People reading news for free on the Web, that's got to change.
WHAT?!Murdoch is championing the idea that a large part of our economic troubles has come from... wait for it... wait for it... the lack of subscription fees and payed advertising in newspapers! Hooray, let's blame Google! Yeah, this guy is actually making the argument that free-news is a bad thing, and that it is somehow crippling our economy.
Accordingly, Rupert claims that news papers should charge people to read their websites. Do free-to-the-public news sites not gain sufficient revenue from payed advertisements already? How is this less acceptable, or less helpful to the economy, than payed print advertisement?
Free content with payed advertisement is the future of information marketing. This is not the stagnation of our economy from the dismissal of old methods; it is the evolution of our economy from the creation and adoption of new methods.First of all, the free spreading of news and knowledge is the BEST THING EVER. Intellectual advancements as a race help us immensely, and the internet is solely responsible for the largest intellectual movement in centuries. No one can argue that.
It is ridiculous to think that printed news is somehow a key factor in our yearly earnings and spendings...
Yeah, a dying medium is the linchpin of our nation's economic success. Riiiiiiiiigghhttt.So why would someone make such a ridiculous argument?
Murdoch owns the New York Post and Times of London. Biased, much? Only a substantial amount of greed for ones own sake combined with a preposterous desire to cling to all things old could explain such a ridiculous argument, and his motives are as transparent as his proposals.
Another fantastically ridiculous quote:
Murdoch also says that by linking to newspaper content and making the stories easier for readers to find, Google is taking ad dollars out of its pockets. Murdoch said, "The question is, should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyright... not steal, but take. Not just them but Yahoo."
You can read the full article
here, try not to let your eyes bleed too profusely.
As a side note, I am not arguing that print in itself is entirely obsolete--i.e. books--merely that printed news is. Content that is not time-sensitive is not hindered by print in any way.
What are your thoughts on this?