Tag Results for Rupert Murdoch

Exhibit 1 for the argument that newspapers are doomed: Dinosaur thinking and Supersaurus-sized egos.

New York magazine had this item recently on why the New York Post and the New York Daily News couldn't come together on cost-sharing measures that would have helped the bottom line of both struggling Gotham tabloids. According to New York, Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman and the Post's Rupert Murdoch couldn't put their old emnities aside, even if it meant possibly saving their resective papers.

Incidentally, the issue has a local angle too. A year ago Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell told Beat the Press he tried for years to convince the Boston Globe to share costs like delivery trucks, savings that could have made last year's financial crisis at the Globe a little less painful.

I guess, we'll see in the coming year whether Boston's newspaper war is any more enlightened than New York's.

This will probably be my last post until after Christmas. But I wanted to note that the Standard-Times of New Bedford will erect a pay wall around its Web site starting Jan. 12.

As Jon Chesto of the Patriot Ledger notes, it’s not entirely unanticipated, since the Standard-Times’ owner is Rupert Murdoch, who has launched a crusade against free content. Murdoch’s man in New Bedford is Boston Herald owner Pat Purcell, who says he’ll unveil his own paid-content system sometime next year as well.

Though I think pay walls are a bad idea, the Standard-Times’ system is better than some: you’ll be able to read up to 10 stories a month without paying, which means the paper won’t be completely closing itself off to the outside blogosphere.

Still, it’s hard to imagine that the Standard-Times’ fine Web site, South Coast Today, won’t deteriorate under the new system. It’s a shame, because the paper’s original Web site, www.s-t.com, was a pioneering effort that garnered national attention back in the mid-1990s.

The print edition may well realize some short-term gains — no longer will local readers be able to catch up on news in Southeastern Massachusett for free. But Murdoch and Purcell are turning their seed corn into Fritos.

Photo (cc) by Daniel R. Blume and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

In what could be a clever bid to defuse the controversy stirred up by media owners like Rupert Murdoch, Google has announced that it will allow publishers to set a limit on the number of articles people can access through its search engine without paying.

The News Corp. chairman has called search engines like Google and Yahoo "content kleptomaniacs" for aggregating news content without sharing profits with the companies that create it. He has threatened to block Google from indexing stories produced by News Corp. properties like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

Google officials said yesterday that the company will change it's "First Click Free" program to allow publishers to limit users to five pages per day without either registering or subscribing. It seems as if it's a compromise that could work, since publishers like Murdoch who are hell bent on putting their content behind pay walls could still get the benefit of referrals from Google.

The announcement comes after much reporting, including by our own BTP panelist Dan Kennedy of "Media Nation," that Murdoch was in talks with Microsoft about an exclusive content deal with its new Bing search engine.

I can’t remember the last time the media world was as excited about a business deal that may or may not be consummated as the one involving Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch. The reason, I think, is three-fold.

First, it potentially moves us beyond the tired old debate about pay walls (I say “potentially,” because we don’t know if Murdoch will give up on that misbegotten notion).

Second, it could provide an answer to the question of who should pay whom, and how.

Third, it could represent a monetary boost for paid journalism at a moment when the profession is in the midst of an existential crisis.

(Click "continue" to keep reading.)

Two things are clear about Rupert Murdoch’s pronouncements that he will build a pay wall around his sites, and that he’ll make them invisible to Google’s search engine.

First, he’ll fail utterly if that’s all there is. (How much would you pay for NYPost.com? Yeah, I thought so.) Second, given his track record as a media visionary, we should be cautious not to assume that’s all there is. As I told Chris Lefkow of Agence Presse France a few days ago, Rupe has a history of being two or three steps ahead of everyone else.

Now, it’s unclear what Murdoch may have in mind, and it’s likely that’s because he doesn’t know yet, either. But a media-savvy reader has been feeding me stories suggesting that newspaper publishers — including Murdoch — may be inching toward an embrace with Microsoft, whose well-regarded search engine, Bing, has quickly established itself as the number-two competitor to Google.

(Click "continue" to keep reading.)

