Beta
×

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!

Why the Web Mustn't Become the New TV

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the wouldn't-fit-in-my-living-room dept.

The Internet 240

An anonymous reader writes "This article argues that Rupert Murdoch's bid to own complete control of BSkyB is only part of an ongoing process to make the internet a totally 'linear' experience. The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews are, the author argues, part of a tidal shift from a browsable internet experience to a linear one that will move the user's experience of media from genuine choice to a series of locked-down 'information rides,' in order to re-secure advertising exposure. The author also writes, 'Current worries among publishing houses that magazines and newspapers will succumb to the digital written word on the internet are perhaps analogous to Victorian fears about mechanical horses taking over from real horses in the drawing of carriages. The point is being missed, the wrong fear being indulged.'"

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lol (1)

scarface71795 (1920250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920142)

U MAD? I don't see how this will ever happen

Re:lol (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920346)

bingo. this will never happen, nobody wants TV to be equal to internet, and the demand is nonexistent. It's not too different than 3d tv, which has also been underwhelming. [thewrap.com]

Re:lol (5, Insightful)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920532)

No, you're missing the point. They don't want TV to be equal to the internet; they want the internet to be the equivalent of TV . Demand - at least, what the existing inhabitants demand - also has very little to do with it; they're experts at steering the wants and demands of the incoming population by supply-side manipulation. They've also got the temperament to wait until the tide turns their way, the experience to know that it almost inevitably will, and the deep pockets to stumble around making expensive mistakes until it does.

What, you think /. or other similar crowsourced-ish news/blog sites are the future? No, if you want a glimpse at the future, it's more Fox and Gawker Media than anything else.

Re:lol (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920774)

there is no difference in expression between tv being == internet or vice versa, if the two are attempting to be brought together.

It still won't happen.People screamed how webtv was awesome, and yet it sucked, and we all know it. It was all advertiser/supplier hype.

This is no different. Netflix on your TV? Facebook on your TV?

Re:lol (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921110)

this isn't a case of equality testing, it is a case of assignment. The Internet's current value gets clobbered to take on the value of TV. At least it'll be "on demand" :-/. Web 3.0 is going to suck even harder than web 2.0, but I say that as the sterotypical guy who doesn't have a TV. Well, my roommate and I have one, but refuse to pay for cable and don't watch broadcast, so its just there for watching DVDs.

Good thing (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920146)

Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.

Re:Good thing (2, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920196)

I just imagined a "FOX Internet". Imagine this - a web portal and search engine that will give you just Fox' narrative. Watch Beck and he mentions something and he says, "Don't believe me! Read for yourself!" So you search on FOX.net and come across foxwiki and it says Global Warming is a LIBERAL myth created as an excuse for wealth transfer and for more taxation for LIBERAL causes.

I think there's a lot of money to be made here.

Re:Good thing (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920320)

I just imagined an "MS-NBC Internet". Imagine this - a web portal and search engine that will give you just Microsoft and GE/NBC/Comcast narrative. Watch Maddow and she mentions something and she says, "Don't believe me! Read for yourself!" So you search on BING.net and come across MSwiki and it says The Constitution is a CONSERVATIVE myth created as an excuse for wealth transfer and for more corporate monopolies.

Re:Good thing (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920626)

There's already an Internet that has a liberal bias. It's called "The Internet".

Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change. Remember Buckley's famous line about conservatism standing at the portal of history, yelling "Stop!".

Well, that pretty much means that the Internet, by definition, is a liberal institution. A politically liberal institution, just by its very existence. Sure, there's lots of conservative stuff on the Internet, but the medium itself is liberal. Ever notice that whenever you see a political website change it's always from conservative to liberal and never the other way around (Little Green Footballs comes to mind)? And if you find a political blog that does not allow comments (moderated or not) it's always a conservative site? It's because the Internet by itself, just by its egalitarian nature, tugs to the Left. Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right. Ted Turner gave an interview not long ago where he talks about a lot of discussion went on at CNN at the end of his tenure to make it more Right-Wing. And in fact, in the past year it has indeed moved to the Right. If you look at the Sunday morning network news shows over the past 30 years, the guests have trended conservative by a 5-3 ratio. Because that's the nature of a one-way medium.

This is why some of the biggest corporations are working so hard to transform the Internet into a "linear" experience, where information is helpfully provided through the corporate filter and non-complying voices are marginalized or negated.

The clock is ticking, too. Without Net Neutrality laws very soon, the Internet is going to become a dystopic mutation of what we thought it might become a decade or two ago. It will become the Bizarro-world, opposite of an open forum where anyone can reach a wide audience without having to pass through the gates of money and power. It will do for the free exchange of ideas and information what Fox News has done for news.

In other words, it will become television, except you'll have to pay for it and watch commercials.

Today, I read about how the networks are trying to force the manufacturers of DVRs to disable the fast forward button during commercials (again). Think about this approach applied to your Internet.

In ten years, there's a good chance that when two or more of us meet, the main topic of conversation will be how great the Internet used to be. When it comes, the change will have happened so fast we will barely believe it. And remember, the Internet as we know it today was the happy accident of a technology becoming available before the richest and most powerful could "prepare it" for our consumption. Once it's gone, it will be gone forever.

