It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Murdoch signals end of free news.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
From the Guardian:



The billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch suffered the indignity of seeing his global empire make a huge financial loss yesterday and promptly pledged to shake up the newspaper industry by introducing charges for access to all his news websites, including the Times, the Sun and the News of the World, by next summer.

Stung by a collapse in advertising revenue as the recession shredded Fleet Street's traditional business model, Murdoch declared that the era of a free-for-all in online news was over.

"Quality journalism is not cheap," said Murdoch. "The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."


Internet sites provide news to an increasing number of people and newspaper circulation continues to decline, so it would seem a logical step to charge for news websites. Will it work? Are people partisan to a single online news site? When a search engine will bring up links to any number of news sites, why would you pay for a website? I find the BBC's website a particular useful and they provide links to other media reporting the story. Murdoch's papers are not, generally, in opposition to to the BBC, so why wouldn't readers just go there instead, as the BBC's website is included in the license fee?

Murdoch's tabloids are truly awful papers; they provide bit-size news stories intended to appeal to an emotional response (like all tabloids, I guess), rather than just reporting. Although they are right wing, they do float about a bit, in order to please the general political climate. So if this is the case, why sign up to one site, when the internet offers any number of sites that will agree with your standpoint?

Presumably, Murdoch would want to do the same to Fox in the US; would it work there?

Would this not just widen the gulf between different political and ethical standpoints as people would ally themselves with one pay-per-read website?

BBC Link
Guardian Link



[edit on 6-8-2009 by Woland]

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Woland]




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Step 1. Make all official news media online sites subscription only.
Step 2. Use political power, donations (otherwise known as backhanders, kickbacks and bribes) to have bloggers and independent online journalists outlawed or licensed in an attempt to shut them down, thus once again having a monopoly on what is and isn't available to the public.

The corporate news entertainment businesses have had their own way for too long and, with the internet availability and free content, have seen revenues drop substantially as they no longer control information. This applies as well to the government who find it increasingly difficult to suppress issues in national / regional press outlets, when independent or foreign sources are outside their control. Control is of course what it's all about. As long they control what we see and hear, they will remain powerful.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Britguy]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Woland
 


S+F....Why?

Because this story has major implicatins for all internt users...ie ATSers.

Imagine us all having to pay for those stories between the 'ex's....even worse, imagine not being able to quote them at all.

But most members will be too busy looking for Nbiru or a reptillian mother ship to actually put some thought into it.

TPTB have had enough, the good times are over baby!





[edit on 6-8-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Personally I would never pay anything to read online news .
I always thought that the majority of their profit was gained through advertisements anyway .
The way things are currently , its a stupid move on his part imo .
Who is gonna pay to look at a news website , when hardly anything in it is really news anyway .
No one .



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
"introducing charges for access to all his news websites, including the Times, the Sun and the News of the World, by next summer."

lol

The Sun & The news of the world=emotional porn www.guardian.co.uk...

I will be first in line to pay for access to the quality news these two papers provide...not


As Takka stated 'its a stupid move on his part'



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
No one is reading murdoch's or any corporate press because it is made up trash. Why would people pay for this when you can get better for free? People are becoming aware of the collusion between big media and government and don't trust it.

What is scary is there is only one way having paysites will work at all, and that is to get rid of free content competition. You can bet the industry will push for licenses to get rid of "unprofessional" (ie non-propaganda) sources.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Journalism may not be cheap..., but it is 'easy'.

Why pay for one organization's controlled and confabulated view of 'news' ala entertainment?

For these industrialist of 'journalism' it's about attracting advertising; thus engendering sensationalized, lowest-common-denominator glamor and flash, as well as a pandering attitude towards advertisers, rather than their readers.

That is what they dare call 'news.'

It was their base philosophy that created the need for REAL news reporting, which is what Murdoch and his 4 or 5 co-owner 'robber barons' of media call a 'free for all.' We certainly can't have that!

I'm sure the most distasteful part of the tag is that it contains the words 'free' and 'for all.'



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
He obviously hasn't heard of copy and paste... his business model is destine to failure



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Do you think this will signal the end of the 'z' list celebrity,emotional porn, being famous for being famous.... I mean if people have to pay for access to this type of 'news' wont this act as a filter, i.e. Murdoch controlled papers reverting to doing their job and publishing news, not bs celebrity 'news'


Or are the sheeple going to be willing to pay for access to this crap online?

Or as Woland stated in the OP "Would this not just widen the gulf between different political and ethical standpoints as people would ally themselves with one pay-per-read website"?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Personally I see political capitalism at work choking off the first ammendment
"Freedom of Speech" come from Murdoch.

Its a double edged sword to control journalism for national security. You can stop the foreign press from spinning propaganda by controlling it inside your own country, or you can spin it to promote your own propaganda upon another country.

My vote goes to NPR for good journalism cause I'm sick and tired of the yellow sensationalism off the fox news channel.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join