More like this
Murdoch papers to charge for online news
Rupert Murdoch announces a radical rethink, saying quality journalism cannot be given away
So, at the end of a financial year that proved "the most difficult in recent history" for News Corp, Rupert Murdoch has announced that the days of reading his newspapers for free on the internet will soon be over.
In a move that could prove just as revolutionary as the move to Wapping in 1986, when in one bound he cast off the shackles imposed by the old print unions, Murdoch says that within a year the Times and the Sun in London and the Post in New York will all be charging for access to their websites.
"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good journalism," he said yesterday as he announced a $3.4bn loss for News Corp, which owns 20th Century Fox, Fox News and Sky TV as well as newspapers.
News Corp's executives are still to decide how much exactly will have to paid by online readers and for what. But Murdoch said he was not scared about losing readers. "If we are successful, we will be followed by all," he predicted.
That is exactly what he told his editors in 1986 - and he was right. But recent moves by other titles to charge have not been a success - the New York Times, for instance, had to abandon an experimental $50 annual charge for reading its columnists - and Murdoch's move is hugely divisive.
Among those cheerleading for online charges are many of his own senior lieutenants, who have been watching advertising drift away from print to online. Robert Thompson, editor of Murdoch's latest acquisition, the Wall Street Journal - the only Murdoch title already charging - does not just want all newspapers to charge, he also wants a clampdown on 'news aggregation' sites which he describes as "parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet".
On the other side are the new media tyros who says it's time for the print journalism dinosaurs to accept their fate. Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, said recently that journalism may one day become a part-time pursuit rather than a business.
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING:Matt Wells in the Guardian: "It's not the first time that news organisations have flirted with charging for online content. The New York Times hoisted a pay wall around its columnists, only to find that everyone stopped reading them. The elephant in the (British) room is the BBC - which is, in effect, the biggest free news website in the world... one thing is certain: a new round of Murdoch-led lobbying to clip the BBC's online wings."
Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, talking to Der Speigel: "Maybe media won't be a job at all, but will instead be a hobby. There is no law that says that industries have to remain at any given size. Once there were blacksmiths and there were steel workers, but things change."
Robert Thompson, editor of the Wall Street Journal, talking to the
Australian: "Aggregators like Google .. have little incentive to recognise the value they are trading on that's created by others... Google encourages promiscuity - and shamelessly so - and therefore a significant proportion of their users don't necessarily associate that content with the creator."
Bobbie Johnson in the Guardian: "A divisive split has emerged between those who believe that readers must be forced to pay for access to stories or see traditional reporting disappear altogether, and those who believe that a great deal of the information we consume each day is merely a commodity, and journalism must adapt itself to the changing environment." ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
So Rupert Murdoch has announced that the days of reading his newspapers for free on the internet will soon be over.
Am I bothered?
Within a year the Times and the Sun in London and the Post in New York will all be charging for access to their websites. Do I care? I do not usually buy their papers or look at their websites.
I like the Beeb and their webby! Quite happy to pay the licence fee for what is, generally, a good service.
I also choose at the moment to pay Sky's exorbitant charge to watch my rugby union tho' for how much longer? This is presaently under review by the wife! If Rupert goes down the swanny will I not sleep better?
He not only expects you to read the Nazi spew in his publications - he expects you to PAY to read it!!
I hope this is a huge failure and this Ocker goes crashing into bankrupcty.
Whether you like Mr Murdoch or not, he has a point in that free content cannot be sustainable forever. I subscribe to a weekly newsletter that comes in two formats. The free version has 4 articles and adverts. The paid version has 8 articles and no adverts. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
If Murdoch's plan is successful, other dead tree newspapers will follow suit. I can see Blogger and Word Press doing the same thing in the future: free blogs but with adverts, or pay for the service and get rid of the ads.
"Quality journalism is not cheap,..." O.K. What the hell does that have to do with any of the trash Rupert Murdoch inflicts on the poor unthinking masses. Does this Dark Lord actually beleve the schloch his minions produce? Does anyone think he cares about the damage he's done to freedom and democracy?
Perhaps with less news we would all be a lot more content!
Rupert Murdoch is one reason why visiting aliens would want to destroy this planet. He represents humanity at its lowest ebb.
Poor old Rupert lost 3.4 billion. It is good to see such an arrogant selfish man lose so much, I normally wouldn't be so cruel but this man deserves all the bad press he gets. Most have disowned Rupert's print media for other online news outlets and the trend will continue. He lost any respect I had for him when he left his loving and supportive first wife.
Anything Murdoch touches is not worth dealing with. I don't want to read the Times or the Sun in London or the New York Post. I won't have a bar of SKY TV and can't watch Fox News here in NZ for which I am very thankful. Its visible face seems to be staffed by gibbering idiots. If Murdoch's empire goes down the gurgler I won't shed a tear. Hopefully the $3.4bn loss will be the first of many more to come leaving Rupert bare, if you will excuse the pun.
Spot on, Mr Simmons. Maybe Mr Murdoch is showing his age in decreasing judgment as much as his rage at people getting something for free from his Empire?
Why should journalists not write directly for the web. I don't want to handle messy newspaper which then needs to be recycled. Any news will be happily forced upon me by radio or TV. Mr Murdoch, I stopped buying newspapers years ago and you are constantly sending me money off coupons to try and draw me to the Sun and News of the World. Yuk!
C'mon Mudorch, giz an example of a story of value that your reptilian reporters have uncovered, in the last 6 months, just to make it easy.
T&B, sleaze & gossip, rabid xenophobic, right wing political coverage - why would anyone with several functioning neurones pay for that?
One need only look at the websites of even your better/least loathesome rags and compare the topics with the most hits with the dead tree version. As a large up market emporium owner once replied to a newspaper editor complaining that the store didn't advertise in his rag "Sir, your readers would be our shoplifters".
Rupert, relax, enjoy your money/younger wife.
'Quality journalism' and 'The Sun' don't belong together on the same page. Murdoch's sickness continues apace; his greed dominating everything. When is enough enough? The disease of the rich is never to be satisfied with what you have. He may find no one wants to read his tawdry rags once they have to pay for the privilege. With the internet full of bloggers far more interesting to read than tame Murdoch journos, who will pay to read their opinions?