"Free" markets, my ass.

Re:Good thing (0, Troll)

Thing I am (761900) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920772)

You use your mouth purdier than a $20.00 whore.

Muroch's Expansion Plans (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921214)

After the BSkyB purchase, Murdoch plans to go on an acquisitions binge buying up The New York Times, Barrons, Comcast, Cox Communications, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC. After that he plans to focus on controlling at least 85% of internet bandwidth in all US markets, at which point he plans to push for 2 tiered service, a slow internet and a fast internet that will be reserved strictly for paying customers with $350/month minimums, with extra fees to be added for each mouse click. Republicans are already falling all over themselves to ease media-ownership restrictions in exchange for additional free political advertising.

You have to admit this guy knows how to make money.

Re:Good thing (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920874)

>>>Conservatism has been often described as a political philosophy that denies or tries to prevent change.

Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me

Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" seem intent to roll us back to Serfdom. It's as if they want to restore a 1500s-style political system in modern society, where the common man is treated like wards of the government. Rolling our individual liberty back 400 years, like serfs, is true conservativism.
.

>>>Yet television, by its nature, tugs to the Right.

Maybe in the UK but not in the US. The networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and MSNBC all lean left and it's been that way since the 1950s. The only right-leaning channel is FOX News and that's a recent development (it didn't pass 50% coverage until 2002).
.

>>>Without Net Neutrality laws very soon.....

Or we could just break-up the Cable monopolies. If I were free to choose Comcast or Cox or Time or Cablevision or GoogleTV or Verizon or ATTT or..... it wouldn't matter if they chose to block websites. I could just change companies the same way I change grocery stores. Companies would quickly realize that censoring the net is a sure way to lose customers, and stop doing it.

Re:Good thing (1, Offtopic)

jesset77 (759149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921070)

Which is why I've never liked the word "conservative". I'm registered Republican and yet want to repeal the Patriot Act, shrink government to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, and legalize marijuana, cocaine, et cetera. I can hardly be called conservative, despite people's attempts to attach it to me

TBH these qualities you list sound more Libertarian than Republican or conservative. Are you sure the Republican Party is best representing your interests? It's hard to find authoritative definitions on this subject, but my reading is that the American Republican Party is a Conservative party who's goals are to retard cultural and scientific progress, make war and consolidate power amongst large business and the church.

I mean, I know that sounds harsh and all, but I honestly can't determine what other goals they have from their track record.

I am a Libertarian, and my belief is that the greatest common good can be found by maximizing personal liberty. This implies repealing the Patriot Act, shrinking governmental responsibility to the level mandated by the constitution (the people's contract with the federal government), repealing the prohibition of recreational drugs, erasing the sexist boundaries around the definition of marriage, etc etc.

Re:Good thing (0, Offtopic)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921082)

I could just change companies the same way I change grocery stores.

Choose whatever grocery store you want. Almost all the products in every store are made by a handful of companies.

You only think you have choices. And if you could choose between 5 different ISPs it wouldn't be long before it became 4 ISPs. As long as you have unlimited money in politics, you're going to have unlimited corporate power in the Justice Department, Congress and the Courts.

Let's talk again when you're ready for publicly-funded elections, with instant runoff and no electronic voting. If you're not ready for those things, it doesn't matter if you call yourself liberal, conservative, libertarian or Tea Party. You're not ready to stop being a serf.

Re:Good thing (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921106)

If cable monopolies were broken up the government would have to then take ownership of the lines. The whole reason we have these crazy de facto monopolies is due to ownership of lines. There are a lot of companies out there but none of them play on each others' turf. There needs to be access to more than one cable provider in the same area or more than one fios or dsl or whatever format.

Re:Good thing (1)

FourthAge (1377519) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921136)

TV in the UK pulls left, just like in the US, and probably even more so. Consider the BBC. The other channels are quite similar, editorially.

The UK does have some Fox-like media, some of it even owned by Murdoch, but like Fox it has basically zero political influence. It is merely another way for the establishment to keep the serfs in line by pretending that someone is speaking for them.

PopeRatzo recognises that the establishment does this, but he still believes that better democracy is the answer (ha), that everything is too rightwing (lol), and that the Internet will help. Well, we can certainly hope. But until people like Ratzo stop using the established media's definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" on the Internet, it seems unlikely that they can even understand what the problem actually is.

Re:Good thing (1)

WitnessForTheOffense (1669778) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921146)

I'm not sure why you're a registered Republican based on the issues you mention. While both Democrats and Republicans seem typically interested in maintaining political power and supporting the interests of their corporate sponsors, the Republicans tend to have the worst record on the issues you're opposed to. They support the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and big government when it suits them.

The alternative to being treated like wards of the government is being treated like slaves of the corporations. If you're opposed to either, then we need to play them off each other instead of letting them play us off of either of them.

If you vote Republican, you're voting against your own interests. Many Republicans already do that (for instance the Tea Party patriots who vote Republican and think that Glenn Beck is some kind of grass roots patriot and not a millionaire blowhard more akin to a televangelist).

I don't like the Democrats either, but they tend to be the lesser of two evils.

Re:Good thing (2, Insightful)

careysub (976506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921218)

...

Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" seem intent to roll us back to Serfdom. It's as if they want to restore a 1500s-style political system in modern society, where the common man is treated like wards of the government. ...

Clearly you have no idea what governments and social conditions were like in the 1500s. "Wards of the government"?! Perhaps you have your education from Glenn Beck University?

Re:Good thing (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921002)

The clock is ticking, too. Without Net Neutrality laws very soon, the Internet is going to become a dystopic mutation of what we thought it might become a decade or two ago. It will become the Bizarro-world, opposite of an open forum where anyone can reach a wide audience without having to pass through the gates of money and power. It will do for the free exchange of ideas and information what Fox News has done for news.

I like being an optimist about this one. Everyone who makes internet work is completely hooked on it, especially on the freedom of expression bit. It looks like most people who actually develop and maintain internet are some of our biggest allies. Anyway, it's too late. Majority of people here in the US already know what wealth of information and interaction they can buy from a good ISP, and they know how much it costs. The consumer base is moving on, and there is absolutely nothing TV can do to reverse this process.

Re:Good thing (1)

KingFrog (1888802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920384)

Just wanted to thank everyone for feeding the troll. His post succeeded in taking nearly all the discussion off the actual point - however silly the original point was.

Re:Good thing (0, Flamebait)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920620)

What's really scary is the possibility that we are getting this very same thing from google-bing. Well not to the level of eliminating global warming or eliminating open source; but some bit of censorship of making it more difficult to find some things or eliminate. In addition to the known government censorship and malware/cp censorship.

Re:Good thing (1, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920336)

Doesn't matter. He can choose to make HIS websites as linear as he chooses. Of course, fewer and fewer people will visit them, but hey, he can do that if he chooses. A few media companies are making the same mistake that Detroit did a few decades ago: Telling the customer what they want, thinking they didn't have a choice but to be be spoon fed the dog food that Detroit was dishing out. Toyota, Nissan (Datsun) and Honda pretty much built an American empire on a foundation of Detroit's arrogance. That's one of the beauties of an open, capitalistic market: It is self-correcting with time.

Re:Good thing (3, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920420)

And nearly everyone stopped visiting his (London) Times Newspaper website after he started charging for it. Readership down from 10,000,000 to 10,000.

Re:Good thing (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920644)

Assuming for simplicity that those 10,000 are all web-only readers (though print subscribers also have free online access), that's 10,000 x £2/week = £20,000, or just over £1 million a year.

Even if only half of those are web-only readers, half a million pounds/year is probably more than they were making on web ads when it was free.

They also have less load on their servers and less bandwidth costs by serving 1000x fewer viewers.

The upside is that there's fewer people reading Murdoch-sponsored news.

Japan's Golfcart & Exotic philosophy != car ch (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920636)

You would be right, except for the fact that it's not self-correcting or a market. There's more choice for news than there is for car designs(thanks to the bland "global platform" cars). I can get CNN, MSNBC, and flip to Murdoch's "news" channel on occasion; then I can go read/view/create actual news elsewhere.

Detroit's Big Three do make fine large cars, available to all people. They don't make it a point to hand you a blinged-out golfcart with a turbo for anything under $20k.
When the rest of the world can start making less of the bland "global cars" and make some affordable-to-all RWD behemoths, then you would have a point. In the USA, we don't reserve large & powerful cars for royalty, yet. We let everyone have the fun.

The only thing Asia, Europe, and Central/South America have done for me is let me have a wider selection of Detroit metal, courtesy of irrational General Motors hate. For that, I thank Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu, Hyundai, Ssangyong, Renault, Citroen, Fiat, and the other manufacturers that think that only royalty get true choice.

Re:Japan's Golfcart & Exotic philosophy != car (2, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920974)

If you would have read the entire comment, I clearly stated "a few decades ago". As in the 1970s. Back when Detroit had a strong majority market share in the USA. And thanks to their arrogance then, they lost that lead to Japanese makers who have continued to carve up their once mighty empire. I wasn't talking about what YOU like, I was talking about the majority of people, which is obvious if you look at actual sales numbers. And by the way, most of the popular Toyota models sold in the US are actually made here in the US. Just not by the big 3 in Detroit.

Re:Good thing (-1, Flamebait)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920402)

the sooner that senile old fart kicks the bucket the better, same with Soros too, they are both two sides of the same political coin, one is a rightwing nutcase, and the other is a liberal commie elite.

Re:Good thing (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920482)

Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.

The New York Daily News [1919] didn't die with the death of Joseph Medill Patterson. The Daily Mail [1896] wasn't buried with Alfred Harmsworth, Viscount Northcliffe, in 1922.

It would appear that "The Great Man" theory of history is revived whenever it is convenient.

Re:Good thing (2, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921172)

The New York Daily News [1919] didn't die with the death of Joseph Medill Patterson. The Daily Mail [1896] wasn't buried with Alfred Harmsworth, Viscount Northcliffe, in 1922.

It would appear that "The Great Man" theory of history is revived whenever it is convenient.

