Print
Rupert Murdoch and other News Corp bigwigs have long complained that aggregators like Google are profiting from the works of others, leading some to question why the news conglomerate doesn't just make its sites invisible to search. "I think we will," was Murdoch's reply when asked this very question by Sky News political editor David Speers.
Murdoch's plan is to charge Internet users access for online content, a move which has become a hot topic as of late as news sites look to turn a profit on the information superhighway. What it boils down to is that Murdoch and others who share his view don't support the idea of news aggregators getting a free ride by linking someone's else's content. Others argue that by linking to the original source, it directs traffic to sites like News Corp that they might not otherwise have had, but Murdoch doesn't agree.
"What's the point of having someone come occasionally who likes a headline they see in Google, come to us? The fact is, there's not enough advertising in the world to go around to make all the websites profitable," Murdoch stated in an interview with Speers. "We'd rather have fewer people come to our websites, but paying."
Murdoch has voiced his displeasure with news aggregators before, but this is the first time he's talked about removing content from search engines, mUmBRELLA.com reports.
If you have a little shy of 40 minutes to spare, check out the interesting interview here.
Comments are closed on this article
Saltyone
November 20, 2009 at 11:16am
Murdoch is losing it. Good for him if he wants to turn his back on the world web and milk a handful of faithful subscribers.
I still buy and enjoy the occasional newspaper (rarely for news) and I do worry about how I will start my fireplace when newspapers cease to exist. Back to rubbing two sticks together I suppose.
MyWayNYC
November 15, 2009 at 9:30am
Its amazing how this Dude show's his Flabby face & here we are, Going off about Poitico crap...Truth is they all have very Obvious agendas of herding those Masses of fools that want to be led into there own corrals!....Not me i say- screw em all!
The UF.C rules
AKA T'Challa Of Wakanada
mesiah
November 09, 2009 at 10:08pm
While they are removing news corp from google, maybe its time to remove murdoc from life support. The old geezer can't move on from the past, so maybe we should take away the future :P
QUINTIX256
November 09, 2009 at 5:23pm
So many major webservices are simply not profitable. Youtube is a glaring example. Of those that are, many of them funded by ad-click-following pyramid schemes, the latest "accai berry shocking news", and fake ad-clicks (what I like to call “click masturbation”.) Hosting “user generated content” in the cloud, or any content in the cloud has costs, and there needs to be effective means to pay for those costs. Apparently the $300+ a month that people spend on communication (I’m including the cell phone, the cable plan, etc…) isn’t enough to cover more than the cost of connecting to content.
You can have your recession. I'm not participating.
w2ed
November 09, 2009 at 4:07pm
Mr. Murdoch may be happy with fewer, paying suck - errr, customers, but I'd be willing to bet that within the first year of him changing his sites like Hulu and MySpace from advertising-driven websites to paying customer websites that they will only make a quarter - at most - of what they were making prior to that change. There's simply not enough people who'd be stup- err, willing - to pay for what is offered.
I can guarantee, with the number of free options out there, that unless the job and money situation changes, I won't be among the stupid. Many of my friends are ditching MySpace because of all of the problems with the site, and while I still like it, I'm not going to pay for something I can't afford.
nekollx
November 09, 2009 at 3:08pm
"Goggleis forcing me to share my ball,*huff* I'm going home!"
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
mgalletly
November 09, 2009 at 2:44pm
Leaving aside the fact that, by their own admission, they don't do news at all but commentary, and that the average viewer of Fox Commentary Channel is an idiot only slightly dumber and less useful to society than a conservatard, I have no problem at all with them denying themselves the google-driven traffic.
They could, of course, simply update their robots.txt file, but instead they're trying this stupid public relations ploy. Just like a right-winger--don't do anything substantive, just sit around and whine about how unfair it all is.
lunchbox73
November 10, 2009 at 7:28am
Conservatard? My you're a witty one. Did you come up with M$ for Microsoft as well?
