Rupert Murdoch threatens Google

[Chris]

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said. "We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct: users who click through to screened WSJ.com articles from Google searches are usually offered the full text of the story without any subscription block. It is only users who find their way to the story through the Wall Street Journal's website who are told they must subscribe before they can read further.

Murdoch could block Google searches entirely | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

[concept]

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said. "We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct: users who click through to screened WSJ.com articles from Google searches are usually offered the full text of the story without any subscription block. It is only users who find their way to the story through the Wall Street Journal's website who are told they must subscribe before they can read further.

Murdoch could block Google searches entirely | Media | guardian.co.uk

Was that before or after he held fundraisers for Hillary?

 

[xsited1]

So Murdoch wants people to pay for things on the internet? How utterly ridiculous!!!!!

 

[Ame®icano]

So Murdoch wants people to pay for things on the internet? How utterly ridiculous!!!!!

Hell yeah, people are entitled to it.

 

[Oddball]

So Murdoch wants people to pay for things on the internet? How utterly ridiculous!!!!!

Hell yeah, people are entitled to it.

They're especially entitled to it when it's from a source they so roundly disparage.

 

[Dr Grump]

It'll never work....

 

[Toro]

It is a way of making News Corp less relevant.

Old media companies are and will continue to be under great stress.

 

[Ravi]

You go Rupert, this is an most excellent idea.

 

[DiveCon]

It is a way of making News Corp less relevant.

Old media companies are and will continue to be under great stress.

and they will continue to LOSE MONEY
if they give away their content for free

 

[DiveCon]

You go Rupert, this is an most excellent idea.

actually, it is a great idea
people will pay for QUALITY content
why do you think the newspapers are going bankrupt?

 

[Dr Grump]

It is a way of making News Corp less relevant.

Old media companies are and will continue to be under great stress.

and they will continue to LOSE MONEY
if they give away their content for free

Not if they get their online advertising right...

 

[EriktheRed]

You go Rupert, this is an most excellent idea.

And while you're at it, keep defending what Glenn Beck said to make his show lose advertisers.

 

[DiveCon]

It is a way of making News Corp less relevant.

Old media companies are and will continue to be under great stress.

and they will continue to LOSE MONEY
if they give away their content for free

Not if they get their online advertising right...

but if people don't care to read it, they wont get much for the advertising

 

[DiveCon]

You go Rupert, this is an most excellent idea.

And while you're at it, keep defending what Glenn Beck said to make his show lose advertisers.

his show is still on the air and still has advertisers

Beck 1
CofC 0

 

[Ravi]

You go Rupert, this is an most excellent idea.

actually, it is a great idea
people will pay for QUALITY content
why do you think the newspapers are going bankrupt?

Not my problem. FAUX and the WSJ already have the capability to block google from searching their sites. I'd be fine if they did it...it would simply mean that google users would never again be offended by FAUX News stories...thereby driving their online business into the grave.

 

[Ravi]

You go Rupert, this is an most excellent idea.

And while you're at it, keep defending what Glenn Beck said to make his show lose advertisers.

Oh yeah, I forgot that Rupert agreed that Obama was racist.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said. "We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct: users who click through to screened WSJ.com articles from Google searches are usually offered the full text of the story without any subscription block. It is only users who find their way to the story through the Wall Street Journal's website who are told they must subscribe before they can read further.

Murdoch could block Google searches entirely | Media | guardian.co.uk

\


Who gives a shit, they aren't the only game in town, LOL.....

 

[DiveCon]

You go Rupert, this is an most excellent idea.

actually, it is a great idea
people will pay for QUALITY content
why do you think the newspapers are going bankrupt?

Not my problem. FAUX and the WSJ already have the capability to block google from searching their sites. I'd be fine if they did it...it would simply mean that google users would never again be offended by FAUX News stories...thereby driving their online business into the grave.

google is a piece of shit
LOL

 

[Toro]

It is a way of making News Corp less relevant.

Old media companies are and will continue to be under great stress.

and they will continue to LOSE MONEY
if they give away their content for free

I get it, but they're fracked. Most media is fracked. People will pay for specialist information that is hard to find and value-added but much is not. A decade ago, I used to visit the HQs of the big media companies such as Viacom and News Corp and discuss with executives how they would generate revenues in the future. They kept saying content and that consumers would eventually pay for it. Thus far, most aren't. Media companies have not yet figured out how to mitigate their declining business model.

 

[Ravi]

actually, it is a great idea
people will pay for QUALITY content
why do you think the newspapers are going bankrupt?

Not my problem. FAUX and the WSJ already have the capability to block google from searching their sites. I'd be fine if they did it...it would simply mean that google users would never again be offended by FAUX News stories...thereby driving their online business into the grave.

google is a piece of shit
LOL

Why? Google is free advertising...many people with money to spend have found their way to me through google.

I suppose Rupert could always try the AOL business model...maybe he can offer content and internet access and cater to those that want to buy his service.