Murdoch could block Google searches entirely

News Type: Event — Seeded on Mon Nov 9, 2009 5:40 AM EST

Article Source: Guardian Unlimited

technology, media, google, journalism, stupidity, ignorance, rupert-murdoch

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

Published to:

Red Wolf's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Googlers, Newsvine Technology, Science And Technology
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

7.7

5.5

{"commentId":10569700,"authorDomain":"redwolf"}

Red Wolf

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 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.

{"commentId":10569700,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"redwolf"}

4 votes

#1 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 5:41 AM EST

{"commentId":10570086,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}

Eric Albert

What a corporate thug. This is what is called corporate fascism, corporate tyranny and the best way to screw up his power is to use our social power to take him down.

{"commentId":10570086,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}

5 votes

#1.1 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 7:29 AM EST

{"commentId":10570639,"authorDomain":"terry57"}

Agent 57

would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web

go for it, this way you can charge your way to irrelevance...

{"commentId":10570639,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"terry57"}

5 votes

#1.2 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 8:34 AM EST

{"commentId":10571834,"authorDomain":"CarlZup"}

CarlZup

Just another Grinch with a shriveled up heart, so what else is new?

{"commentId":10571834,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"CarlZup"}

3 votes

#1.3 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 10:03 AM EST

{"commentId":10576519,"authorDomain":"checkerbattery"}

checkerbattery

<sigh>...another geezer who has no clue how the Internet economy works. Shouldn't people like this have some advisors around to let him know when he's being stupid? It's like deciding you need to go on a diet so your solution is to chop off your head.

{"commentId":10576519,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"checkerbattery"}

1 vote

#1.4 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 1:47 PM EST

{"commentId":10579803,"authorDomain":"lewys"}

Lewys

checker, Murdoch is not the only one. For example a few of the recording industry key leaders only recently were finally clued into what an mp3 player was. Leaders of industry rarely look outside their own dominions to understand what drives the public. They simply assume (especially since around the sixties) that the public was to be herded willy-nilly via marketing and industry dominance to whatever they chose to give them. If it is not an immediate interest to them (like say buying that next piece of property, car, boat or whatever) they ignore it. Only those who are directly involved with the public are even dimly aware of what drives consumer interest.

{"commentId":10579803,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"lewys"}

2 votes

#1.5 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 4:05 PM EST

{"commentId":10569758,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

Kathy Gill

Red Wolf - I have a long article on the interview. The man is delusional.

{"commentId":10569758,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

3 votes

#2 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:06 AM EST

{"commentId":10569825,"authorDomain":"bobneve1"}

Wizeguy

Over the summer, Murdoch had announced that he planned to introduce website charges by next year

That's going to be one lonely website. There is an endless amount of free content. Why on earth would I pay a zillionaire to read news I get for free? How many $5000 suits doe's he need to own. I don't watch FOX (FAUX) News or read the WSJ.

{"commentId":10569825,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"bobneve1"}

7 votes

#3 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:33 AM EST

{"commentId":10599557,"authorDomain":"lakeworthguy"}

Florida_kes

The thing is, he knows that the people who do watch Faux News or the WSJ are hooked on that type of....uhmmm.....journalism and will pay to have access to it.

{"commentId":10599557,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"lakeworthguy"}

#3.1 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:54 PM EST

{"commentId":10569843,"authorDomain":"Books83"}

Books83

And he thinks this is a good idea? Taking all of his companies stories off the biggest search engine and throw them behind a pay wall? Ok fine with me I don't have to visit any of those sites to get news. If he wants to sink his companies that is entirely up to him.

{"commentId":10569843,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"Books83"}

6 votes

#4 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:39 AM EST

{"commentId":10569936,"authorDomain":"the-spirit"}

The Spirit

Yeah, because Rupert Murdoch doesn't have the SLIGHTEST idea what he's doing. Pffft. Besides liberals think everything from FNC is bogus anyway.

