This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Rupert Murdoch is worth four billion dollars, and yet he says he has to start charging you next year for access to all of his online news. Yup, that means FoxNews.com, too.
"Quality journalism is not cheap," Murdoch says. He also warns that, to protect that newly for-fee content, "We'll be asserting our copyright at every point." Oh well, there goes my ability to quote Fox News to prove my points.
Note that your favorite local online media mogul (that's me, silly) has net worth of maybe $200,000 (and that might require selling a couple kidneys). I have no plans to start charging for my online content: read, comment, enjoy for free! Of course, contributions are always welcome. If you'd like to help me keep up with the Murdochs (or just spit on their shoes), ring the Tip Jar in the lefthand sidebar.
Think of it this way: would you rather hand over your online mad money to some cranky Australian tycoon or to a friendly, occasionally funny lakeside blogger who will spend your money right here in South Dakota?
Be a yokel... blog local!
Hide Fido (by Andy Horowitz)
-
I coined Noem as the ‘Palin of South Dakota’ when she ran for the state
house, seems I nailed it; America: meet your new Secretary of Homeland
Security. Sh...
1 day ago
I am sure millions of folks will be falling over each other to to pay to read what Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have to say on their Fox News sites.
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone should explain to Murdoch the backlash the AP is experiencing over their efforts to charge web sites for even quoting their content.
This action will stop me from looking at FoxNews dot com. I should stop watching them on television, too. It's bad for my health.
ReplyDeleteThe latest spike in my stomach occurred when they raised the question on television as to whether the government's public option in health care reform will give them control over our bank accounts. They said we'd be stunned over what they found on page 58 of the bill.
I went online and tried to find out what was really in the bill. It turns out the statement is on page 59, not page 58; and it provides for an option in the public plan wherein electronic funds transfers can be conducted -- just as my current insurer does now, and in fact mandates, for the payment of premiums.
Oh, rats! Now I'll have to find my misleading information somewhere else -- as will millions of others. Such will impede, not assist, the FoxNews propaganda machine.
Not that I ever want to back up Murdoch, et al, but it's always seemed stupid to me that so many news outlets who are in the business of charge-for-content (ie: newspapers) are giving away their content on the web--and that the public should be incensed when they cannot obtain it for free. I shouldn't expect book publishers to provide free e-books of the same publications they sell in hard copy off the shelf. Is it any wonder that so many newspapers are going bankrupt by undermining their own business model?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I don't consider Fox to be a news organization. Maybe this will cut down on the number of links to Faux News stories I see in e-mail and on forums.
You know as someone who works in an industry (radio) that gives away content for free 24 hours a day, this is really telling to me.
ReplyDeleteIf you need to charge consumers for content that means your not generating the ad revenue you should be.
If your not getting ad revenue that's is usually because...
A.Your need to hire new sales people (you'd think they would have thought of that)
B.Advertisers don't want to be associated with your content.
C.Not enough people view your content, so nobody wants to advertise.
Options b and c are really bad. Charging is a desperate step.
I can only imagine how that would work in radio. "To continue hearing this weather forecast, please deposit $.50
Matt Groce