Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Rupert Murdoch Plans a Digital Newspaper For the US

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the adding-dot-com-works-for-me dept.

The Media 237

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that Rupert Murdoch plans to launch a digital newspaper in the US geared specifically to younger readers and to digital outlets such as the iPad and mobile phones. The paper, as yet unnamed, will pool the huge editorial muscle of Murdoch's combined holdings within News Corporation, which include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the financial wire service Dow Jones, as well as his newspapers in the UK and Australia. Earlier this month, Murdoch said of the iPad: 'It's a real game-changer in the presentation of news,' adding 'We'll have young people reading newspapers.'"

cancel ×

237 comments

Game changer (4, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252060)

Rupert Murdoch: Dragging us into the 20th century.

Re:Game changer (4, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252220)

Obviously his company & friends are getting worried [google.com] that their grip is failing to bend the hearts and minds [outfoxed.org] of American young'uns to their liking, at least like it used to [wearechange.org.uk] (PDF).

Re:Game changer (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252252)

Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda? The other channels do as well (especially MSNBC which has been caught doing it).

re:

I think the biggest obstacle Murdoch has it that young people don't want to read their news. They'd rather hear it (radio) or see it (TV, streaming videos). Young people also don't want to pay when they can it for free from ad-supported services like cnn.com or google.com

Re:Game changer (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252296)

Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?

I didn't see that anywhere in his message. Why do you assume that he assumes that only FOX News spews propaganda? Or do you think that as long as other people do it too, it doesn't matter (how old are you)? Or do you feel every post about Fox (or Google, Microsoft, Apple, BP, whoever) should end with a line saying "The following other companies, governments or organisations also do bad things..." with a long list?

Re:Game changer (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252384)

>>>I didn't see that anywhere in his message.

Look closer at the links he provided us with:

- A google search he did for "Murdoch's Propaganda Machine")
- An anti-FOX News site called outfoxed

Re:Game changer (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252430)

Look closer at the links he provided us with:

- A google search he did for "Murdoch's Propaganda Machine")
- An anti-FOX News site called outfoxed

They're links relevant to Murdoch, yes. In comments on an article relevant to Murdoch. Funny how that works. So do you feel he shouldn't comment on any perceived shortcomings of Murdoch? I haven't looked yet but do you feel that your own comments give equal coverage to every other person when commenting on any one person/company/etc? It doesn't seem too likely.

Re:Game changer (-1, Redundant)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252400)

>>>Why do you assume that he assumes only FOX News spews propaganda?

Because 99% of the people who are skewering FOX News, when I ask them, "Do you think FOX is the only channel on TV guilty of propaganda?" say yes.

Re:Game changer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252614)

Because 99% of the people who are skewering FOX News, when I ask them...

Wow. How many people have you asked? Would you describe yourself as "obsessive" on this issue?

Re:Game changer (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252460)

Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?

Nobody does. However...

(especially MSNBC which has been caught doing it)

At least MSNBC's "propaganda" is factually accurate, more often than not.

Re:Game changer (2, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252638)

Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?

Although the AC answered, for the record I am well aware that the research demonstrates that Murdoch's channels (much more than Fox, WSJ, Sky etc) are certainly not the only [harvard.edu] active and passive participants [theatlantic.com] in blatant propaganda [cnneffect.net] . Not to mention the echo chamber amplification [wikipedia.org] of such rhetoric.

Re:Game changer (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252272)

P.S.

I was also rather surprised to see Web of Trust (WOT) flag foxnews.com with tons of red marks. I installed this add-on to protect me from spyware and vicious scripts, not to block sites that some people don't like. :-( Meanwhile MSNBC which spews just as much propaganda as FOX had no red marks. :-|

Re:Game changer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252606)

But all the shit that Glenn Back, Bill O'Reilly, and everyone else there spews really is a bunch of vicious scripts, not news.

Re:Game changer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252618)

-1 must troll harder next time

Re:Game changer (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252640)

WOT is worthless. As you have seen, it's just a popularity contest.

People who disagree with something that I site said (true or not), maliciously report the site to try to get it listed as 'untrustworhy'.

