Murdoch may block Google searches

Murdoch may block Google searches

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Seems like a stupid idea, going after the search engines?

He will find it hard to attract advertisers if he does this, and it still doesn't solve the issue of falling revenue due to the internet.

He is a dinosaur of the last century who really cannot see that the future is web based.

He should move with the times and adapt his business strategy to suit, or he'll go the way of the dinosaurs too!

I prefer the latter!

Kiwifoot.




news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I must applaud him for helping to take his entertainment programs and nooze out of the mainstream.

He already tried pay for read online and that failed miserably, we'll see how this works out for him.

Eeeh... so he doesn't want people to find his companies articles? Isn't that kind of stupid?

Actually, Google should do us all a favor and block all of his rah rah Mainstream Mickey Mouse content. Doing so would make Google a much better search engine in the long run. People who make it a point to avoid Murdoch's one sided garbage would no longer have to waste time sorting through junk to find something of substance.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by kiwifoot

---

The whole idea is to remove control of the internet from the people... or the user, and place it in the hands of the corporate and government. As it stands right now, they can call it copyright law and such and then, render the web into what amounts to a glorified TV set.

One day... if they have their way, you will have access to commercials, buying things and corporate news.

Beyond that... all you can do is look. Touching... aka: interactions, will be illegal.

reply to post by redoubt

---

..And the majority will probably bend over and accept it because the majority are all complacent.

Hmmm.

I think Murdcock (sp?) does not understand the internet.

However, it's hard to believe that Google and Murdoch won't reach an agreement.

Long live the darknet.

I agree with that comment.

I just hope that when they make their move to restrict the internet, there are enough dissenting voices to fight them.

My guess is that ATSers will be at the front of the queue!

Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

The unavailability of your 'news' would actually require it to *be* news in order for me to feel one iota of concern for its absence.



[edit on 9-11-2009 by loam]

The disappearance of News Corp empty content from Web searches wouldn't make a whiff of difference, except that they won't be getting any money from their pay per view model either. Right now they are getting some revenue from advertising. The 'new' model they will be getting MUCH less. You make more from a thousand page hits a day at 1 cent an ad that you do at one subscriber at 5 dollars a year and 3 hits a day.

The pay-per-view model failed in the internet. You can count on one hand the newspapers still trying to run with this. Rupert's Wall Street Journal is one, it has a specialist content and an affluent target readership. We have been there, done that.

Rupert seems to think that his content is 'better' than others (and well he should) and that Government funded organizations, like the BBC and and the ABC (Australia) 'steal' his content. Well, he is mind-bogglingly wrong on this. He says he's going to sue those guys; for what? using the United Press? Associated Press? their own extensive journalist networks? He has really lost the plot here.

Look, Rupert is just trying to make a buck. His newspapers classified sections used to be cash cows, and they aren't that anymore. He's just trying to claw that revenue back. So follow the money. Look at the assets he is buying, and how this step might be a way to tie those into the revenue stream.

But really he is grasping at straws. If Google and Bing! and the other search engines don't point readers at his site he isn't going to have any readers. If he has no readers he has no income. (I just saw the flaw in this reasoning... see the next paragraph).

UNLESS: he is trying to freeze the followers of Beck and O'Reilly and their acolytes into a coherent revenue stream. Faux News and Sky News can direct listeners to News Corp pay for content sites. If he gets the brainwashed followers of these clowns hearing nothing but the Faux Party line on TV and get them all paying into News Corp content providers, then 100% of their world view is coming straight from the Faux/News Corp bullion vaults. Think about that angle for a while...

Pretty hypocritical that his news company runs stories like these:

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet



and

Obama Wants to Control the Web



Yeah, Fox News! Complain about internet censorship and then turn around and do exactly what you're preaching about! It's almost as good as Beck's assault on the communist/fascist conspiratorial symbolism hidden in Rockefeller plaza, while neglecting to mention that his company's headquarters are based in that very plaza.

What a bunch of clowns. Can we start lumping Faux News back into the MSM, now, please?

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Someone336]

Oh, they've been hard at work on this issue for awhile now. They're using the copyright excuse to make it happen. Wikileaks.

He doesn't have to "try" to block anything. All you have to do is add a few things to your webpage to get Googlebots to ignore it, as far as I know.



I don't think most of you are considering where the "alternative" news sites get their news from: The mainstream sites.

... then they just add a bunch (more, perhaps) of speculation, opinion and bias before calling it "alternative."

If you don't believe me, just look at this forum. What do all of the stories turn into after they've been run through the ringer of our members.

If the main outlets start charging for the news, the alternative outlets will begin to drop off the radar due to finance and copyright trouble.

Outlets will start to follow suit after Murdoch, and this very Alternative News forum will cease to exist as it does.

Haha, at least that's what he is betting. What will really happen is a few alternative sources, or a few individuals with money to spare will get an account on his site and release the content all over the internet. Lawsuits will start, and doom and gloomers will say it's the end. It won't be.

There is no control over the internet.

News Piracy... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The comments this story has garnered here: Murdoch On Blocking Search Engines: "I Think We Will" accurately mirror the sentiments of ATS members above. Looks like the public, tired of being dumbed down, are waking up to real journalism.











etc...