Skip to main content

Not so fast, Rupert!

A few days ago Rupert Murdoch, when presenting the latest accounts for his News Corp. - not a good "result" by the way - asserted people would have to pay if they wanted to read quality journalism on the net.

Hold on, Rupert! The reaction from your prospective customers has been less than favourable - as The SMH reports:

"Readers of the Rupert Murdoch-owned news.com.au website have panned his announcement that pay walls are to be erected around all News Corp-owned news websites.

A comment thread attached to a report about the announcement contained about 140 replies from readers – most of then opposed to the move and many of them threatening to quit News Corp websites when charges are applied.

The reaction of Bill of Bendigo was typical of the type of response on the thread: “I'm clearing my bookmarks right now,” he wrote. “Bye Bye.”

The thread was later removed from the story and buried, although the link itself was still live at the time of writing.

Speaking during the announcement of News Corp's full-year earnings, Murdoch predicted that move would prove a success and that others would follow his lead.

“Quality journalism is not cheap,” the 78-year-old mogul said. “An industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting.”

The reference to "quality journalism” has also come in for its fair share of ridicule from news.com.au readers.

"'Quality reporting does not come cheap.' I agree," reads a comment posted by Dean of Brisbane. "But we are talking about News Corp here - not quality reporting. I currently pay exactly what I think it is worth - FREE."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more