Neither Foxnews nor MSNBC put out that much propaganda.

But there are people with a political agenda, who want a news network that fully conforms to their particular bias du jour.

The media is "biased" if it presents any view I disagree with in a non-negative light.

Re:Game changer (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252348)

"Hi, I'm Wally, the Murdoch Digital News Pay-wall Wallaby. According to other news sources - ones that you shouldn't waste your time reading - I'm an endangered species. So please give Master Rupert some of your money because I don't want to be Wally the extinct wallaby."

Re:Game changer (-1, Troll)

valnar (914809) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252690)

I have yet to find a single liberal that can point out in detail why their point of view is better than a Conservative pov. In almost every scenario, their lack of understanding of Economics 101 is completely transparent. But they do love to complain.

Re:Game changer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252806)

...more like, bring Murdoch's propaganda machinary into the 21st century...

Geez... (1, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252062)

I didn't know Murdoch could spell digital!

Re:Geez... (3, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252126)

He actually bought the word "digital"! It seems you've used it without permission...lawyers with lasers on their heads are on their way, please do not resist.

Re:Geez... (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252212)

Actually they're Partnership Collective Attorney Drones

There's a bounty for each one killed.

Re:Geez... (1)

dwillden (521345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252534)

Fun! A target rich environment.

Ommmmminous Hummmmmmm [schlockmercenary.com]

Re:Geez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252200)

He might know how to spell it but that's as far as his knowledge goes about the word.

"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (5, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252066)

"We'll have young people reading newspapers."

Not till you tear down that Pay wall, Mr. Murdoch.

Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (1)

PrecambrianRabbit (1834412) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252236)

And furthermore, what makes this different from reading the New York Times or Wall Street Journal on an iPad? I don't think "young people" are that easily duped. If you want news, you go read news, and if you don't, you don't.

Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252300)

If this "digital newspaper" is going to be a static/fixed issue each day then it will fail for the same reason the NYT/WSJ are dying.
The news is already old by the time you read it. If this is changing/up-to-date news then he just invented the webpage.

He has just decided on a name for it.. "Buggy Whip Blog". It shows where its headed and has blog in the title to appeal to
the youngsters.

Either way I think he should put all his money and resources into this new venture.

Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (4, Insightful)

LambdaWolf (1561517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252240)

My thoughts exactly. Murdoch seems to be hell-bent on capturing some revenue per reader on a subscription model, regardless of how poorly this is doomed to work on the Internet. No matter how good the content is or even how low the price is, no paywall-based news site will be more attractive than the convenient "point browser at URL, get page" model of Murdoch's many competitors.

Really, it's the same mindset as the RIAA/MPAA companies who are ignominiously featured on Slashdot so often. They have a pre-Internet business model that allows them to get paid per copy of their product, and rather than accept that it won't survive a new technological environment where anything can be copied and transmitted around the world for free, they keep trying to hammer their outdated but profitable square peg into its new round hole with awkward technical and legislative "solutions." The good news about Murdoch's new project is that, unlike DRM and the DMCA, paywalled newspapers are easy to just ignore.

Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252370)

>>>subscription model, regardless of how poorly this is doomed to work on the Internet.

Just as Record Companies were forced to break-up CDs into individual singles for sale online, maybe Newspapers will be forced to do the same thing. You don't buy the whole paper - you just buy individual articles. Maybe they'll let you read the first paragraph to entice you, but if you want the whole thing then you need to cough-up a dime.

I think the biggest obstacle Murdoch and magazines/newspapers has reaching young people: They don't want to read their news. They'd rather hear it (radio) or see it (TV, streaming videos). Young people also don't want to pay when they can it for free from ad-supported services like cnn.com or google.com

I honestly can't remember the last time I read a newspaper.
Maybe back in college, before the web existed on home computers.

Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (2, Interesting)

PrecambrianRabbit (1834412) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252422)

They don't want to read their news. They'd rather hear it (radio) or see it (TV, streaming videos).

