashdot has some kind of problem with any other kind of payment than advertising.

*shrug*

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...