I have never heard of any of them...

Re:Good thing (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920544)

...and like Harper, his ideological attacks won't either.

If he's sold his immortal soul for physical immortality, you might be wrong.

Re:Good thing (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920628)

What if they scan his brain and 70 years from now this data will be uploaded into an artificial brain. And at that point Murdoch II will uncover an old hidden will that will transfer the corporation back to him, and then he will resume normal operations for the rest of human existence.

F__k Ruppert Murdoch (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921162)

He F__ks everyone else.

Re:Good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33921178)

Rupert Murdoch is 79. He can't live forever.

But Nick Denton isn't, and he's made Fark suck worse than it did when it posted SuperDeluxe paid-sponsor links.

Gawker Networks doesn't have any good content, it merely links to good content, and then charges other sites, like Fark, good money to force us to click through a Gawker site in order to get at the actual content.

There is a new book coming out (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921236)

about Murdoch and his empire. Neil Chenowth of the Australian Financial Review is reported to be coming out with a book next spring.

Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (3, Insightful)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920168)

Move along, nothing to see. Seriously, don't like what Murdoch is doing? Click elsewhere. This isn't rocket science.

Hell you can even make a competitor to BSkyB if you like. The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (3, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920206)

That would work if this was just being done by some out-in-the-sticks local newspaper.

Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things. Simply ignoring him is not going to change that one bit.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (2, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920246)

Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things.

Yes, because his attempts to use his wealth, influence and political power to get everyone else in the News business to erect a pay wall in front of their websites is working out really well. So well, in fact, that he's even stopped going on about it himself lately after his own trial ended in a dramatic fall in readership.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (2, Insightful)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921184)

Well, it seems the rest haven't heard how badly it failed - my hometown newspaper had an ad-supported online edition for years and years. A week or so ago they paywalled it.

I'm wondering how long it will take them to realize that only a dozen or so people visit their website every day now. It's not a large paper, and the bulk of their readership are 50+. If they're going to paywall, they might as well just get off the internet. I highly doubt it's worth keeping an internet presence for the money generated by 1 & 7 day subscriptions.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920342)

>>>Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things

If I accept your viewpoint, then I fear Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Steve Burke (NBC-comcast's new CEO) more than murdoch.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920418)

The first two have no inherent interest in shaping the internet into a pure 'consume, consume, consume' form. Not familiar with Steve Burke so not going to comment on him.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920456)

>>>Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have no inherent interest in shaping the internet into a pure 'consume, consume, consume' form.

(gives poster odd look)
What???

>>>Not familiar with Steve Burke so not going to comment on him.

Me neither but I know Comcast (or more properly: Comsucks). I can see the previous acts he did as COO, and now he'll be CEO of the new maerged company.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920432)

>>>Murdoch is rich and has influence. He has the political power to set a precedent for how to do things

If I accept your viewpoint, then I fear Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Steve Burke (NBC-comcast's new CEO) more than murdoch.

You should!

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920546)

Except that if that Murdoch bought media outlets even though it was completely illegal for him as a foreign citizen to own them and has pushed for less and less diversity in ownership ever since.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

xwizbt (513040) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920552)

How did he become this rich? How did he attain this wealth? What is wrong with a guy who attained this level of wealth and power using it?

What if somewhere along the line, people stopped thinking for themselves and started following any messiah who strayed into their path? What if that was Murdoch?

What if people began to think for themselves? What if people realised that the only real choice they have is to think or not to think? What then?

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921132)

Like most rich people, he inherited his father's newspaper business. He really began to make his money when he realized he could extort money from politicians. Ever notice how nice republicans are to him and how he has democrats quaking in the shoes? The former, he owns like pets, the later are too afraid to say anything.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920222)

Until he streams lobbyists into Congress and starts burning cash on attack ads. Remember, in America men like Murdoch have more rights and influence with the government than you do. The Supreme Court said so.

Murdoch and the rest of the Media industry don't like the two-way, interactive nature of the web. They hate it, in fact, because it lets people ignore them.

Hell you can even make a competitor to BSkyB if you like.

I know, it's so easy to jump into the business of being a satellite media service company. Real easy.

The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational.

Nah, Murdoch deserves all the shit he catches. I'm sure he'd not blink at killing everything you like about the internet if it served him in some way.

No one is forcing you to watch/read.

Of course not, but it's a shit deal to have only the options of "Murdoch controlled media" and "nothing," which is really how he wants it.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920374)

You sound like Luddites. Like this quote from the article:

"To a certain extent this is all reminiscent of the furore in the sea-change from practical to digital newspaper production in London's Wapping in the early 1980s, engendering protracted but ultimately futile strikes from the pre-digital technicians who were made jobless by new, computerised automation of magazine and newspaper production."

You cannot stop progress simple because you don't like it. The horsewhip makers were laid-off when cars took over, and so too were these pre-digital technicians.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (3, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920564)

You sound like Luddites. Like this quote from the article:

"To a certain extent this is all reminiscent of the furore in the sea-change from practical to digital newspaper production in London's Wapping in the early 1980s, engendering protracted but ultimately futile strikes from the pre-digital technicians who were made jobless by new, computerised automation of magazine and newspaper production."

