Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp. said that he’s going to charge for all the online content of news sites, the Financial Times reports:

Rupert Murdoch has vowed to charge for all the online content of his newspapers and television news channels, going well beyond his prediction in May that the company would test pay models on one of its stronger papers within the year.

The comments by News Corp’s chairman came as he predicted a "high single digit" rebound in the group’s operating profits next year. The worst of the media sector slump might be behind the company, he said, as he reported "some good signs of life" in advertising.

Newspaper and television revenues would be down "very low double digits" next year, but growth in cable properties such as Fox News would leave advertising revenues flat and total revenue up 4 per cent. (read the rest)

Fox News was the lone bright spot for News Corp.  Here’s the thing Mr. Murdoch,  I understand you are looking for ways to turn things around at News Corp, but  I already pay too much just to be online.  So I’ll be darned if I’m going to pay to read news online.  You see I’m Dutch (read cheap frugal).  You know how copper wire was invented right?  Two Dutchmen fighting over a penny.  So as long as there are other news sources that have free access it’ll be so long to Fox News.  My fear is that others will follow suit.

So I hope you fail miserably in this endeavor.

HT: Drudge Report

14 comments
  1. Hi!
    I’m from the BBC programme World Have Your Say. We were considering discussing this issue on our show later today. I came across your blog, and I was hoping to find out more about the opinion you expressed here.
    Do email me with a number I could call on. I’d love to talk to find out more.
    Thanks!
    Karunya

  2. Shane, I totallly agree with your posts!!! I have satillite and I have Fox News on when I have the t.v. on I don’t mind the commercials that are on FoxNews.com. Pay Extra? I don’t think so!!

    I possibly could agree that a Newspaer like the Pioneer Press, could give thier (paid physical paper doorstop subcribers) the opportunity to have extendend coverage on thier website or offer or have a “Plus Subscription” that gives people the “Story behind the Story” This hopefully would give more money for local journalists to truly investigate stories.

    Murdoch, may go with the model that you see at PJTV or World Magazine.

  3. As a news organization, News Corp. is really not terribly broad in the US. They’ve got the Wall St. Journal, but that’s mostly a financial paper. Other organizations provide better and deeper coverage of general news. I honestly barely notice their news organization and like M. Hovda, prefer to support local journalists — Local investigative reporting has a huge impact and has taken the hardest hit.

    1. @Argon, true, why do you think local papers have been hard hit? I mean I don’t think that the recession is the only problem. They were bleeding circulation numbers before that. Part of it I’m sure is online news, but I know there are many like me who won’t subscribe to papers who allow their liberal bias to jump out of the editorial/opinion section and into the news – and how they present the news.

      I had actually forgot that WSJ is owned by them. I enjoy their online stuff – that’s going to stink. What I read on Fox News’ website I can find other places. I just hope this doesn’t start a trend.
      .-= Shane Vander Hart´s last blog ..The Shaping of the American Evangelical Mind =-.

      1. Craig’s List and Ebay took out a chunk of the ad pages that supported local papers. I think circulation numbers were also dropping, well before the internet. Consolidation of local papers has been going on for at least a couple decades. Readership is down (people simply read less than they used to) and that also hurts ad revenues.

        I expect the major news services to continue doing a ‘reasonable’ job investigating ‘big’, national stories and so I’m less worried about that aspect. However, there is a lot of stupid & bad stuff being done locally (graft, influence pendling, theft & etc.), if only on a much smaller scale, that nonetheless is very important to people in smaller communities. Also, there are great, local events & stories that are less likely to be broadcast and people may end up losing some sense of what is available in practically their own backyards. That’s a blow to communities.

        Hopefully, alternatives will emerge. Perhaps they’ll be linked to spatially-aware web apps.

        Paying for online content? I could see doing that when the next generation of ebook readers comes out. Right now I’ll stick to buying a couple paper Sunday editions each week.

  4. Nope. You’re right. Not paying for foxnews.com. And it’s a shame too. I’m gonna have to cut the cable soon. Was planning on catching up online, but not anymore. I think with everyone cutting back these days, it might not work in his favor. But it’s his decision.

    I never heard the story about the two Dutchmen. History is interesting.

  5. They’ll try it, their traffic will drop 90% and then it’ll be free again–the only question is how much time the entire cycle takes.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Christ Alone

An objection that I hear often from those who are outside the…

Objective Journalism?

Check out CNN’s Susan Roesgen piece on a Tax Day tea party…

You know you are old when…

As some of you know I have been working with a youth…

Cheryl Joins the World of Blogging!

Chery likes to write, and I’ve encouraged her to create a blog…