Murdoch aims to block Google search

Murdoch aims to block Google search

www.presstv.ir

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch says he will explore ways to block Google from using news content from his global empire.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is not good. I strongly beleive this is part of the new internet laws and the shutdown of the internet as such and or blocking specific websites.

At least ONE news outlet reported this and is against the NWO,

people might argue that Iran is the bad guy, well yeah they arent perfect, but compared to the USA, I reckon they are still a better alternative.

www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)

I beleive this is a false flag, and Murdoch (yes he is Australian) has an alternative motive for this.

This report comes from PressTV, Irans nation media spinners.

the op's source is more than highly questionable.

In fact, PressTv has been found and proven many times at ATS to be anything from spinning to out right lieing.

This story seems a bit dodgy to me. Murdoch's empire is sustained on the same advertising revenue and 'brand awareness' as any other media company. Google links probably generate more site visits and ad-clicks than anything else. Like most people, the reality of major players dictating the content, substance and message of the media doesn't appeal to me. He has a monopoly that influences global politics. He can resent popular search engines linking to his businesses, but he isn't making it happen. The guy wants more power, more money, more numbers and doesn't like competition.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation –

Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards. "I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said. "We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

Greedy oligarch

He's like the little kid that wants to take his ball home. Let him. He'll be back when the ad revenue dips. "Waaaaaaa. Sob. I'm only making a 100 million dollars a year when I want a 150 million dollars! Life is so UNFAIR!"

He's walking proof of Mark Twain's line about lightning being unfairly distributed

As just reported on the BBC:

Murdoch may block Google searches

Rupert Murdoch has said he will try to block Google from using news content from his companies.

The billionaire told Sky News Australia he will explore ways to remove stories from Google's search indexes, including Google News.

And - the actual interview (which provides more context to his statement):



...and the story as reported by a few other 'legitimate' news sources:

Murdoch To Google: I Must Block You (Wait For It …) (Wired Magazine)

Google: Rupert Murdoch can block us if he wants to (The Telegraph)

Will News Corp. Pubs Be Pulled From Google News? (PC Mag)

News Corp. Considers a Google Ban (The Wall Street Journal)

News Corp Sites May Be Removed From Google (Fox News)

Murdoch versus the Net? Game on. (ZDNet UK)

Murdoch could block Google searches entirely (The Guardian UK)

And oddly enough, the articles above were found by the very means Murdoch wishes to have blocked.

[edit on 9/11/09 by Evasius]

OK, I read the article.

Here's one small problem with the journalism here. The attribution of Murdoch's sentiments was given the another News agency, but no direct way of looking at the source was provided.

Also, because of this, the reader will naturally assume this represents the story tagline and we are seeing the whole context of the interview, which the author provides for us with expert flourish.

(EDIT TO ADD) I find it odd that I can't locate the article on Sky News. Maybe it's only in the papers..... (Irony)

Now if I may:

Maurdoch invested himself in the acquisition of traditional media sources to a the most effect of all his peers. His newspapers and magazines are geting the crap kicked out of them by the increasing sophisitication of the information consumers.

Many of his 'boards of directors' who have vested interest in the success of their individual enterprises are i na near state of apoplexy about how they will thrive in an environment where they are not the sole source of news and often get pushed aside by internet coverage.

Murdoch doesn't have to worry much because he owns the whole shebang. It's money in his pocket either way. But if he wants cooperation in editorial policy and other 'consensus-generating' activities, he better keep them happy by letting them knwo that "he's gonna do something about it."

You think he will hamstring Google? Really? Which genreates more revenue? The papers will fail long before Google is turned into some kind of half-assed subscription service.

Unless radical control is suddenly imposed, the internet will give no quarter for that business model... as the RIAA and MPAA have learned, and others are still catching up.

The problem with sudden radical control is that it is the most blatant and targetable breach of social contract and such measures rearely survive very long.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Lavey2


this is not so much about internet laws, more one man or companies wish to make all information they distribute under their control, newscorps (fox/sky ect) argument is that anyone can search on google and read their news storys... the whole reason being people are reading THEIR news, but not from their site, so they dont make that little bit of advertising money.

its really petty and will probably be ditched when they realise they cant win ... i mean, this is google their messing with, newscorps might rule the news papers and airwaves... but google dominates the internet, and thats whopping newspapers AND the airwaves big time!

it all comes down to petty greed at the end of the day... i hope murdochs minions waste a good few million on this before realising how stupid they really are being).

i wouldnt take this as anyone trying to change laws, its just that nothing illegal is really happening, thats why their trying to block google themselfs and that its not courts telling google to stop trawling their data.

See people, press TV doesnt always spin it out, in fact they do report alot of things that people just dont realise and are censored in the western media.

Sure they do censor some things and put a spin to them, but then again WE are guilty of that as well....

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.... "sorry I didnt just say that did I?"


I ment WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION

i dont think anyone was bashing press tv! ... you have to remember that press tv IS owned/ran by a political motivated group and not an independant party .. so you can never be too sure if you will get a bias story from them or not... on this one their right enough, this has been reported for a few weeks now and this is most likely more hot air by murdoch trying to wind google up.

it just baffles me though, why woudl anyone NOT want their links showing up in google?!!?!?!? talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

Not to worry, you'll always have access to alternate reliable sources like presstv, Pravda and Sorcha Faal.

And of course the only news that matters... ATS news.

News costs, especially when you make that news, those costs need to be turned into profit, without it the best fabrications, distortions and lies may be lost and people will be left to rely on 2nd hand truths and rumors.

News as a commodity leaves truth a liability.



Moving out in 34.

For what it's worth, this isn't new, just an extension of what has been happening.

Some sites are charging money for linking to their stories and suing to get it.

I suspect, he has discovered what he feels is a new revenue source.

Also, Google "may" not present him in the best light so this "may be" his childish counter.

Just my 2 cents.

Duplicate Thread Closed.

Continue HERE

Thank you.