Article

2009-10-17 Home Front: Politix

Murdoch: White House criticism of Fox increasing ratings

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2009-10-17 00:35|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 In the future successful newspapers will charge for their content and aggregators will largely be excluded

Newspapers won't recover enough to be able to charge for their content and survive. The advent of the internet has placed information at the hands of everyone.

Why should I pay one thin dime for content such as business news when all I have to do it to go to the source and get and then publish the news myself?

Murdoch doesn't get it.

Information is finely grained, and not a tangible product which can be gather to be sold.

As of this moment I can go to the FDIC's website and read a press release, contact a press contact for a few quotes in their press office and then a local banking contact for a local angle, and then voila!

I have a local news story I can release on my website. I have violated no copyright laws and I have done nothing Murdoch will not be doing.

The difference is that I can take readers and eyes that read advertising from his site because my information is free and his isn't.

Posted by badanov 2009-10-17 01:02|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-10-17 01:02|| Front Page Top

#2 I though Murdoch's agenda was changes to the copyright laws and in particular, limits on the 'fair use' provision.

Subscription is never going to fly and the only other way of getting consumers to pay is micropayments (pay per view) which never took off at the consumer level.

Posted by phil_b 2009-10-17 01:47|| 2009-10-17 01:47|| Front Page Top

#3 "And all I can tell you is that it's tremendously increased their ratings,"

....which of course increases our market share and $$$$$$ free market earnings $$$$$$, which this administration could never comprehend.

Posted by Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-10-17 01:57|| 2009-10-17 01:57|| Front Page Top

#4 With the increasing opacity of gov't in general and this regime in particular I expect that Obama & co. will start charging for the "news" that they "develop".

Oh, wait. Didn't they already do that?

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2009-10-17 08:34|| 2009-10-17 08:34|| Front Page Top

#5 We had too many grocers, and supermarkets came along.

We had too many retailers, and big box discounters came along.

Just about every industry has consolidated over the last half-century, for the simple reason that each industry had too much capacity. Steel. Autos. Ship-building. Timber. Airlines.

Now it's the turn of newspapers. We have too many news venues. Too many sources of news. They're going to be consolidated, and we can thank the internet.

Why should I buy news from my hometown big news vendor when I can hop the web and find news anywhere? The hometown newspaper was supposed to be an exclusive, or at least semi-exclusive, aggregator of news (Murdoch is particularly humorous when he tees off on 'aggregators'. What does he think a newspaper is in the first place?). Because of time, distance and production costs, a model that was viable fifty and one hundred years ago no longer is viable.

Fifty years ago if I wanted sports I read the hometown paper (or the Sporting News). For international news I read the hometown paper (or Newsweek). Today I can go anywhere. I'm not tied to a particular vendor.

That very simply means we're going to collapse the number of vendors. Now just as the little grocery stores did with the advent of supermarkets, some small news vendors will survive because they'll occupy a unique niche. They'll vend the small-town news, the births, deaths, kids sports, and local business advertising. But most hometown newspapers are going to go away in favor of a few large, national and international news vendors that will deliver the product via the internet. The large urban newsprint will be dead as a dodo in twenty years. Even the New York Times -- especially the New York Times.

Aggregators? The surviving major vendors will BE the aggregators, just as they've always been.

They'll pay for themselves via advertising. A few might manage subscriptions the way the electronic version of the Wall Street Journal does. But that works only if the vendor delivers real value. Information indeed is finely grained. We'll pay for it when it has value, otherwise we'll look for other ways.

Murdoch is a smart man. He has to understand all this and is just blowing smoke.

Posted by Steve White 2009-10-17 11:37|| 2009-10-17 11:37|| Front Page Top

#6 USA Today trid that and folded.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-10-17 12:00|| 2009-10-17 12:00|| Front Page Top

#7 "...White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told The New York Times earlier this week that Fox News was "undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House."

Just what does she think the "Legacy" media was doing to the Bush White House? This is simply more whining by people completely out of touch with average citizens.

Posted by WolfDog 2009-10-17 12:11|| 2009-10-17 12:11|| Front Page Top

#8 Just to be clear, if cnn weren't on at every airport tv, newsweek at every dentist office, and nyt dropped at every hotel, these business entities would have ceased to exist decades ago.

Posted by swksvolFF 2009-10-17 12:20|| 2009-10-17 12:20|| Front Page Top

#9 The only way the White House can beat Fox News and the Internet is to shut them down Chevez-style. They will try. We must not let them.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2009-10-17 12:47|| 2009-10-17 12:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Maybe Murdoch should look at what has made FOX successful and apply it to his print media.

'course I have to pay a subscription for FOX News....

Posted by Skunky Glins****">Skunky Glins**** 2009-10-17 21:56|| 2009-10-17 21:56|| Front Page Top

23:46 gromky
23:44 gorb
23:17 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:11 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:04 trailing wife
22:31 Cornsilk Blondie
22:15 Pappy
22:07 Pappy
22:05 Mike Kozlowski
22:04 Skunky Glins****
22:02 Mike Kozlowski
21:56 Skunky Glins****
21:44 Alaska Paul
21:30 phil_b
20:02 Anonymoose
19:46 Procopius2k
19:46 Frank G
19:37 JohnQC
19:34 Frank G
19:33 JohnQC
19:32 eLarson
19:20 Old Patriot
19:13 Skunky Glins****
19:09 JohnQC