Murdoch
- Started
- Last post
- 43 Responses
- boobs0
I remember in the 1980s everybody was saying he wouldn't go anywhere trying to start a new network, since ABC, NBC and CBS were so ingrained into the broadcasting system.
Murdoch has made more money than all the people who've sold him short put together.
- BusterBoy0
All you Johnny come lately twats who think Murdoch is a dinosaur have absolutely no clue how business works. Those who think things should be free, free, free are living in Noddy Land.
I don't particularly want to live in a world where we have no major news organisations and have to rely on websites with live bloggers providing the headlines.
And why the fuck should Google be given a free kick? You can bet your life they'll start charging you someway, somehow when the Murdochs of this world stop publishing.
- you can pay for his useless right-wing propaganda content then!utopian
- ********0
I used to really hate on Murdoch.
Then one day I saw a Simpsons episode, where they were totally pulling a lampoon on Fox News, and I thought to myself..."Hmm, that's pretty fucking genius, actually. On one hand, you have your ultra-conservative outlet for Christian news. On the other hand, you have snarky programming like the Simpsons, Family Guy, etc. And while you'd like to think that they're separate entities, they're owned by the same parent company, and they are expertly using both syndicates to boost one another's ratings and keep each in front of the other's audiences. Man, that's purely genius."
There was a time when I considered Doc the devil, pushing his own religious and political agenda. After this moment of clarity, I realized that dibec is right—Murdoch is simply a money-mongering strategist. Although part of me still feels strongly that he has a "666" tattoo on his body somewhere.
- it's his birthmarkversion3
- Weird comment. Ignorance is bliss and deny ignorance.********
- ukit0
BusterBoy, what are you talking about? Google's gonna start charging for what?
Google already makes billions on an ad revenue model. They are not getting a free kick, read up sometime on the data centers they run.
Anyway nothing against RP, I just haven't seen any mass market news sites that have been able to make more money by putting up a wall. The interview makes it seem like he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
- BusterBoy0
So many are misisng the point. I don't like a lot of Murdoch's businesses, mainly Fox, but that's beside the point. And my reference to Google was more a collective reference to all the news aggregators that create bugger all content themselves, but make a fortune of all the ad revenue that hangs off them. They're like parasites.
Murdoch is paving a way for other large players to follow suit.
- Meeklo0
yeah murdoch rocks!
- Meeklo0
this is what he looks like today
- ukit0
Yeah, sorry Busterboy, but that's a load of crap. You think Rupert Murdoch and these big companies can somehow control access to what's happening in the world?
Let's go out on a limb and assume Fox News, NYT, CNN all put their news behind a pay firewall. Is everyone then going to run around going, I have no idea what's going on because I can't log in to Fox? Of course not - they'll just go to some other site that offers the exact same info for free.
- utopian0
Fox, CNN, NYTIMES, etc... are not free! You have to look and siff through their infective and endless banner ads. Fox is particularly complaining because no one clicks-through their "born again christian banner ads or stupid juice pulper bannerads", period!
- airey0
the old and new murdoch.
- BusterBoy0
ukit, if you're happy getting your news from the drudge report and perez hilton, knock yourself out. People with half a brain get sick of this shit after a while. You are immersed in the world of the internet geek...there's a whole big world out there mate who want quality information...something which free services will lack if there are no big news companies around.
Don't give me the Fox news this, Fox news that. I'm not talking specifically about them. I'm talking about the NY Times, WSJ, The Age in Oz, The Times, LA Times, CNN etc etc. Without companies like these, online news would hardly be worth reading.
I don't know whether the paid news model will work but I can certainly understand where Murdoch is coming from.
- ********0
People with half a brain don't watch TV for news. L-O-L.
- actually people with half a brain do. a whole brain, not all the time.airey
- utopian0
I will be more than happy to pay for content as long as they don't stick their useless banner ads all over the place. Oh wait that's how they generate their revenue right?
- ukit0
Right, but the news on Drudge Report is exactly the same as on Fox or CNN. You're missing the fact that most of these large news sites already act as aggregators to an extent (or parasites as Rupert Murdoch likes to put it).