QUINTIX256
November 09, 2009 at 5:15pm
They have news and commentary sections just like every news outlet; MaximumPC included. They just have a number of conservative commentators who are willing speak their minds, which for some reason drives a number of people with opposing views nuts.
You can have your recession. I'm not participating.
snapple00
November 09, 2009 at 3:04pm
o0o0o0o Sounds like someone has some personal beef with a whole political party!
mgalletly
November 09, 2009 at 4:39pm
You got me there! Whatever shall I do now that you've pegged it?
</sarcasm>
PawBear
November 09, 2009 at 2:32pm
Ok, now that I have your attention, let's balance these comments, shall we. Even geeks can be conservatives and dislike liberal points of view.
Paid content won't work, whether Fox, NBC, or CNN. I'll find my news elsewhere.
dullthud
November 09, 2009 at 2:28pm
They don't seem to get the fact that they are doomed. Traditional news distribution is a dying business model, the internet makes it obsolete. As more and more people turn to social networking sites and blogs that give you eyewitness accounts and unfiltered, instant feedback, the current news providers are being made unnecesary. There is an industrial revolution goiing on RIGHT NOW, and a lot of businesses are being desrtoyed. The majority of consumers have not switched over yet, but, it's only a matter of time. Poor Rupert trying to hold back the sea.
brainwins
November 09, 2009 at 2:26pm
Yeah, sure, go ahead. Charge us for reading your sites.
That way we can show you how little we give a shit about them.
Tekzel
November 09, 2009 at 2:15pm
The thing that I am most amused by here are the responses from mostly liberal leaning readers that want to eradicate a biased news source that they don't agree with. How is that any different than right leaning people that want to eradicate the liberal news sources? Instead of spending so much energy hating on Fox news, spend a little bit on evaluating the news yourself and determining how you feel about it on an individual basis and don't let the source think for you.
For the record, I refuse to be labeled and think both liberals and conservatives are weenies that need to get a life.
MyWayNYC
November 15, 2009 at 9:10am
And i thought i was the only, BRAVO on ur comment.... away with the Lazy Crazies....Form your own opinion PPL!
AKA T'Challa Of Wakanada
rclamp
November 09, 2009 at 8:21pm
I think you miss the point. You said "news" source. Fox News is NOT news. I understand that there's an inherent bias in any reporting, but Fox is the purest form of propaganda I have ever seen in my 26 years on earth. Your comment would make a lot of sense to me if it were a legitimate news source, but unfortunately a lot of people believe that what Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc. say is gospel. Cable news in general is a joke and if Mr. Murdoch wants to make it more difficult to access his drivel, then more power to him.
Tekzel
November 10, 2009 at 7:16am
Words mean things:
"Main Entry: newsFunction: noun plural but singular in construction
1 a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information <I've got news for you> c : something having a specified influence or effect <the rain was good news for lawns and gardens — Garrison Keillor> <the virus was bad news>
2 a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast b : matter that is newsworthy"This is from the dictionary. I would say that a number of those definitions cover the information that is dispensed, for good or ill, by the Fox "News" channel. Fine, if you don't agree with it. I don't agree with much of what I hear that they say either. But, I am not ignorant enough to attempt to redefine the word "news" to fit my personal agenda either.
rclamp
November 10, 2009 at 7:46am
Why are you calling me ignorant? Your dictionary definition 1a says it all: "a report of recent events." Fox News/MSNBC/whatever cable news channel you watch does not simply report recent events, they spread... wait for it...
prop⋅a⋅gan⋅da:
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
Please show me where I'm wrong and I don't think you're justified in calling me ignorant until you can flip a few more pages past the "n" section in your dictionary.
Tekzel
November 10, 2009 at 8:07am
I think you are demonstrating my point quite adequately. Do I really have to paint you a picture? Can you not step just a few paces outside of your biased hatred and examine the things you are saying with a shred of objectivity? If not, I feel for you, really I do. You and your ilk are what is wrong with the world in general, and this country specifically. On BOTH sides of this ridiculous and broken two party system we have.
