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 vows to charge for all online content...

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Murdoch vows to charge for all online content...


www.ft.com

The sweeping decision by the owner of titles including The News of the World and The Australian to abandon the practice of giving away news in exchange for attracting a large audience for advertisers could embolden other publishers warily examining paid content models.

"We intend to charge for all our news websites," Mr Murdoch said.

"If we're successful, we'll be followed by all media," he added, predicting "significant revenues" from charging for differentiated news online.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm not quite sure if this will make any significance to independent media, but it is another step in the direction of domination over the information war.


However, he criticised TV Everywhere, the cable industry strategy championed by Time Warner to offer shows online to paying subscribers, as a "defensive" response and said News Corp aimed instead to develop "offensive" models.


He may be setting his sites on the independents then.

www.ft.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I don't think this move has been thought out to well. Okay, we can all see why its in the interests of big corps to charge for content, lets face it what else don't they charge for. The problem is though, with so much mistrust towards mainstream news outlets as it is, will people be prepared to pay? Personally i think no, why would you pay for a product that should be free for a start, then why would you when you know the news is going to be bias.

Hopefully this will create a huge movement of underground and freelance reporting, with that being the only free outlet it will be where the public shift their attention to.

Hopefully that being the case, lots more info that would usually be omitted or left out will be available. I guess time is going to tell on this one.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Normally, I would laugh at this. It seems like a foolish move. People will definitely be pushed toward the free online news sites, which should in turn get higher revenue from advertisements. Unfortunately though, Murdoch is unbelievably powerful and well connected. I can easily see him pulling enough strings to fundamentally change how the internet works in order to force out anyone that is still willing to provide free content.

I don't like this one bit.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by refuse_orders
 


Totally agree. I don't think this will have a huge effect on independant news sources. They wouldn't let this ruin them, though. I think it might be the first step in more regulation on the internet. Suing people for stupid crap, regulating what can or cannot be said. Im not sure how it will all play out but that's my prediction.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Yep, one way or another they will make it work in their favour. As always at the cost of everyone else.

I think also it would be used as a way of convincing the general public not to trust independent free sources. They will do all they can to discredit and talk down any independent sources, attacking their credibility will be the first step, i think they are already making moves to do that right now.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
If they charge, I for one will not pay. I got my news just fine before the internet...I suppose I will get it just fine without it!

Just my 2-cents



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Rupert Murdoch is a cock.

2nd line. A very powerful and influential cock.

Pardon my immaturity but this guy makes me cringe.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I think this is great news! I can't see this turning out any other way than a huge defeat for mainstream media.
I simply cannot imagine people being willing to pay for online news to any significant degree.
One thing is the money, but another thing is the hassle. Imagine having to get out your credit card & creating an account every time you wanted to read an article. I honestly think most people wouldn't bother - I know I wouldn't.

The only way this will work is if they have some plan for radically restructuring the internet like Karlhungis says.
But to do that openly would be a very, very dangerous move.
People would wake up in unprecedented numbers.

Basically I think that Murdoch is just out of touch and loosing money



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Why would you pay for propaganda? I think Murdoch will be surprised just how hard it's going to push what he's shoveling when it's no longer free.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The news is still going to be coming across your television all day, for free. Why in Gods name would anyone pay for it online? This will be suicide for online news outlets that follow the plan.

It's good news for ATS though. All those folks who refuse to pay will be looking for a new source, and here we are.

Unless they have one hell of an ace up their sleeve, this is one really dumb move.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Sort of old news.... he's been planning this since May last year. He's blowing hot steam.

Last year he said "Paying for online content is on the horizon and I am looking to support and develop that option"

Now it sounds like he's just saying that he is directing pursuing it.

I hate Murdoch, he's ruining news media and turning journalism into commentary. Epic Fail.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Well Wikipedia is free but I have a paid subscription to the Encyclopedia Britanica too.

Sometimes they have valuable information or sources that Wikipedia doesn't offer for free.

Information is a tremendously valuable commodity to those people who can utilize it in a timely and profitable way.

Why do people pay for the Wall Street Journal when the New York Times will still give them the Stock Ticker?

For the added information.

All he has to do to get people to pay is offer them consistently some information of percieved or real value that they can not get for free elsewhere.

Like the Swiss Bikini Team tryouts will be held today between 3 to 4 at Ocean Drive and 2nd!

Sign me up Ruprat!



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Good luck to him. If there was a problem with Napster, how do you think this will work? I will never pay for something that is readily available through other sources.

What is news anyway? If I need to know something immediately, I am certain that I will be informed. If not, a day or two later is fine for me. This obsession with constant news is one of most negative things to come out of the internet, IMO.

My grandmother never answered her phone. She only used it to make calls. When we would ask her "what about if someone died?". She would answer "well they'll be dead tomorrow and I'm sure you can come on over and tell me". We could all take a page out of that book.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join