When was the last time you saw an actual investigative journalism piece broken on Fox or CNN? In terms of what you read on the web, it's the AP and other news services that do the actual information gathering. The NYT is the exception as they do some actual reporting but they are kind of in a class of their own.
I guess my point is that it's not controlling access to information that is really the issue here - there's no way to do that anyway which is what makes this paid content idea so absurd. The real problem these companies face is that they no longer monopolize the means of delivery. It used to be incredibly cost prohibitive to start a TV channel or a printing press. Now anyone can start a website pretty much for free. If you can figure out how to reverse that trend, maybe you can take things back to the way they were before.
In the meantime, maybe there really is no way for an operation like Fox to turn a profit online. But who cares - they and CNN are still raking it in from TV. The AP's revenue is going up. The ones who are on the ropes are newspapers and magazines, especially the regional ones. Do we have to start charging on the web just to keep them around?
- era4O40
...Please tell me someone else on this site is old enough to know who this is.
- BusterBoy0
More than one way to skin a cat...problem with Google is they are getting so massive, many larger content publishers are getting shit scared of being run out of business. The only effective way to combat is to form alliances a-la the one below. Expect to see much more of this in the future.
http://www.theage.com.au/busines…
"Microsoft has held talks with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp over a possible plan for the software giant to pay the media company to remove its news websites from Google, according to a report out today.
The plan sets a scene for a battle between search engines for access to websites and puts pressure on search juggernaut Google to start paying for content, the Financial Times said.
"This is all about Microsoft hurting Google's margin," an unnamed source was quoted as saying.
However, the biggest beneficiary of the tussle could be the newspaper industry which has yet to construct a reliable online business model to replace declining newspaper circulation and print advertising revenues.
Murdoch has prompted a fierce debate among media watchers with his accusation that Google is "stealing" from his vast newspaper empire and his threat to block the search engine from accessing its content."
- ********0
Basically microsoft is getting their ass kicked by google and is trying to partner with news corp to block out info through google searches. You have to realize Microsoft has lost hundrends of millions of dollars just developing and promoting Bing which failed miserably.
They will try to corner the market away from google searches and force people to use their technology. I am predicting this will be one of the first steps to Internet 2 and the development of web packages for purchases.
Ei - Visit 200 pre progammed web pages for $30 a month
Visit 1000 pre programmed web pages for $70$ a month
Visit 5,000 websites for $100 a month
Most likely web address will go from this www.Ford.com to
What an exciting and frightful time in history. Evil and corruption is really starting to make their push for total world control through a enslaved and chipped population.
This is just not for America but a call to all citizens of the world that our governments have gotten out of control.
- Sense, you make none.Dr_Sparkleshine
- You bitch for paragraphs about corporate malfeasance and then end it with "gubermint is the problem!"Dr_Sparkleshine
- Citizen empowered goverment is the only thing that might save us from the corporate overlordsDr_Sparkleshine
- Otherwise, you completely missed the point of the Enlightenment.Dr_Sparkleshine
- But your a fucking moron anyway, so that figures.Dr_Sparkleshine
- The problem isn't "government" it's consolidation of power, and global capital is it, not government.Dr_Sparkleshine
- You are officially now Head Serf.Dr_Sparkleshine
- ukit0
haha, well that's just swell isn't it - the most repressive/ anti-progress company in the software industry joins forces with the most repressive company in the media industry.
I still don't get how this works. Is your average consumer going to hop over to Bing just because they can't get story X from Fox or the WSJ? If these users have that much brand awareness I'd imagine they'd go straight to the Murdoch's sites anyway.
- SteveJobs0
he kinda looks like bob hope now:
- ********0
Main Entry: di·no·saur
Pronunciation: \ˈdī-nə-ˌsȯr\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin Dinosaurus, genus name, from Greek deinos terrifying + sauros lizard — more at dire
Date: 1841
1 : any of a group (Dinosauria) of extinct often very large chiefly terrestrial carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the Mesozoic era
2 : any of various large extinct reptiles (as ichthyosaurs) other than the true dinosaurs
3 : one that is impractically large, out-of-date, or obsolete
— di·no·sau·ri·an \ˌdī-nə-ˈsȯr-ē-ən\ adjective
— di·no·sau·ric \-ˈsȯr-ik\ adjective