{"commentId":10569936,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"the-spirit"}

#5 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 7:00 AM EST

{"commentId":10570004,"authorDomain":"Books83"}

Books83

I don't think it is bogus. I just think that more often than not it's sensationalized or riddled with mistakes. And he doesn't have the slightest idea when it comes to the internet. He could probably of gotten away with something like this when the internet was still new but the biggest thing going on right now is free content. While I'm sure some of the more devout readers will pay for the content the majority won't. They will be driven to the sites that don't charge.

{"commentId":10570004,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"Books83"}

5 votes

#5.1 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 7:14 AM EST

{"commentId":10570108,"authorDomain":"buplerum"}

Door King

How would they know what to buy if they can't find it?

{"commentId":10570108,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"buplerum"}

7 votes

#6 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 7:32 AM EST

{"commentId":10570153,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}

jdoyle

Go for it, make Fox even more irrelevant than it already is.

{"commentId":10570153,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}

8 votes

#7 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 7:39 AM EST

{"commentId":10570195,"authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}

Tappy McWidestance

I think this is a great idea. It will make it even easier to find the misinformed Murdock media consumer. They'll be walking around muttering to themselves how they now have to pay to read their "news."

{"commentId":10570195,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}

7 votes

#8 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 7:45 AM EST

{"commentId":10571079,"authorDomain":"sgsteitler"}

jbird

"The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct"

When did facts ever get in the way of a good story, on FOX?! He has little if any credibility!

{"commentId":10571079,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"sgsteitler"}

3 votes

#9 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:11 AM EST

{"commentId":10575071,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

Kathy Gill

He's not talking, in the main, about FOX, guys. He's talking about NEWSPAPERS, specifically the Wall Street Journal in the U.S. and The Times in London and The Telegraph in Australia (among others - News Corp owns about three dozen newspapers).

He also accuses the BBC of copyright infringement and asserts that he can get the courts to curtail linking by restricting fair use. There's a lot more to the 40 minute interview than the "we're gonna block Google" implication.

{"commentId":10575071,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

2 votes

#10 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 12:40 PM EST

{"commentId":10576180,"authorDomain":"sgsteitler"}

jbird

I know he wasnt talking mainly of FOX, but I was illustrating the point that it has NEVER mattered to the man to get an assertion correct.

{"commentId":10576180,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"sgsteitler"}

#10.1 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 1:31 PM EST

{"commentId":10578741,"authorDomain":"redwolf"}

Red Wolf

I'm surprised he's decided to go down this path as he's usually much more tech-savvy.

The major problem with Murdoch's little tantrum is that in the world of media, he's huge, he just forgets that as far as the internet is concerned, he's barely a drop in the ocean. Traffic to all news sites, not just his, is a minuscule fraction of 1%. On top of that, he doesn't produce content that's worth paying for and cutting off a way that allows even the few people who would be willing to pay to find that content, does strike me as a terribly well thought out plan.

Still, it should be interesting to watch Murdoch get even more irrelevant.

{"commentId":10578741,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"redwolf"}

2 votes

#10.2 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 3:21 PM EST

{"commentId":10583168,"authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

Kathy Gill

I'd argue that the WSJ does produce content that some people are willing to pay for -- at least they are able to expense the subscription (finance). Notice that the content on the home page that is "free" is content that you can find anywhere; the content that is behind the firewall, not so much.

{"commentId":10583168,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"uspolitics"}

#10.3 - Mon Nov 9, 2009 6:36 PM EST

{"commentId":10601864,"authorDomain":"ma91744-1"}

ma91744-1401618

I guess I'll just have to use another search engine other than Google.

{"commentId":10601864,"threadId":"719965","contentId":"3476496","authorDomain":"ma91744-1"}

#11 - Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:18 PM EST

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"719965","isPrivate":false}

RED WOLF

Backyard

Murdoch could block Google searches entirely

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

Fort Hood and the new McCarthyism	Guardian Unlimited	Mon Nov 9	12
Pressure builds for radical reform of British tax system to tackle wealth inequality	Guardian Unlimited	Sun Nov 8	3
How far can Lula's stardust scatter?	Guardian Unlimited	Mon Nov 9	0
Murdoch On Google and Pay-To-View	Kathy Gill	Mon Nov 9	4