I'd be really curious to see statistics on this. I'm probably on the upper end of the youth demographic, and the only way I get news is by reading it. I think TV news is mostly a waste of time, radio is too inefficient compared to quickly scanning an article, and streaming video is the worst of the two -- most of the "stories" delivered by video are just fluffy human interest pieces, or clips that have some spectacle to them. (Of course, this is all my personal experience, and I don't believe I'm necessarily typical. Hence, I'd like statistics.)

Naturally, I don't read printed newspapers, I read their websites. At least, the ones not behind a paywall.

Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252660)

My thoughts exactly. Murdoch seems to be hell-bent on capturing some revenue per reader on a subscription model

He does seem rather obsessed with that... and it doesn't make any sense. Subscriptions were NEVER the main revenue stream for any newspaper or any periodical (other than things like the Harvard Business Review, and other periodicals that cost a fortune to subscribe to). Murdoch's fortune came from advertising... and he acts like he's never heard of it. Sure, there might be some revenue in subscriptions, but it is dwarfed by ad revenue. Murdoch is just a greedy, money obsessed a-hole.

Keeps The Pay Walls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252330)

I prefer he keeps his pay walls! Also, I'd rather have people not give him good advice. I'd rather he do what he wants and eff himself!

Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252676)

"We'll have young people reading newspapers."

Not till you tear down that Pay wall, Mr. Murdoch.

Oh, wait. Murdoch's serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Good luck... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252074)

I hope this venture is just as successful as Rupert Murdoch's purchase of MySpace, the internet's abandoned amusement park.

Re:Good luck... (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252170)

Can someone persuade Murdoch to buy FaceBook? I can't think of a better way of killing it...

If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (4, Insightful)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252076)

Check out the youthful demographics Fox News attracts...

And he's sure to only increase the popularity of his empire with our generation as he attempts to sue Skype for having the same three letters in it as his other news organization that nobody under 25 has heard of.

Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252288)

Fox News is suitable for retards in the US that wish to reinforce their GOP leanings. Demographic 80 years and up? Sky is the UK's major satellite TV service, and has been since the 80s, although their channels are now on the cable services. They are still the premier TV outfit that is the only one that can afford the top sports and PPV. Sky1 shows the same shit as Fox, sans news.

Demographics and the Aging of the West (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252374)

America, and most places that have money, are running out of young people.

Demographics means more people, and more people with money, will be older. Given the birth-rate collapse in the West, Europe, Japan, Coastal China, and America. In the US, the only folks having kids in large numbers are illegal aliens (8% of all US births). Those people are poor, Spanish speaking, and not good potential customers of news/ads. Mexicans astonishingly remain Mexicans even when the cross the border, they don't magically become wealthy White folks interested in news.

Japan and Italy's TFR is 1.1, replacement rate is basically 2.1. Coastal China is not much better. Having lots of kids requires basically, women/girls getting pregnant in their mid teens, and continuing until fertility radically declines in the late 30's. This model allows lots of kids, but trades off wealth/education, etc. and perpetuates poverty.

Murdoch is not interested in, nor should he, in the masses of illegal alien kids (who *WILL* get deported eventually in a "lifeboat" welfare-state as Western economies collapse and naked spoils fights over spending/welfare break out) nor the tiny amount of designer eugenic yuppie babies currently growing up. He's after the ever smaller amount of folks with jobs and money -- basically mid thirties and up, the folks who have given up on print outside the Journal because of lack of local and national news.

Re:Demographics and the Aging of the West (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252450)

America, and most places that have money, are running out of young people.

what?

WHAT??

how does one 'run out' of young people? in the history of the world, its not happened yet.

(...this should be entertaining.)

Re:Demographics and the Aging of the West (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252504)

In Europe, eastern Canda and Japan, they are not having enough children even to replace themselves. The result is an aging and increasingly unproductive population - and if you look at the bizarre socialist attitudes prevalent in those places, they are going to be quite screwed as they find that the few people still capable of providing their "free" health care do not have the numbers - or willingness - to do so.

Check out Russia in particular - their population is in a shocking freefall. (It's a 30-40% drop in the next forty years, IIRC.)

Western Canada and most of the US are okay, though. Barely.

Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (3, Interesting)

DrScotsman (857078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252380)

And he's sure to only increase the popularity of his empire with our generation as he attempts to sue Skype for having the same three letters in it as his other news organization that nobody under 25 has heard of.

Not that I don't think the lawsuit is stupid, but wow, what a pointless diss. Rupert Murdoch owns a company in the UK that some North Americans haven't heard of - so what? We've certainly all heard of it over here.

By the way, BSkyB isn't a "news organization", although they do have a news channel or two.

Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252382)

Check out the youthful demographics Fox News attracts...

fox tv, yes. fox news? really?

I tune in for the simpsons (sometimes). can't think of anything else on fox (other than some other similar animated adult comedies) that I'd care to watch there.

young REPUBLICANS, sure, they'll tune to fox news. but beyond that, you are suggesting 'kids today' are turning to fox NEWS? really?

Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (1)

PrecambrianRabbit (1834412) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252494)

To quote the Simpsons' comic book guy: "A sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention." *device explodes* :-D

Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (1)

gregstumph (442817) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252516)

whoooooosh...

Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (2, Informative)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252726)

You read it here first folks. Rupert Murdoch: World Class Pedophile.

Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252764)

Actually a lot young kids come to fox news, just to troll the forums, lol.

Great (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252094)

now the teabaggers can get their hate news and misinformation in print format when they are out and about

Does Fox News, BTW, ever cover the fact that Murdoch is married to a former member of the Chinese Communist Party?

Re:Great (2, Informative)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252124)

Does Fox News, BTW, ever cover the fact that Murdoch is married to a former member of the Chinese Communist Party?

Probably not. When you grow up you'll discover two things: First, it's not a good idea to crumb on the boss's wife. Second, you don't have to agree with someone's political stances in order to love/marry them. It's even easier when you attach "former" to those political stances.

Re:Great (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252436)

First, it's not a good idea to crumb on the boss's wife.

Nice use of the letters 'r' and 'b'.

Re:Great (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252174)

now the teabaggers can get their hate news and misinformation in print format when they are out and about

Does Fox News, BTW, ever cover the fact that Murdoch is married to a former member of the Chinese Communist Party?

What's wrong with the communist party?

Capitalism isnt doing so great these days, just because your dad taught you to have a knee-jerk reaction to "communist" doesn't mean it has failed, like capitalism has.

Re:Great (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252434)

Capitalism isnt doing so great these days, just because your dad taught you to have a knee-jerk reaction to "communist" doesn't mean it has failed, like capitalism has.

Communism is in the back of a gas station $1 bin with the Logins & Messina cassettes and the Rubic's Cubes that are missing some of their colored stickers ... and I'm pretty sure Logins and/or Messina isn't too happy about sharing the space with it.

Re:Great (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252818)

Marxism-Leninism and its offshot Maoism may be dead as a political force, but Communism is still very visible as a critique of contemporary culture. Slavoj Zizek, for example, seems to be everywhere I turn these days in aesthetics, economics and social phenomena, and I'm amazed at how many young people in Europe are not only reading his books, but downright enjoying them (rare among contemporary philosophers).

Re:Great (1)

Ifni (545998) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252214)

And by "former member of the Chinese Communist Party" you mean that she was born in China, and has since become an American citizen, and is only a communist by right of birth, and not by any conscious political affiliation. The far right could learn a thing or two about sensationalizing the facts from you. I suppose I should start disclosing that I was once an honored guest of the Chinese Communist Party because I had a layover in Hong Kong once.

Re:Great (3, Informative)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252302)

I think you're missing the point - that's exactly the kind of sensationalizing the far right has been so good at doing in recent years. Has everyone already forgotten the fuss about Obama's schooling in Indonesia?

What's left unsaid (1)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252112)

There's no mention of the subscription cost and, judging by Rupert's past comments & actions, I'm sure there'll be a cost associated with it.
 

Re:What's left unsaid (2, Informative)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252120)

Professional journalism costs money. News at 11.

Re:What's left unsaid (5, Funny)

ScottForbes (528679) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252176)

Granted, professional journalism does cost money, but what does this have to do with Rupert Murdoch?