Edit: I don't want to be accused of not answering your question, so here it goes. Fox news DOES report recent events. They may add commentary YOU don't agree with, but they DO report the events. They disseminate "previously unknown information", even considering the previously mentioned disagreement. And, whether this is a good or bad thing is completely subjective, they certainly have an influence on some people. That covers part 1 of the definition, would you like to continue this goofy argument as to whether Fox News is "news"? Maybe next we can argue whether the color red is indeed red.
rclamp
November 10, 2009 at 8:41am
Quick update: idk if links are allowed, but this gets to the heart of the point I'm trying to make. #'s 3, 4 and 5. If you disagree with it, fine. Happy computing/gaming/whatever.
http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html
rclamp
November 10, 2009 at 8:20am
Tekzel, I have shown no biased hatred whatsoever, I am just making a point that obviously you do not agree with. You seem to be spreading a bit of hate with your last post. Do not try to put me in a box and call me a liberal nut because you do not know me.
I personally think it is scary that we have outlets in this country that do not report news and have objective discussion, but rather spread lies and stories in a ridiculous push for ratings. For objective discussion, NPR is a great source - there I hear conservatives and liberals making excellent points and engaging in intelligent debate all the time. Just the other night I listened to a roundtable economic debate with prominent conservatives and liberals at leading academic institutions. That is not what I hear on Fox News nor on any of these other cable news outlets that are broadcasting 24/7 and are so desperate for ratings that they make up stories, spread rumors, or yell at people on air for having opposing viewpoints.
I have no idea why we are arguing about this on MaximumPC, but your last response is quite scary because you are saying I am what is wrong with the world. Me? I am looking for decent reporting standards and journalistic integrity and you say that me and my ilk are what is wrong with the world? Take a step back and examine that objectively.
Tekzel
November 10, 2009 at 9:09am
This is going to be my last post on this, as it has become pointless. I can't really summon the energy to address all of your issues, but there are one or two that I can touch upon.
When I made the comment about "you and your ilk", I thought it was absolutely clear (and still do) that I was referring to the politically polarized folk out there, both conservative and liberal. Based upon your posts, I feel confident that you are highly liberal in your leanings. The more polarized a person is the more vitriolic their political statements seem to become. Sure, maybe the adjective "hateful" was a bit provocative, but I don't think it was that far out.
Regarding their objectivity, the definition of news, which seems to be the heart of this disagreement, does not call for objectivity. This all started because you seemed determined to redefine the word "news", which, by the way, is a favored tactic of soldiers on both sides of the political battle. I called you out on this and it escallated from there. Are they good journalists? Of course not, I will agree with that. Is Fox News a news outlet? Of course they are. Whether you like it or not. I will go so far as to say that biased journalism is the rule rather than the exception. This is not an optimal situation, but life goes on and we do what we can.
Last, if you are "scared" by my response you have bigger issues. The quest for journalistic integrity is a laudable effort. Unfortunately, in this day and age it is probably a fools errand, but go for it. Even NPR carries an obvious bias. Granted, they don't fly the flag loud and proud as many others do, but they are human just like all of us. It would take a machine to completely disregard their own views and opinions when reporting a news story.
rclamp
November 10, 2009 at 9:42am
This will also be my last post on the subject.
I get most of my news from the Wall Street Journal, so I wouldn't call myself highly liberal, despite what you think you know about me. The WSJ, while very conservative, tends to make rational arguments for conservatism, which is nice and refreshing compared to Fox.
I'm not going to get into your ridiculous semantic debate about the definition of news. What about the definition of propaganda? You're saying propaganda is news? Perhaps the difference lies in truth and impartiality. Maybe it's subtle, but I'm positive there's a difference. You keep saying I'm trying to redefine a word, but when I refer to news I mean reporting of events, not arguing back and forth with obvious bias, spreading lies, and fomenting hatred. Yes, words certainly do mean things. There's a subtle difference in "bad" and "awful." Much smaller though than the difference between "news" and "propaganda." I fail to see why you do not acknowledge this, because I really believe we're on the same page for the most part, but it seems that you just want to make me look like an idiot by throwing up dictionary definitions and paying no heed to the nuance. Perhaps you're just one of those people who likes arguing in circles or disagreeing for arguments' sake. For whatever reason, people who sincerely think they are a lot smarter than others tend to behave like that from my experience in the computer engineering and finance worlds. Anyway, I digress.