More and more newspapers are beginning to charge for their web sites. Newsday is now charging for online content.  The Boston Globe is changing the pricing of its Globe Reader.  Will it make for a healthier news industry?

News executives love to rail against Google as a parasite that steals their content. Yet none dares to insert a simple piece of code that would make their sites invisible to Google’s search engine.

Until now. Rupert Murdoch (photo), the biggest, baddest media mogul of them all, says he’s moving ahead with plans to start charging for content across the News Corp. mediascape. And he adds that when the moment arrives, he will indeed block Google from indexing his content.

Murdoch even goes so far as to say that he’ll eventually mount a legal challenge to the doctrine of fair use, which allows third parties to use small snippets of copyrighted material without permission for certain purposes, including education and criticism — and, in Google’s view, search indexing.

Publishers have long had a love-hate relationship with Google and Google News. On the one hand, Google News, for many people, has established itself as a substitute front page, making newspaper home pages all but irrelevant. On the other hand, many newspaper.coms receive much of their traffic from Google.

Now Murdoch has adjusted the equation to pure hate.

Two predictions:

First, he may enjoy some success in shoring up WSJ.com, by far his highest-quality outlet, which is already partly subscription-based. But if he thinks people will pay for online access to the sagging New York Post or even a successful operation like Fox News, then he’s going to learn a bitter lesson.

Second, by essentially killing his Web sites, he may well succeed in shoring up print circulation. That’s a short-term strategy, but it may be exactly what he’s got in mind.

Photo of Murdoch at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davis is (cc) by the World Economic Forum, and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Keith Olbermann issued his declaration of independence last night. But in doing so, he smeared New York Times reporter Brian Stelter (photo), whose account of a peace settlement between Olbermann's employer, MSNBC, and his nemesis Bill O'Reilly's employer, Fox News, had created the need for Olbermann to renew his feud with O'Reilly in the first place.

Stelter reported last Friday that executives at both networks had moved to stop the on-air sniping between the two hosts. "Bill-O the Clown," Olbermann's pet nickname for O'Reilly, was frequently featured in his "Worst Persons in the World" segment. O'Reilly, for his part, had started taking aim at the corporate agenda of MSNBC's owner, General Electric.

Although Stelter, not surprisingly, was forced to rely quite a bit on unnamed sources, he had an on-the-record comment from GE spokesman Gary Sheffer, who confirmed that a deal had been cut: "We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion. We're happy that has happened."

Stelter also included a quote from Olbermann: "I am party to no deal."

Seems pretty well nailed-down. Yet Olbermann, on last night's "Countdown," designated Stelter as his number-three villain in the "Worst Persons" segment, with O'Reilly coming in at number two. Among other things, Olbermann said:

Problem, Mr. Stelter asks me at least twice last week if there was such a deal, and I told him, on and off the record, there was not. And told him I rather obviously would have to be a party to such a deal. And I told him that not only wasn't I, but I had not even been asked to be by my bosses. And he printed it anyway.

This is intellectually dishonest, as it implies that Stelter deliberately did not use Olbermann's quote because it didn't fit with what he wanted to write. In fact, Stelter did use it, and he placed it in context. It's very clear from Stelter's story that the deal had been cut by higher-ups, and that Olbermann might or might not go along.

(Click "continue" to read more.)

Yesterday the Boston Globe posted a 1982 article about the day that Rupert Murdoch saved the Boston Herald. Interestingly, the story, by David Wessel, now economics editor for Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, gets into precisely why some old-timers at the Herald, like Joe Fitzgerald, remain angry at the Globe more than 26 years later.

As you will see, in the midst of Murdoch's efforts to buy what was then the Herald American from Hearst, Globe publisher William Taylor sent a telegram to unions at the Herald informing them that any concessions they granted to Murdoch would have to be granted to the Globe as well. The move was seen at the time as an attempt by the Globe to nix the deal and hasten the Herald American to its grave, though Taylor denied that was his intent.

Murdoch threatened to file a lawsuit against the Globe charging the paper with violating antitrust laws, but was also quoted as saying: "I might have done the same thing in their circumstance."