Re:What's left unsaid (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252312)

professional journalism, in the mainstream, died decades ago.

what we now have is packaged spin, nothing more.

THIS is why people go outside (of the mainstream) to fetch real news and viewpoints. we're pretty tired of the crap that passes for 'news' from the establishment, these days.

indie is the only hope we have left; certainly NOT big-news machines!

the smaller the site, the more likely it is that they're NOT on someone's payroll, spouting out their masters' views for a fee.

Indie is useful. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252484)

Because you get people who KNOW the material that they are covering.

They may be over estimating the importance of what they cover, but they KNOW what they're covering.

Compare that to the "news readers" on the other news shows. Could they even find the countries they're talking about on a map? Or in the USofA, can they find the state they're talking about on a map? There are some good ones but the majority were hired because they're "photogenic" rather than informed.

I'll take informed over photogenic any day.

Re:What's left unsaid (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252704)

Even non-"professional" journalism costs money. If for nothing more than to run the servers....

Re:What's left unsaid (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252698)

Mr. Murdoch hasn't anticipated Google News and other ad-supported news products coming to the iPad.

What makes him think people will want to consume his for-pay content instead of free content, just because the presentation medium has changed slightly?

In the end News Corp's subsidiaries will probably have to go ad-supported, or become a dinousaur.

It IS a game-changer (-1, Offtopic)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252114)

The iPad got me back into reading books. For the past 15 years, I've been reading perhaps 1 book every 2-3 years. In the past 2 months of owning an iPad, I've already read 7 and my interest is only growing. The convinience is killer. I have no interest whatsoever in traditional print media, be it magazines or books and reading either of them off a laptop or LCD monitor of a desktop is inconvinient and plain retarded. My iPad 3G however, now goes along with me basically anywhere. the only inconvinience being unsuitability for use in direct sunlight.

Everyone who thinks this will work... (5, Funny)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252116)

raise your hand. What, no one can hear me? IF YOU THINK THIS WILL WORK, RAISE YOUR HAND! Is this thing on?

Re:Everyone who thinks this will work... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252270)

I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason. He's right more often than he is wrong. And he has the resources to back this venture.

Meanwhile, I doubt he or anybody else should listen to the peanut gallery on what will work and what won't. After all, slashdot's founder thought the most revolutionary consumer device in recent memory, the iPod was lame.

Re:Everyone who thinks this will work... (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252310)

The iPod revolutionary? Just what fruit are you smoking?? And Ruport Murdoch may have billions in dollars, thousands of high-placed friends with more resources than we can imagine, this is still doomed to fail. Who in their right mind would pay for biased "news" when they can get truth for free from alternative media? Can't wait to see this "game-changer" file for bankruptcy.

Re:Everyone who thinks this will work... (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252402)

I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason.

I think, historically, he's made some brilliant moves. More recently however he has displayed a total lack of understanding as to the myriad ways the internet has reshaped the business world.

Re:Everyone who thinks this will work... (3, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252738)

I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason. He's right more often than he is wrong. And he has the resources to back this venture.

No. He was right more often than he was wrong 20+ years ago at the time he made decisions that caused him to became a billionaire

A lot can change in 20 years.

The world we lived in underwent major changes when the internet and online news became popular.

We are in a completely different world today, and Murdoch is very much living in the old world. So he may be right less often about things; doesn't mean Murdoch is dumb, it just means he has an incomplete/lacking understanding of all that has changed.

Less complete understanding of the present makes it a bit harder to understand let-alone predict and be right about the future

His thinking about iPad may be more hope than realistic expectation.

It's true the iPad presents an opportunity for him to sell electronic digital content.

But then again we have similar things available on computers and web sites..

News Corp's best chance at selling any news subscriptions for the iPad will be if it becomes more convenient for people to buy/read his content than other free sources, which is doubtful to be true for long.

Tiered content (3, Interesting)

hessian (467078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252118)

Good idea:

For the people who can read newspapers, there's the full story loaded with factual detail.

For the rest, there's a blog-style two-paragraph campy tongue-in-cheek story that's easy to read.

