tech

Murdoch: Media must get readers to pay for online news

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

no way

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Go ahead, will save lot of time and readers will focus more on health issues and switch to newspapers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they do that then there will be pirated news websites with support of ads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or a website that takes information from other news sites and post the information as their own?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hate Murdoch.He started out as one of the good guys,even using his press to defend an aboriginal who was accused of murder and couldn't defend himself legally.Now the guy is a tyrant that has too much power at his disposal.In one way it would be a good thing if papers were phased out because they are environmentally unfriendly from the beginning, but charging people for online news..good luck with that.Pirates will soon make password generators or hack the feeds.As an Aussie I can tell you that I wouldn't miss half of the sensationalist wowser headlines of any Murdoch paper.The BBC have flat out refused to go along with his plans so he will have a fight on his hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would not give one red cent to that Ozzie slimeball and the filthy propaganda his publications and TV networks spew out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

good luck with this i dont think you will get one customer you money grabbing muppet. Personally i stay well away from anything associated with murdochs empire, he would be the last person i would get my news from.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Murdoch wants money to read his online newspaper?

Tell him he's dreamin'!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Murdoch.

Point one. Your online news resources already make money from advertising. Maybe it is your profit expectations that are wrong.

Point two. How much truly good content is out there? CNN and most of the other big news providers give sound bites and sensational news. There is very little real reporting like the ancient years when newspapers really told stories and gave you true insight into what was going one. When editors wrote compelling pieces and news also focused upon the world next door with equal clarity as the world abroad. Bottom line, your content is mostly trash and corporate BS. So if you want us to pay for it, hire some real writers capable of writing something worth reading.

Point three. I think just about every tech head on the planet will sort out your scheme and bypass it the moment your launch it. So good luck with security. As a musician we've seen our content stolen for years. If you demand that news is paid for, it will be a matter of days before it is freely available to the tech inclined.

Point four. News once played a role as a part of the balance of power. It representented the people. But now almost all news is controlled by big companies who we would be foolish to blindly trust. These companies want our money so their content reflect that point. They also have politial agendas. Again the content reflects this. So why should we pay for corporate propaganda when we know very well you will continue to give it for free whether we want it or not?

Final point: I would pay for news that was well written by reporters who work for independent agencies driven by the desire to report balanced news. A source where I could read left and right sides of a political story would be great in helping people to arrive at their own conclusions on issues. This is the media of long ago. The media that was a threat to corporate greed, government corruption and acted as a friend of the people. Recreate this and we will pay for it.

So Murdoch. You represent greed and the pathetic state of media in the world today. So don't expect any payments from the vast majority of us. If you do start charging it will be the best thing to happen to news in years. Why? Because it will inspire new sources to arrise that will give us more views of the story. And the smart person who brings all that together on all our devices at a modest cost or free will be the next CNN or BBC and put the rest of you out of business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Good journalism is an expensive commodity."

It's also a rare commodity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Murdoch, you're years behind. If you want to make money from online, create some good iPhone news feeder apps. You can sell feeds for specific journalists, topics, or broad news feeds. [If these exist already please corect me :) ]

The Fox News and Sun websites are just horrible to look at and navigate, noone's going to pay for that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i thought this people make money off advertising!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Murdoch, your era was over by the time internet come.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Murdoch's Fox news is the worst among on online websites. And you want me to pay for that? Hell no! not even a penny, sir.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Good journalism is an expensive commodity.” Biased journalism is free.

Let the market talk. It will decide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ tkoind2: www.consortiumnews.com

fair, balanced, intelligent

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I never read fox crap. I love JT though. muah muah

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as JT doesn't charge me anything , Murdoch can talk and talk and talk as much as he likes. Who cares?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is absolutely no chance of thinking that you can charge for any news. Anybody gets a scoop, they'll publish it. For free. For most website owners, they'd much rather get the traffic than charge people to view their site. Murdoch is trying to fit an old model to a new technology. He can try all he wants, but people ain't ever paying to read news online.

as far as free press goes, that's what bloggers are for. Many big news stories broke on small time sites like the smoking gun and others.

Murdoch is clinging to a dying model. Good luck buddy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It won't work, Mr Murdoch. Many newspapers have already tried it. They feed you tiny bits of news for free and if you sign up and pay up you can get the whole story. Thank you, but no thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People don't buy the paper any more for news. They buy it for things they can't find online. Like Coupons, Ads from the area stores, and well.... can't think of a 3rd thing. (local who cares news .... knew I could think of 1 more.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Be careful people, this is the guy who took free football tv in the UK and made everyone pay for it - sounds like he is trying to do same thing here, but will fail unless he can get exclusive rights on every story going.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Rupert is desperately trying to convince other news organizations to come on board. If News International goes it alone, he will sink the ship, but if he can persuade the other major sources, and offers a really cheap option, like 5 dollars a month, he maybe has a chance. One big problem is that the BBC is legally bound to provide free news at least to Brits; it'll be interesting to see how far his support for the Conservatives in the coming British election will depend on a future change of the BBC charter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In a nutshell, the answer is "NO" ... I'm not going to pay extra for online news that's already littered with profit-generating advertisements. If Mr. Murdoch is so greedy as to demand even MORE profit then he can charge more for ad space. This, of course, assumes his advertisers think his products are likely to attract people in the first place (opinions vary so far as that goes).