You cannot stop progress simple because you don't like it. The horsewhip makers were laid-off when cars took over, and so too were these pre-digital technicians.

So lets get this straight. Reducing the internet to the type of linear media that existed before the web is "progress" that cannot be stopped. Continuing to take advantage of the non-linear nature of the web and building on it is "Luddite". Er, well, keep taking the dried frog pills.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920612)

No. Adding video interviews because more-and-more people are no longer stuck on dialup - That is the progress.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (3, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920438)

Who cares about satellite media? The future of tv is internet based video on demand.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920850)

Free to air (not BSkyB) satellite has a few decent channels on it over on this side of the pond. With a PVR or with a tuner card you can collect a shitload of movies without wasting valuable bandwidth.

Really all the IPTV stuff is ideally suited to satellite for its effortless multicasting abilities. If instead of 200+ TV channels a satellite broadcasted continuously the top 200 or so torrents on TPB it would go a long way towards freeing up the tubes. If the satellite has any free bandwidth you could use it to download large files that other users are also trying to download. I believe such a system already exits for multicast file downloads but its not very widely used - bittorrent integration with this would be great.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920520)

Just bullshit! If he could do what you say he would have already. The fact that he hasn't proves that he can't.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920864)

It isn't for a lack of trying.

Sorry, Murdoch hater, you've been outvoted. (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920268)

Seriously, don't like what Murdoch is doing? Click elsewhere.

Even if you don't like it, there are enough other people who like it that Mr. Murdoch has gained influence over countries. I don't like what Mr. Murdoch is doing to U.S. politics by having built the Tea Party protests into a nationwide movement, but FOX News Channel has attracted enough people to this reactionary movement that it has a significant chance of setting policy that can cause me to be imprisoned or die despite my vote against it.

Re:Sorry, Murdoch hater, you've been outvoted. (2, Insightful)

KingFrog (1888802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920364)

Well, you've finally figured it out. The REAL purpose of everything that happens is to cause you to be imprisoned. Can someone mod him "Funny" or "Dangerously deluded" and get it over with?

Re:Sorry, Murdoch hater, you've been outvoted. (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920490)

The REAL purpose of everything that happens is to cause you to be imprisoned.

Changes to the law cause people who follow the old law to go to jail for not following the new law.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920472)

The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.

If an idiot is standing on the street corner spewing lies and no one listens to him, then you can just ignore it and it's not a problem. If a significant portion of your country and voters start believing in it, that's mainly a problem with your country, yes, but it's no longer in the realm of "just ignore it and it won't be a problem." Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.

I'll get the fuck over it when he's dead along with his whole propaganda machine, when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote, when Washington has fixed every problem they've created, and when large corporations stop trying to neuter the internet.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920674)

Murdoch's lies are affecting US policy. He's having a substantial impact, increasing partisan politics, preventing Washington from doing -anything-, encouraging ignorance, pushing us towards more of a police state, and distracting people while our rights get sold to corporations.

You mention "Murdoch" but I think "Obama" better fits your description. Or "Pelosi". In just 3 and a half years of a Democrat-run Congress we have:

- increased our national deficit from 1/2 trillion to 1.5 trillion per year
- renewed the Patriot Act, and also expanded it with new spying powers
- taken away Citizens of a Member State ability to self-police/arrest criminals (arizona)
- okay'd a single man (whoever is current president) having a kill switch to interrupt free speech on the net
-
- taken away the right to buy health insurance (or be fined if you choose not to)
- given police power to track people via GPS on cars
- redefined cell companies as "financial companies" enabling the FBI to obtain your cellphone bills/records without requiring a warrant (just passed last month)

I'll stop there because you probably assume I'm lying to you, but it's all true. '
Just look-up what Congress did in 2007,8,9, and 10. You fear Murdoch?
I fear the US Congress (D) more.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (4, Insightful)

voidstin (51561) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920726)

Thank you for proving the parent's point.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920904)

Ya know - it helps if you read the actual bills your Democrat Congress passes.

For example the ability of the FBI to demand copies of your cellphone bills/locations without warrant? It's in the recently-passed Financial Reform bill. I've seen the language in the bill myself.

i'm relieved (2, Funny)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921144)

to learn that when the republicans sweep back into power next month that the FBI won't be able to get that bill through congress. Republicans would never let it happen, right?

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920826)

As usual, I disagree with both of your posts (Really? Two?) but it sounds like we should be able to agree that
1. There can be more than one bad guy
2. Murdoch is more of a "bad guy" than a good guy
3. The democratic congress has not done that great of a job, for various reasons
4. Obama extending the patriot act was bad

Also, for the record, I didn't imply Fox news viewers shouldn't be allowed to vote. While I think it would be good if they voluntarily gave up the right to vote, that's not something that I would ever force, or even ask them to do.