He can charge money for the real content, then have his editorial staff of college hipsters convert it into a blog for $8/hour.

Smart, this guy -- he's good at spotting markets and catering to them. I doubt he holds any of the opinions featured in his newspapers.

Re:Tiered content (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252298)

Considering overall about 20% of people these days have any trust in the media, I agree. He's probably got the right idea.

Re:Tiered content (2, Interesting)

quax (19371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252416)

I doubt he holds any of the opinions featured in his newspapers.

I don't think you've paid much attention to R. Murdoch before, have you [independent.co.uk] ?

Re:Tiered content (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252774)

Don't assume the reasons based on the outcome. That would be a cognitive bias in the form of a manifestation of the fundamental attribution error [wikipedia.org] on your part...

Just because he has and may exercise editorial controls at times does not mean he personally believes the line he chooses to have a particular news outlet favor does, that is, does not mean he personally has that political opinion. It can be a business decision on his part to back a particular party, in a newspaper, also.

That is: the decision can be made for other reasons, such as profit. In certain areas, or for certain news outlets it may be more profitable for a newspaper to back a certain party, than an other, or than not to back one.

For example, if his research shows that more of his potential readers have a certain party affiliation, then backing that party may cause more people to read the paper. In some areas, readers might boycott any paper that doesn't take a very strong stance against party Y and favor party X. ETC.

Oh Rupert, are you still alive? (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252132)

Still not going to pay for it. Nice try old man.

the gamechanger (3, Funny)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252144)

Murdoch said of the iPad: 'It's a real game-changer in the presentation of news,'

Hmm, sure, yes, the thing has something like a screen. Actually it is a screen. That would allow us to add those new thingies the PR guys talked about all the time. I think they call it "animations". And we could change those news during the day, not like this old printed stuff, with only one print a day. Sure, people would have to pay for it a little bit more, since they get more news. But those kids a surely used to pay for services they get from the internet...

Unlimited Content (2, Insightful)

pez (54) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252150)

Murdoch is in a tough spot. The internet has given us access to nearly every piece of content that has ever been created, or is currently being created, in near real-time. In addition, automated editing tools are improving by leaps and bounds every year, with recent apps like Flipboard (and others), obviating the need for professional human editors.

So it's difficult to see how this slight re-working of an old model is going to work in a world where the game has changed in such fundamental ways.

Re:Unlimited Content (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252336)

So it's difficult to see how this slight re-working of an old model is going to work in a world where the game has changed in such fundamental ways.

With the appropriate amount of legislation to back it up, it could.

"paid-for" (3, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252152)

The paywall pretty much guarantees failure. Young people generally have a long list of things above "news" on which they choose to spend their small amount of disposable income. I applaud his astounding failure in advance.

They can call it FAUX NEWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252182)

Instant name recognition.

Re:They can call it FAUX NEWS (0, Troll)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252318)

Fox's audience probably wouldn't even notice the name change anyway... "Quick, O'Reilly's on!"

the corporate-approved news machine (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252196)

we know what kind of 'news' we can expect from the US 'news' channels.

at one point, MANY years ago, CNN used to be a news channel. they have had significant bias for well over a decade, now. fox, the opposite bias.

we cannot get unbiased news from any single source. but the News Machine(tm) is just that, single sourced.

kids today pretty much know this. everyone now gets their news from various sources; the more varied, the better.

game's up, big news ceo. your kind is gonna vanish, perhaps even during your own lifetime. deal with it, gracefully, if you can.

Everyone has bias, so what? (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252340)

That's kind of like claiming that a desert and an ocean both have some amount of water in them.

While technically accurate, it does nothing to advance the discussion.

Some sites (such as Fox) are 100% bias. But if you are watching Fox for "news" then you are probably not interested in sites that provide only 50% bias.

CNN will provide a low level of bias ... when they get around to covering the NEWS instead of the "freak of the week". Seriously, was the airplane steward guy the MOST IMPORTANT THING HAPPENING? It was if you go by total coverage time.

Instead of complaining about bias (and doing so in a non-productive fashion) how about complaining about having to go digging for NEWS? And offering suggestions as to how to find NEWS stories instead of "biased opinion" or "freak of the week"?

