Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Nov 2009 14:58 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 395966
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm less worried that he'll be directly "successful" in creating paywalls and more worried that he's just building a facade of "Help, the evil internet is killing the news!" so that politicians will introduce various kinds of damaging legislation to help prop up him and people like him. With my super-cynical hat on, given a Murdoch endorsement can tip an election, it's not really in the interests of any governing party to cross him.
The most probable outcome from all of this is that premimum news content provided by NewsCorp will be licensed by both Microsoft *and* Google from now on; furthermore, there will be advertising revenue-sharing. Google will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it, but it will eventually have no choice, because it doesn't want to give Microsoft the title "king of Internet news search".




Member since:
2005-07-06
I don't know, I *wish* it were the case that Murdoch didn't know what was going on. But I worry about this - he's not stupid as a businessman or a lobbyist AFAIK. Specifically, various people are suggesting he's busy making a case to mislead / give an excuse to politicians to "regulate the internet" in some moronic way.
I'm less worried that he'll be directly "successful" in creating paywalls and more worried that he's just building a facade of "Help, the evil internet is killing the news!" so that politicians will introduce various kinds of damaging legislation to help prop up him and people like him. With my super-cynical hat on, given a Murdoch endorsement can tip an election, it's not really in the interests of any governing party to cross him.