BF2S Forums Murdoch wants to charge for online content.

well....once everyone becomes a pay service (will happen).  i would pay for it then.

BBC and CNN is enough for me. Oh and UN Wire.

Good news, Murdoch starts charging for his shit. People decide to move to other sources i.e. Reuters, BBC etc. and find them more reliable and written in a professional manner. The Murdoch empire crumbles and falls. Victory for freedom of press.

If only.

I respect Murdochs right to do this. Hes not a dummy, but I have a feeling that it may be a big mistake. I am pretty sure that there will always be decent, free news sites out there, so people would much rather go to them. Not many would subscribe IMO.

Only the most dedicated to his news websites will do it, everyone else will just migrate elsewhere. There's still plenty of non-Murdoch sources out there. The guy focuses mainly on right wing sensationalist media and it doesn't even try to hide it. At least with some other sources, they don't deliberately try to be so biased and sensationalist, but it's mainly the sensationalism which pisses me off. They blur the line between entertainment and news too much.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Only the most dedicated to his news websites will do it, everyone else will just migrate elsewhere. There's still plenty of non-Murdoch sources out there. The guy focuses mainly on right wing sensationalist media and it doesn't even try to hide it. At least with some other sources, they don't deliberately try to be so biased and sensationalist, but it's mainly the sensationalism which pisses me off. They blur the line between entertainment and news too much.

you really still dont get it do you?  its quite simple.  they saw a niche that was untapped...conservative views.  MSNBC finally pulled their head out and went to the left...untapped also.

mikkel wrote:

Murdoch is an old fashioned bait-and-switch tycoon. He offers his material for free, and then denounces it as not being a viable business strategy. He offers up his content for indexing, and then cries foul when news aggregation services do so. He fully misunderstands the nature of the Internet, and he is trying his best to bite the hand that feeds him.

His dilapidated view of the world ensures his failure in this venture.

Couldn't have said it better.

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Murdoch is an old fashioned bait-and-switch tycoon. He offers his material for free, and then denounces it as not being a viable business strategy. He offers up his content for indexing, and then cries foul when news aggregation services do so. He fully misunderstands the nature of the Internet, and he is trying his best to bite the hand that feeds him.

His dilapidated view of the world ensures his failure in this venture.

ohnoez, people want to make money for work. What is the world coming to?!?!?

It always makes me laugh when people get pissed off that a website is trying to make money. The same people whine when music piracy sites get shut down and the same people that view open source products as the be all, end all. I hope they all end up working for one of those sites trying to rub two pennies together to pay the rent one day.

Uh, what? How could you possibly draw so many wrong and entirely irrelevant conclusions from that post, and simultaneously fail to address any of it?

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ohnoez, people want to make money for work. What is the world coming to?!?!?

It always makes me laugh when people get pissed off that a website is trying to make money. The same people whine when music piracy sites get shut down and the same people that view open source products as the be all, end all. I hope they all end up working for one of those sites trying to rub two pennies together to pay the rent one day.

Uh, what? How could you possibly draw so many wrong and entirely irrelevant conclusions from that post, and simultaneously fail to address any of it?

Bite the hand that feeds him? Your entire rant was about how you feel that all news should be free. Where does news come from? Is it reported by individuals or are paid reporters sent out to cover news and write stories? How do you expect the man to make any money to pay salaries if all the stories are given away for free?

I think you need to step back, take a deep breath, dispose of all of your erroneous assumptions, and type out a new post that doesn't rest entirely on false characterisation.

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I think you need to step back, take a deep breath, dispose of all of your erroneous assumptions, and type out a new post that doesn't rest entirely on false characterisation.

Then explain what your statements meant. I took it as the normal internet whining rant whenever something gets a price tag.

My statements meant precisely what my statements said. I find his business practices to be abhorrent, and his approach to online media archaic in its reliance on concepts inapplicable in this market.

I do not have anything against people making money for their products and services. You drew that out of thin air.

I do not shed a tear when music piracy sites get shut up. I have no idea where you got that from.

I have no special preference for open source software. What the hell?

I do not feel that all news should be free. Be serious here.

Red Forman wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I think you need to step back, take a deep breath, dispose of all of your erroneous assumptions, and type out a new post that doesn't rest entirely on false characterisation.

Then explain what your statements meant.

he likes to be a condescending asshole.  its what he does man.  dont worry.

Run along now, marine.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-10-17 06:37:18)

Red Forman wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I think you need to step back, take a deep breath, dispose of all of your erroneous assumptions, and type out a new post that doesn't rest entirely on false characterisation.

Then explain what your statements meant.

he likes to be a condescending asshole.  its what he does man.  dont worry.

I see that.

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Then explain what your statements meant. I took it as the normal internet whining rant whenever something gets a price tag.

My statements meant precisely what my statements said. I find his business practices to be abhorrent, and his approach to online media archaic in its reliance on concepts inapplicable in this market.

I do not have anything against people making money for their products and services. You drew that out of thin air.

I do not shed a tear when music piracy sites get shut up. I have no idea where you got that from.

I have no special preference for open source software. What the hell?

I do not feel that all news should be free. Be serious here.

All that and you said nothing at all. What business practices of his do you find to be abhorrent? How is his approach to online media archaic? You're assuming that your audience shares the same knowledge you do and you're failing to understand that most people do not know the intricacies of how News Corp functions. If I misunderstood what your previous post stated, it was because you yourself failed to deliver a post that was comprehensible.

I referred you to my first post, because what I had said, and the answers to your questions, had been posted there. That you chose to wholly ignore the contents and reply with pointless assumptions and characterisation is not my problem.