Re:Everyone has bias, so what? (2, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252354)

I get my news from 2 places:

- jon stewart, daily show (seriously)
- fark.com (half serious)

the commentary 'by the people' is far more educational and revealing than any paid mouthpeace in a cute dress.

go where there is a lot of left AND right discussion and you'll see a spectrum of the total truth (if there is such a thing).

the news is in the people; not the anchorperson, anymore.

find the discussion boards that relate to current events and start there.

That's the opposite of my experience. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252522)

The Daily Show is great. But they only have time to cover a few items (and those are chosen for humour value anyway).

And when Left and Right "discuss" things online, all I see are opposing, uninformed biases. Not much in the way of information or insight.

I look for newspapers in Germany, the Mid-East and other places. Once you step away from US political biases you get better news.

Inside the USofA, look for any indie sites that focus on a specific issue.

Re:Everyone has bias, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252604)

Your own bias is showing.

What planet did you say you were from?

The reason young people don't care about the news is because they don't understand it. Hell, most of them are against a war in a country they can't even point to on a map, let alone tell you anything about the history of that country. They would rather get their news from comedy personalities who know how to read jokes but little else.

If ignorance is bliss, you're probably in nirvana.

Re:the corporate-approved news machine (0, Flamebait)

L0rdJedi (65690) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252586)

we know what kind of 'news' we can expect from the US 'news' channels.

at one point, MANY years ago, CNN used to be a news channel. they have had significant bias for well over a decade, now. fox, the opposite bias.

we cannot get unbiased news from any single source. but the News Machine(tm) is just that, single sourced.

kids today pretty much know this. everyone now gets their news from various sources; the more varied, the better.

game's up, big news ceo. your kind is gonna vanish, perhaps even during your own lifetime. deal with it, gracefully, if you can.

If you cannot get unbiased news from any single source and everyone gets their news from multiple sources, how is losing an extra source of news a good thing? Or are you one of the those people that simply bash Fox News and never watches it? You do know that there are plenty of left leaning people at Fox News just as there are right leaning ones. Just because the three biggest names from Fox are O'Reilly (who I would argue is actually a lefty, whether he wants to admit it or not), Hannity, and Beck, doesn't mean they don't have left leaning people (like Shephard Smith and Chris Wallace).

Also, since O'Reilly is the only one of the big three that calls himself a "Journalist" (the other two consistently call themselves commentators, just like The Daily Show isn't a news show either), I think it's pretty unfair to label Fox News as not a news channel. The only difference between Fox News and the ones on the left (CNN, MSNBC, etc) is that Fox doesn't toe the Presidential line. Thankfully, the others are starting to question this President's policies as well.

where's the "goodluckwiththat".... (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252216)

where's the "goodluckwiththat" and the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tags?

If Murdock does what he did in the UK....it's gonna flop badly....still....I'd rather not see people pay for moronic [sarcasm]"fair and balance"[/sarcasm] news....shoot...I think I need to put quotes around the word "news"...and add an asterisk...the lil' cross thingie...perhaps superscripts of the first 500 prime numbers....etc. for the fine-print (no pun).

This is so wrong (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252226)

In Soviet America Sugar Daddy take money off you!

Pay for such bias? (1)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252264)

He expects people to pay for his mind numbing biassed reporting? Nope. Don't think so.

Who wants to pay for "Short and snappy"? (2, Interesting)

gregrah (1605707) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252278)

From TFA:

According to the LA Times, it will publish customised content that will be tailored both to the digital medium and the tastes of the target readership. Stories will be short and snappy, the Times's source said.

As a young person (does 26 still count as young?), I find the whole premise insulting to my intelligence. The internet is full of short, snappy, and FREE content. Why would I want to pay for more crap? For me to consider paying for an online publication, it would have to be informative, and probably confined to a niche in which I have a strong personal or professional interest.

I predict failure of epic proportions.