I trust you see the difference, and that since you're not running for office against me you won't intentionally fail to make the distinction.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920932)

The left wing mods are out in force tonight. This gets modded Off Topic while some kook claiming that Murdoch is going to get him killed gets modded Interesting. http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1824512&cid=33920268 [slashdot.org]

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (1, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920706)

>>>when most people who watch fox news and believe the BS voluntarily give up the right to vote

You believe the shit on democrat-leaning MSNBC. How are you any better? (rolls eyes) I can't believe you'd even suggest such an anti-democratic idea as saying FOX News viewers should not be allowed to vote. Here's a thought: Maybe you could do what FDR did in the 40s and round-up the Americans you don't like, and send them to concentration camps? That's how FDR stopped people from voting, simple because they had asian grandparents or parents.

Re:Nothing but a Murdoch hit piece. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920776)

Hell you can even make a competitor to BSkyB if you like. The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational. No one is forcing you to watch/read. Get the fuck over it.

No you can't. The government will stop you, because it was elected on the back of the Murdoch press, just as the British government is currently committed to demolishing BSkyB's only real competitor in the British market.

You are forced to watch/read if you want to access the content that same government has signed over exclusively to Murdoch outlets.

You are staggeringly naive, grow the fuck up.

Nothing to See Here? Look Closer (2, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920902)

>The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational.

Ahem, your ignorance is showing.

If only it was irrational, however his desire and ambition to dominate the various maouthpieces of the media plus his willingness to laud the politicians who chime with his views, and their subsequent fear of him (outlined rather concisely in the current UK issue of him taking over BskyB and politicians openly admitting their fear of pissing him off) make him a king-maker and fundementally a threat to the democratic process.

He and his ilk are a blight and an opposition to democracy because the power they wield far outweighs their number. They are not elected, merely rich. And whilst Murdoch is not the only evil in town in this regard, he, with his penchant for buying up media channels is a particular threat than many others can't hold a candle to.

You only have to look at the situation in the Uk with the Murdoch ownded News of the World and the influence it wielded with thMetropolitan Police in them delibertaely limiting the scope of an investigation into illegal phone hacking by the NotW to the NotW's advantage.

Murdoch and his organs are scourges on Western democracy the world over.

All Paths Are Taken (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920182)

The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews are, the author argues, part of a tidal shift from a browsable internet experience to a linear one

And the rise of features like Safari Reader (and Firefox equivalent from which it was born), along with video heavily annotated and searchable also mean the web is moving to a totally non-linear, take it as you please kind of mechanism.

Both things are true, the web can and will take all possible paths. If people do not like confinement than overly narrow paths will grow dusty with disuse over time, but even if they mostly like it the other paths will remain for those that want to take them.

I never did see the point in freaking out about any super-powerful titan "taking over the web" since there is no web to take over, there's just islands that people can build up as high as they like in order to entice people to visit.

Re:All Paths Are Taken (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920270)

This. Especially the video section.

Youtube is heavily annotated, from both manual annotations to automatic speech parsing algorithms, language translation getting better all the time, and even some basic structure recognition for content in video.
This is only Youtube, admittedly, but no doubt in the years that it will take for video to become the centerpiece of online content, this stuff will be trivial to implement for the average person.

And as you said, nobody will ever really take over the web, even Google.
Google have a really high chance of snuffing it by years end pretty damn easily if they pulled some wrong moves out of that magic hat. Who knows, they could pull out the bomb.
As does any other company, more so at this moment in time if they venture in to high-bandwidth content like video.

All i can say is i have cancelled my Sky subscription anyway. I only used it for a small handful of channels, all which have slowly rotted in to awfulness over the past year, especially Sky1. The tool in control of that has ruined the channel for me now.
And if this goes through, i certainly wouldn't want to give any of those people any money.

I'm just glad there are actual competitors to Sky now. Whether it is Virgin, FreeSat, BT Vision, even Freeview, or the many others, Sky is slowly losing ground.
Just a shame that all the content producers on so many of the independent channels are going to suffer the most in this. Tough business...

Re:All Paths Are Taken (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920596)

I never did see the point in freaking out about any super-powerful titan "taking over the web" since there is no web to take over, there's just islands that people can build up as high as they like in order to entice people to visit.

If anything these bloggers who cry wolf let us know there's a problem, even if the problem isn't critical. Malthusian [wikipedia.org] overpopulation didn't happen, but it helped keep world population from rising much higher than it is now.

Did I read a different article? (3, Interesting)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920208)

Where is the discussion about why the internet can't kill classic TV? The article started out worrying about Rupert Murdoch's increasing empire, and then devolved into a "everything I hate about the internet" speech. In particular, how video interviews are inferior to the printed word, because they're harder to search, you can't pick just the bit you want to read, and you can't "space out" while watching it.

The author seems to think all the "popular" sites will squeeze out the "old school" content, because if they don't join in the "linearized" content, they can't monetize their content. Hopefully, not everyone will feel a need to monetize what they provide, and we'll be able to share in people's passions, not just their livelihood. I may not like what you're selling me, but I'll be interested in what interests you, and Rupert Murdoch can't have that.

Re:Did I read a different article? (0, Flamebait)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921262)

Thats why after Murdoch owns about 85% of all media companies, he plans to turn his attention to the internet service providers, so that he can charge extra for sites people like by putting them in premium tiered space that requires a $350-$400 monthly charge to access them. Oh yes, in principle you will be able to get them for "free" as you do now, but in reality the lower/cheaper tier will be made so slow that you won't be able to load a page in less than a minute.