Charging for online news will have an immediate effect - a mass-migration away from those who charge money to those who do not. Could be that al-Jazeera or Xinhua or Tass or perhaps even Japan Today might become THE new source for the worlds news and views. Somehow, I don't think Mr. Murdoch would like that very much. His ego couldn't tolerate being ignored by the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember when one of my favorite sports web sites started charging for "premium content". It took me 5 seconds to go to a competitor and never come back. Sorry Rupert news is a commodity nowadays and we do pay to access it - 5000 yen or so to an Internet provider.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With the amount of money Newscorps losing its hardly a surprise Murdoch needs to beg for cash from any source.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As an independent, i usually have good i mpressions by Murdoch and his ideas.

I disagre with him on this though. People will not begin paying for previously free content. if your news papaers are flagging , then concentrate on your tv empire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Idiot, the traffic pays for itself. Paying for a newspaper you're mostly paying for physical media anymore. The ads in the paper pay for the salaries of the writers. Remove the physical media and leave the ads - websites. Still making money for your writers!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now, now. Let's be fair. It is expensive to keep the bloviating trio of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity on the payroll. Also, it is expensive to post all those "talking points" memos for the hosts at Faux News...oops, Fox News. They report, you decide. Fair and Balanced. Fake...oops Fox News showed its true colors: It's all about the BLING.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it's the could do it if they did the following;

copyright law changes that would force search engines and other online aggregators to compensate media companies for the content they produce.

Unless each website has thier own journalism staff, those sites would have compensate media companies by either making more money through advertising or passing on the cost to the readers.

Apparently they're already changing google;

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/02/googel-free-news-limit.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free,” Murdoch said. “Good journalism is an expensive commodity.”

All the news that is fit to print, or all the SPIN money can buy? I think I will trust the former rather than the latter. The value of EDUCATION is what people should be arguing about. An educated populace is a critical populace. Useless or poorly executed journalism can be avoided if people can be critical. If they cannot be critical, then market-based or prestige-based system of information provision will be reliable.

The bottom line here is that Murdoch

has spent enormous sums trying to control information, is in danger of losing billions and billions from shoddy management and lack of foresight, wants to change the rules and grant himself a monopoly.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

That should be :

If the populace cannot be critical, then NO market-based or prestige-based system of information provision will be reliable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would not give one red cent to that Ozzie slimeball and the filthy propaganda his publications and TV networks spew out.

Actually, he's an American citizen (he no longer has Australian citizenship), so he's an American slimeball. Apart from that, I totally agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many of Murdoch's outlets do not provide "high-quality, reliable news and information": they provide titillation, bias and promotions of other Murdoch products masquerading as "news".

Murdoch aims to control as much of the media as possible, so that he can propagate his political views and lobby for law changes that benefit him. This is why he is so opposed to the BBC: he cannot control it, buy it or silence it.

It's also worth noting that Murdoch's businesses pay very little tax as the profits always seem to find their way offshore, whilst losses are booked onshore to minimise tax liabilities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not sure what the solution is, but blogs and freelance journalists have come to rival large news organizations in terms of general information.

The problem comes with very important news that used to be ... can I say it... reliable? Now Fox is a Murdoch mouthpiece, ABC is Disney, NBC is Microsoft, and CBS is what? CNN is Time Warner. Radio in the US is dominated by Clear, and print media are getting gobbled up.

At what point do we say that competition has been replaced by oligopoly? I think it is the point where an oligopolist starts announcing preferences for pricing, which is what Murdoch is doing.

If Murdoch loses this bid, which is probably in the oligopolists' interests, then it is still not over. Murdoch will just blast a few more weak competitors away and try again. Sooner or later it will work. Having a Republican in the White House would certainly help things along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Murdoch must make note of the mistletoe hanging from my coat tails...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have checked around. Yes. Murdoch is publicly calling for the FCC to get rid of its cross-ownership rules that are keeping him from expanding further.

“News is a public good,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said.

Well, this is not a public good that is better provided by a monopoly, even if it lowers costs. Take that, Ayn Rand fans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's just capitalism. People who want free everything are just communists! Hahaha, j/k!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good luck with that, I'll keep using the free sites.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great, so now people will have to pay to be lied to!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It may turn out that the one, single news service that continues to offer free access will be a huge winner. All the others would probably lose a large chunk of readers. I would search for free news and I'm sure it will be found.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites