Rupert Murdoch BAWWWWing about free news on the 'net

Ratty Sr.

Ratty Sr.

Ratty, except old
Moderator
Orderite
Everyone's favorite <strike>right-wing cockgobbler</strike> media mogul had the urge to treat the world to a helping of his mental diarrhea, announcing to the world that his News Corporation would soon start charging money for its online content and that the days of free news on the Internet were over. So, better enjoy your Times and your Sun while you can, because soon you won't be able to access them without a subscription fee. Also, better enjoy your Digg and your Slashdot, because unless ol' Rupert here thinks that Internet media == News Corporation, they too will have to adapt their "malfunctioning" business model. Presumably he will have his neocon buddies forcibly shut them down if they don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/07/rupert-murdoch-charging-websites

Rupert ­Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation's newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a ­"malfunctioning" business model.

Encouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an "epochal" debate over whether to charge. "That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal's experience," he said.

Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: "We're absolutely looking at that." Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin "within the next 12 months‚" adding: "The current days of the internet will soon be over."

Plunging earnings from newspapers led the way downwards as News Corporation's quarterly operating profits slumped by 47% to $755m, although exceptional gains on sale of assets boosted bottom-line pretax profits to $1.7bn, in line with last year's figure.

Dwindling advertising revenue across print and television divisions depressed the News Corp numbers despite box office receipts from Twentieth Century Fox movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Marley and Me. But Murdoch said he believed signs of hope were appearing.

"I'm not an economist and we all know economists were created to make weather forecasters look good," he quipped. "But it is increasingly clear the worst is over."

He continued: "There are encouraging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous declines are done, and things are beginning to look healthier."

News Corp's newspaper division barely broke even, with quarterly profits collapsing from $216m to $7m year-on-year. Advertising revenue in Britain fell by 21% and Murdoch revealed the Sunday Times is struggling: "It's still in profit, but only just so." The tabloids had fared better, aided by price battles at supermarkets which spend heavily on print promotions.

Television profits also shrank dramatically, falling from $419m to $4m due to a loss of Superbowl revenue and weaker advertising at the group's Fox channels in the US and its Star network in Asia.

News Corp has cut 3,000 jobs over the last year, although Murdoch said very few affected journalists or "creative" personnel. Its filmed entertainment division enjoyed an 8% rise in profits to $282m, while Fox News Channel in the US helped push profits from cable subscription networks up by 30% to $429m.

But News Corp revealed that its interactive media division, which includes the social networking site MySpace, had turned in a lower contribution. MySpace's management was recently replaced as News Corp struggles to build sustainable profitability but Murdoch dismissed competition from its larger rival, Facebook.

"We're not going for the Facebook model of getting hundreds and hundreds of million of people who don't bring any advertising with them at all," he said.

Meanwhile a threat to close the Boston Globe was averted today as its owner, the New York Times Company, struck a deal with the daily's largest union after a week of talks; the 137-year-old publication is the 14th biggest-selling US paper.
Click to expand...

After reading all that, I have one question to ask and one observation to make:

1. Question: Who in their right mind would willingly peruse News Corporation media, free or otherwise?

2. Observation: Rupert Murdoch is a sad, deluded old man unable to come to terms with the impending downfall of his crumbling media empire and bent on blaming News Corporation's problems on the "malfunctioning" business model of Internet media, when it's only the business model of Rupert Murdoch that is malfunctioning.

On the bright side, at least we at NMA now have an excuse to start charging for news. But don't hold it against us! It's the only way to remain in business! Rupert Murdoch said it, so it must be true!
 
I can already see it: news piracy.
"We reported it first therefore you stole it from us! You can't just give information away for free, people worked hard to get it! It's economically unfeasible to give out free information! What, you say information is intangible and therefore can't be stolen? Nonsense, it's very tangible and we worked very hard to put it on our website! It's so idealistic and naive to expect to find out about world events for free!.........."

I know, I'm exaggerating. It would be funny if things really lead to this, though.
 
Well this is needed but I'd rather see a national volountary tax on news. So if you want "in depth" news you pay this tax/fee and you get access to all news sites that demand money to view them. The money is then shared between the sites you visit accordingly how much you visit them.
 
People both love and loathe journalism, but it's clear they provide a service to democracy, yea we all know about the shitty side of things, biased media, hello magazine, but don't let this blind you to the good they can do.

I think in the immediate future we will see a'lot of the old media collapse, they can't make the money through internet advertising, and magazines and TV is dwindling.

Quite what will emerge from the ashes I don't know, but maybe a subscription based news feed isn't so laughable (Though it won't save this shit).
 
fedaykin said:
I can already see it: news piracy.
"We reported it first therefore you stole it from us! You can't just give information away for free, people worked hard to get it! It's economically unfeasible to give out free information! What, you say information is intangible and therefore can't be stolen? Nonsense, it's very tangible and we worked very hard to put it on our website! It's so idealistic and naive to expect to find out about world events for free!.........."

I know, I'm exaggerating. It would be funny if things really lead to this, though.
Click to expand...

They allready have that. It is called Internet Wrestling dirtsheets.
 
That's just retarded, who pays for fucking news. That really is just greed to be perfectly honest considering Rupert Murdoch will probably have more money than I will ever have in my lifetime.
 
Yay, I'll give you 10 bucks/month if you give me all informations about promi xy!!111



Who cares. There are enough non-profit news sites on the interwebz with better quality news and or writing.
 
Lexx said:
Yay, I'll give you 10 bucks/month if you give me all informations about promi xy!!111



Who cares. There are enough non-profit news sites on the interwebz with better quality news and or writing.
Click to expand...

Promi = celebrity

Just in case of any non-German readers wondering wtf he meant.
 
I'll stick with reading the news at the onion thank you very much.

Or Fox and friends, it's about equally relevant and strangely entertaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top