Meaningless peice (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920244)

While I agree that maybe big media companies would like to make the web a linear experience, they can't. Reason is the web is too large to control. The barrier or entry is extremely low. As such there are sites all over the damn place, that do whatever they please. There is just no way for a media company to control all this. They can take everything they control and make it suck, but all that'll do is make people go elsewhere.

Because of the distributed, low cost nature of the web it is just not really possible for one group to control it. With TV, sure they can do that to a large degree. Not only are TV programs inherently linear, but running a TV station is expensive. It isn't like someone can say "Ya I think I'll set one up." Even if you had a TV station, you have to deal with contracts to get on the distributors, and then of course produce content people want.

None of that is a problem with the web, other than content. You can get a website for $10/month or less with a reasonable host, and probably free if you sniff around a bit. That's all it takes and your site is now on the same level with every other, there is no barriers for people to get to it. The only question then is producing things people want to see. Also people like some extremely cheap things on the web. Look at Maddox's page. It is nothing but his writings and drawing. No big budget productions, nothing fancy, but people like it.

That is just an environment big media can't control. This goes double since the closest things to gate keepers there are is search engines, and they are run by companies way bigger than big media. Fox isn't going to scare Google or Microsoft. They'll keep running their search how they want.

I'm not at all concerned. The web will continue to be a massive collection of any and everything. Different people/groups/companies can make parts of the web that are however they like, and as many people are as interested can go and enjoy it. Maybe some people want a real locked down, linear web experience and if Fox provides one they may enjoy it. But don't worry about them forcing it on everyone, they just don't have the ability.

Re:Meaningless peice (2, Insightful)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920300)

Until 2 tier access comes into play and "Net Neutrality" goes out the window then you'll be stuck with what ever "Howling Mad" Murdoch thinks you need to see...

Ya... I'm thinking no... (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920862)

Sorry but so far all this has been nothing but a geek scare story from what I've seen. My ISP has made no move, at all, to restrict or limit any kind of access to anything and shows no signs of wanting to since they rather like making their customers happy.

Also here's some news: Murdoch doesn't own the world. I know that he's a popular conspiracy target for "OMG he's controls the media!" but he really doesn't. Plenty of other companies out there who are not interested in playing ball.

Re:Meaningless peice (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921176)

Until 2 tier access comes into play and "Net Neutrality" goes out the window

Precisely. The reason why TV is full of crap these days is the "channelization" of content into pre-packaged streams selected by those running the cable and satellite networks and the content providers. This oligopoly [wikipedia.org] power over the TV content markets gives them the ability to choose what people see while at the same time preventing effective competition. Even Steve Jobs, when presenting the Apple TV as a "hobby", acknowledged the difficulties of breaking into and being disruptive in the media business, regardless of new technologies. The package deals and lock-in agreements associated with cable and satellite networks make any real innovations extremely difficult.

Re:Meaningless peice (1)

cranigus (1918942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920670)

I was going to say something similar. This is the media equivalent of my mom printing out her emails.

Who cares? (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920288)

As with the mechanical vs. real horses, the ultimate choice will be left to the consumer, and either Mr. Murdoch will be right and win, or he will be wrong and go out of business.

It's the ultimate in democracy - people voting with their dollars what kind of web they want to see.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920570)

You assume people cannot be influenced by throwing enough money at them (in the form of bought laws, marketing, extermination of competing content, etc.) to do as big corporations want them to.

With enough money, they could easily achieve a TV-like Internet, e.g. lobby for laws that make the barrier of entry too high for anybody but big corporations (in Germany some lobbied for TV-like licenses for video streams) or simply deprioritise everybody who doesn't pay protectio...I mean priority-transport-fees or use continue to abuse patent and copyright laws to sue non-desirables into oblivion.

Videos on websites... (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920294)

I hate it when i go to read a news story, or a howto or something else online and it's only available in video form...

Especially technical guides, where a howto would let me cut and paste but a video won't...

Say "Show me the SRT plz" (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920350)

I hate it when i go to read a news story, or a howto or something else online and it's only available in video form

Open a help ticket and say your hard-of-hearing family member couldn't enjoy the video or the advertisement before it due to lack of SRT captions [whatwg.org] . If your country has a disability discrimination act, and you have a lawyer in the family, you can probably push this even harder.

Re:Videos on websites... (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920410)

As someone already posted, "Youtube is heavily annotated, from both manual annotations to automatic speech parsing algorithms, language translation getting better all the time, and even some basic structure recognition for content in video."

It's only a matter of time until this is common place everywhere there's a video posted on-line. (Perhaps as simple as a browser plug-in.)

Meanwhile, may I suggest you stop "hating it" and do something about it--such as contacting the author of the video, asking for a written "how-to" to accompany his videos in the future?