Re:Who wants to pay for "Short and snappy"? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252408)

I would pay for TRULY impartial and actually investigative journalism that didn't ask the pentagon and white house, first, for permission to print this or that. or cow-tow to this or that politician.

murdoch is 100% the complete opposite of trustable independant news! he'll only do what he's told by HIS masters and never cross that line.

he knows who his daddy is, even though he's mega rich. everyone has masters in this world.

I'd pay for when you take RISKS and expose CORRUPTION. you, sir (murdoch) ARE corruption, incarnate.

fuck you and your fake news.

Re:Who wants to pay for "Short and snappy"? (2, Interesting)

gregrah (1605707) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252576)

TheGratefulNet:

While I find Fox News just as reprehensible as you or any other rational human being - I really can't agree with the tone of your postings all over this thread. I find it very reminiscent of the sort of "right wing" comments I see over the internet. You know, the "Obama is a SOCIALIST", and the "LIBERAL FASCISTS want to take away our freedom" type comments. In short - by omitting the "why" part of the argument and jumping straight into attacks (with various negative keywords emphasized in capital letters), you are creating noise.

Noise - no matter which side it comes from - makes it harder for people to think rationally. And when people can't think rationally, it makes it impossible for democracy to function as originally intended.

Re:Who wants to pay for "Short and snappy"? (1)

gregrah (1605707) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252612)

P.S. Wouldn't it be crazy if "TheGratefulNet" and other similar internet personalities were actually 'bots created by Chinese hackers in order to disrupt democracy and destabilize the Unites States?

Perhaps we should administer a Turing test just to be sure??

Problem: young people don't read newspapers (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252282)

Young people don't read newspapers. Not in the way Murdoch's thinking, at least. They don't start on page 1 and read through to the end. And they don't compile a list of subjects and read consistently on those subjects for months at a time. They get a sudden interest in a particular subject, search for stories about that specific subject right now, skim them and maybe read a few of the most interesting ones, then go on to other things until another subject piques their interest. This is why Google's so popular: it makes it easy to do exactly that. If Murdoch doesn't accept that, he's simply going to be passed over yet again.

They also use the info differently (1)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252468)

Not only that, I would imagine the way this information is used is completely different: it is so easy to save a webpage, to copy and paste text or images, to keep a folder of interesting text snippets in apps like Evernote, annotated by you, to share stuff by email. Somehow I don't think any information behind a paywall will allow that kind of multifaceted usage - it's very telling that he is focusing on the most locked-down platform there are. Who wants to bet that this will be another attempt at nickel-and-diming the customers (basic membership allows viewing articles, advanced allows for printing of up to two articles, professional enables copy&paste with mandatory attribution etc.)?

Re:Problem: young people don't read newspapers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252694)

They will happily follow news stories for months at a time--as long as it's about celebrities.

Stories will be short and snappy (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252342)

oh boy! just what we need. a watering down of already approved pre-watered down news.

saying it in less words always conveys the complexity of the issue. uhuh.

then again, maybe he's right. maybe no one wants to read anything 'heady' anymore. fox IS still in business, you know.

Newspaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252346)

Kids are too smart to read newspapers.

Stick a fork in it. (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252418)

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." -- Mark Twain

'We'll have young people reading newspapers.' (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252486)

Not unless you hire editors who can make them politically correct. Hint: repackaging Fox News won't work.

What is a digital newspaper? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33252538)

And how is it different from a web site? Doesn't News Corporation already have several "newsy" web sites? Why is their plan to launch another one at all innovative or newsworthy?

When newspaper give news instead of propaganda (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252592)

I might be interested in them again.

All news is hideously biased now. Left or right.. all pro-corporation.

A lot of the pieces are filmed or written by the corporations and then handed to the news organizations (just like they write laws and hand them to congress).

I'm just going to coast out my last 25 years on the planet unless things change.

Tough competition (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252742)

I'm not sure that's a good business move; he'd be competing directly with the well-established Onion.

- RG>

too late (1)

Gerard Ketuma (1876478) | more than 3 years ago | (#33252802)

it might be too late for Rupert Murdoch and his media pals. I find it hard to believe that with all the talent that these multimedia companies have, they did not see how the internet was going to change their business model. Or did they just ignore the facts.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...