I said in a previous post that there's no such thing as pure impartial reporting, but there's a big difference between Fox and NPR. It is possible to at least TRY for journalistic integrity, and that used to happen quite a bit before cable news took over the spotlight.
Walnut
November 09, 2009 at 10:32pm
This is a really silly point to be making. I don't think I'll ever forget the moment when MSNBC's Chris Matthews announced on air that he felt a "thrill" going up his leg when he heard Obama speak. "I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."
Does that seem like reporting to you? It's really remarkable how many people don't realize that every single cable news channel we have available is biased as all hell. Olberman and Beck serve largely the same purpose. Beck is decidedly less sane, but they're both propagandists, not reporters. The only reason Beck seems like such a radical is that he's actually, surprisingly, demonstrating some capacity to rally people to his [somewhat deluded] cause. He and the rest of his party are the underdogs. The sooner you realize that all the television news media in this country is politically charged, the better.
For more on Matthews's rantings about Obama as Jesus and other absurdities that easily rival anything that Beck's said on an insanity scale, take a look at this link to a Huffington Post article (which features a heavy liberal bias, by the way): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-thi_n_86449.html
Walnut
November 09, 2009 at 2:30pm
Well said. News Corp's idiocy has nothing to do with their political affiliation. But don't take my word for it. Murdoch has expressed embarrassment toward the handling of Fox News multiple times in the past. The problem stems from the fact that he's an idiot, not that Fox is conservative.
nekollx
November 09, 2009 at 2:28pm
excuse me? News corps says "naya we don't want google stealing our news!"
all most of us are saying is "alright then. Call us when you move into the 21st century" no agengas just geeks tired of idots who can't adapt
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
roleki
November 09, 2009 at 1:40pm
Wow. In essence he's saying "We have seen the future, and we choose not be part of it. Follow us!"
MleB
November 09, 2009 at 1:17pm
- and Rupe seems content enough to present his conservative, republican and boorish views as the antipodes of true journalism in much of his television and print empire. If Google (or others) are not able to access News Corp information as sources of reference, so much better for the web.
Ravenhurst
November 09, 2009 at 1:03pm
Mistakes like this is what made Prodidy Internet Service go under.
Hey, we're not making money off of emails. Lets charge a small fee to send one, and profit!!!
Fail.
-----------<br>Ravenhurst
stradric
November 09, 2009 at 12:39pm
Go for it Rup. The only people who are actually going to pay to view the Fox News tabloids are hard core right wingers. And anybody ripping off right wingers is OK in my book. That's less money they can donate to doctor-killing anti-choicers or braindead politicians.
Navydoc2024
November 09, 2009 at 3:39pm
Admittedly, this will probably not help Fox News in the least bit. But some people who consider themselves conservative also happen to be doctors and think most liberal (ie socialist) ideas are braindead and by association your politicians. As to the topic, it is unlikely to succeed secondary to the multiple other news sources. In contrary to what everyone here seems to think, primary unedited content is not always and USUALLY isn't better. If you think that the news channels (all news channels CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc) are biased, wait until you see the crap that comes from blogs and the like.
nekollx
November 09, 2009 at 12:34pm
kthanxbai
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Frameboy
November 09, 2009 at 12:25pm
Fox news is just a bad reality show anyway...
I'd rather watch Paris Hilton is my new BFF.
Lost_Intelligence
November 09, 2009 at 12:40pm
Since when has Fox been News? The Daily Show had it best with their segment. As they broke it down, Fox News (the 24 hour cable channel) is only 9 hours of "news".
...and I'm a moderate Republican...
rclamp
November 09, 2009 at 11:55am
Better yet, go ahead and completely eradicate Fox News. Don't just half-a$& it by removing it from Google.