Videos vs Text (4, Insightful)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920302)

I can agree with the complaints about some of this at least. I hate when I go to read an article and instead its a video piece/interview/etc about the topic. I can't just open it and read at my discretion, not to mention how almost every video link seems to start with some commercial. Sure, you need to make money, but you just lost any interest I have. I do fear that this will become what the web is. I also can't be doing much else, I have to stop and engage directly with the video instead of opening interesting sounding articles that I can peruse anytime I want. I suppose I could re-watch the video or pause/rewind/play but that's not what I'm after.

Re:Videos vs Text (2, Insightful)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920652)

totally agree. plus a video usually takes two minutes to tell me something I could read in 20 seconds.

Videos untranscribed (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920358)

The increase in the use of paginated content and the proliferation of video over transcribed interviews

Sucks when you're deaf. Guess I should do what the blind groups have done and sue everyone til they listen.

Re:Videos untranscribed (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920462)

You don't even need to be deaf, you just need to be browsing with the speaker on mute because you are at work.

i doubt it will happen to the entire WWW (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920436)

maybe to Murdock's websites, but not everything on the net, but if it does it would give me a good excuse to cancel my internet subscription, i have plenty i can do on a PC for years without the internet, besides i have a library of books i could spend my free time reading

Internet killed the radio star (1)

bigato (1909404) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920478)

TV didn't kill radio, only made it less important. Now that internet has come, it didn't kill tv yet. But internet now has a share of the people's time. So, tv share is smaller. In Brazil we heard this year that this is the first time in history that internet audience is bigger than tv's. But people's time is limited, and I wonder how many of you still listen to radio. Not so many as ten years ago. Here at my home we don't have a tv anymore. Internet didn't kill tv, as tv didn't kill radio. But maybe the next step in evolution of information exchange WILL kill TV, as radio is now almost dead because of internet. I think TORRENTS are going to kill TV.

14 years too late (4, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920494)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September [wikipedia.org]

Sorry, internet: this is your new audience.

Their purchasing determines what is profitable on the internet.

Their attention span determines the type of information that will be profitable.

You, the old school user, are maybe 1% of the net. You are irrelevant except as a niche market.

They are comfortable with TV, "rides" and planned, advertising-funded adventures in alternate realities to distract from their depressing existences as corporate serfs.

They (or rather, what they will buy) will determine the content of the internet. Not you.

What do they like?

* Television
* Fast food
* Coca-Cola
* Movies like X-Men
* Disco
* Corn dogs

That is your future, internet. You are only ruled by the nerds at night.

Re:14 years too late (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920650)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September [wikipedia.org]

Sorry, internet: this is your new audience.

Their purchasing determines what is profitable on the internet.

Their attention span determines the type of information that will be profitable.

You, the old school user, are maybe 1% of the net. You are irrelevant except as a niche market.

They are comfortable with TV, "rides" and planned, advertising-funded adventures in alternate realities to distract from their depressing existences as corporate serfs.

They (or rather, what they will buy) will determine the content of the internet. Not you.

What do they like?

* Television * Fast food * Coca-Cola * Movies like X-Men * Disco * Corn dogs

That is your future, internet. You are only ruled by the nerds at night.

Soma! Soma! Soma! Soma! Soma!

Re:14 years too late (2, Insightful)

FroBugg (24957) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920796)

Are these the same kids that just won't get off your lawn?

Re:14 years too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920876)

Huh, so that's where 4chan's concept of Newfag Summer came from.

Re:14 years too late (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921022)

Hellz yeah BOYYYYEEE!!!!

We ownz da night, muthafukka!

Nerds is da new gangstas, ya Digg?

it's the author that's "missing the point" (2, Insightful)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920516)

"Locking down" information is like trying to make water not be wet. Also, "taking away choice" on the internet is a great way to get completely ignored.

Mechanical horses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920558)

Current worries among publishing houses that magazines and newspapers will succumb to the digital written word on the internet are perhaps analogous to Victorian fears about mechanical horses taking over from real horses in the drawing of carriages

I don't get it. Could you please provide a car analogy?

Re:Mechanical horses? (1)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 3 years ago | (#33921154)

"Victorian fears about mechanical horses taking over from real horses in the drawing of carriages."

And off-road transport has never been more fun...that's the internet. Anywhere you want to go, 24/7, & no 18 minute EAS right in the middle of my HBO program for which I paid extra & is one of the many reasons I am getting rid of cable all together. (Entity x) bless Archive.org. Kind of a weak car analogy, though.:(

stupidest fucking premise I've seen in a long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33920568)

stupidest fucking premise I've seen in a long time

Don't panic (1, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920572)

I agree that Rupert Murdoch is one of the biggest dickwads in media outside conservative talkshows, but this article is exaggerating the danger.

Murdoch does not have a monopoly over internet news media by a long shot, and the unpopular decisions he has made (such as paywalls) are costing his companies market power.

If Murdoch tries to turn internet news into television, the internet will not become television; rather, Murdoch's internet news companies will compete with Murdoch's television networks.

The Web as TV? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920622)

I'll believe that when I see Slashdot lose vertical hold.

You kids who don't understand that, stay off my lawn!

Re:The Web as TV? (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33920658)

I'll believe that when I see Slashdot lose vertical hold.

You kids who don't understand that, stay off my lawn!

Murdoch: We control the vertical. We control the horizontal.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>