Rupert Murdoch Plans a Digital Newspaper For the US 237
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that Rupert Murdoch plans to launch a digital newspaper in the US geared specifically to younger readers and to digital outlets such as the iPad and mobile phones. The paper, as yet unnamed, will pool the huge editorial muscle of Murdoch's combined holdings within News Corporation, which include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the financial wire service Dow Jones, as well as his newspapers in the UK and Australia. Earlier this month, Murdoch said of the iPad: 'It's a real game-changer in the presentation of news,' adding 'We'll have young people reading newspapers.'"
"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (Score:5, Insightful)
"We'll have young people reading newspapers."
Not till you tear down that Pay wall, Mr. Murdoch.
Good luck... (Score:1, Insightful)
If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out the youthful demographics Fox News attracts...
And he's sure to only increase the popularity of his empire with our generation as he attempts to sue Skype for having the same three letters in it as his other news organization that nobody under 25 has heard of.
Unlimited Content (Score:3, Insightful)
Murdoch is in a tough spot. The internet has given us access to nearly every piece of content that has ever been created, or is currently being created, in near real-time. In addition, automated editing tools are improving by leaps and bounds every year, with recent apps like Flipboard (and others), obviating the need for professional human editors.
So it's difficult to see how this slight re-working of an old model is going to work in a world where the game has changed in such fundamental ways.
"paid-for" (Score:4, Insightful)
The paywall pretty much guarantees failure. Young people generally have a long list of things above "news" on which they choose to spend their small amount of disposable income. I applaud his astounding failure in advance.
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Game changer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (Score:5, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. Murdoch seems to be hell-bent on capturing some revenue per reader on a subscription model, regardless of how poorly this is doomed to work on the Internet. No matter how good the content is or even how low the price is, no paywall-based news site will be more attractive than the convenient "point browser at URL, get page" model of Murdoch's many competitors.
Really, it's the same mindset as the RIAA/MPAA companies who are ignominiously featured on Slashdot so often. They have a pre-Internet business model that allows them to get paid per copy of their product, and rather than accept that it won't survive a new technological environment where anything can be copied and transmitted around the world for free, they keep trying to hammer their outdated but profitable square peg into its new round hole with awkward technical and legislative "solutions." The good news about Murdoch's new project is that, unlike DRM and the DMCA, paywalled newspapers are easy to just ignore.
Problem: young people don't read newspapers (Score:5, Insightful)
Young people don't read newspapers. Not in the way Murdoch's thinking, at least. They don't start on page 1 and read through to the end. And they don't compile a list of subjects and read consistently on those subjects for months at a time. They get a sudden interest in a particular subject, search for stories about that specific subject right now, skim them and maybe read a few of the most interesting ones, then go on to other things until another subject piques their interest. This is why Google's so popular: it makes it easy to do exactly that. If Murdoch doesn't accept that, he's simply going to be passed over yet again.
Re:Game changer (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?
I didn't see that anywhere in his message. Why do you assume that he assumes that only FOX News spews propaganda? Or do you think that as long as other people do it too, it doesn't matter (how old are you)? Or do you feel every post about Fox (or Google, Microsoft, Apple, BP, whoever) should end with a line saying "The following other companies, governments or organisations also do bad things..." with a long list?
Re:What's left unsaid (Score:4, Insightful)
professional journalism, in the mainstream, died decades ago.
what we now have is packaged spin, nothing more.
THIS is why people go outside (of the mainstream) to fetch real news and viewpoints. we're pretty tired of the crap that passes for 'news' from the establishment, these days.
indie is the only hope we have left; certainly NOT big-news machines!
the smaller the site, the more likely it is that they're NOT on someone's payroll, spouting out their masters' views for a fee.
Everyone has bias, so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of like claiming that a desert and an ocean both have some amount of water in them.
While technically accurate, it does nothing to advance the discussion.
Some sites (such as Fox) are 100% bias. But if you are watching Fox for "news" then you are probably not interested in sites that provide only 50% bias.
CNN will provide a low level of bias ... when they get around to covering the NEWS instead of the "freak of the week". Seriously, was the airplane steward guy the MOST IMPORTANT THING HAPPENING? It was if you go by total coverage time.
Instead of complaining about bias (and doing so in a non-productive fashion) how about complaining about having to go digging for NEWS? And offering suggestions as to how to find NEWS stories instead of "biased opinion" or "freak of the week"?
Re:Game changer (Score:3, Insightful)
Look closer at the links he provided us with:
- A google search he did for "Murdoch's Propaganda Machine")
- An anti-FOX News site called outfoxed
They're links relevant to Murdoch, yes. In comments on an article relevant to Murdoch. Funny how that works. So do you feel he shouldn't comment on any perceived shortcomings of Murdoch? I haven't looked yet but do you feel that your own comments give equal coverage to every other person when commenting on any one person/company/etc? It doesn't seem too likely.
Indie is useful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you get people who KNOW the material that they are covering.
They may be over estimating the importance of what they cover, but they KNOW what they're covering.
Compare that to the "news readers" on the other news shows. Could they even find the countries they're talking about on a map? Or in the USofA, can they find the state they're talking about on a map? There are some good ones but the majority were hired because they're "photogenic" rather than informed.
I'll take informed over photogenic any day.
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional Journalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
professional journalism, in the mainstream, died decades ago.
And if your definition of professional journalism is "unbiased writing", then it never existed in the first place.
Too many people believe in this mythical golden age of journalism, when all reporters were unbiased and pure of heart.
Which is bunk, because it never existed. Pulitzer prize winning reporters for the NY Times were nothing but flacks for Joseph Stalin (especially Walter Duranty [nytimes.com]). Walter Cronkite reported that America couldn't win in Vietnam on the eve was what was the biggest military victory for the US in the war. Had Dan Rather not gotten caught, he'd still be anchor at CBS today.
Reporters have had bias as long as there have been reporters.
Re:Game changer (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else do it to the same degree as FOX news? Has another TV channel cut around a speech to make a conservative look like they're saying something that was the exact opposite of the point of the speech? Does Martin Bashir cut off the mic his guests if they say things he doesn't like? Does MSNBC give its reporters an explicit ultimatum to promote a particular point of view or risk your job?
Re:Game changer (Score:5, Insightful)
And does any other individual have the ability to spread his lies to 1/3 of the worldwide population? Rupert Murdoch is a fucking menace.
Re:Professional Journalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reporters have had bias as long as there have been reporters.
That's true, but it's not really the issue here, is it? There have always been biased reporters, but Fox News is a network designed from the ground up to trash journalistic principles and function as a propaganda outlet.
And yes, that's nothing new, either. It's just rather disconcerting, when so many people treat it like it is a serious news outlet. In fact, many are so deluded that they think it's the only one telling them the truth.
Re:Game changer (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt they are "factualy accurate". I have been close to three or four news stories in my life. So far I have never seen the news get any of the details right. If I had to make a judgement, I would say they got about 20% of the details right. They report on things they don't know. They don't check up on the facts.
Example I work for a compnay where a bank we had some loans with accused us of over-infating the value of the company to get a larger loan. Well, beause as some time we talked to the bank on the phone, they went to a Federal Judge and got a warrant for Wire Fraud.
So the FBI storms the building, I help their crew pull all the data they need from our computer systems. 80 computers, and they only one they take was a computer in a meeting room which had a hard drive go out on it the day before. Since it was the one computer I would not allow them to pull data off of (duh, it had a broken hard drive) they siezed it. News that night runs a story that over 100 computers were siezed.
2 weeks later the news covred a story where they said that the FBI had analyzed our financials and found such and such out. Two days later I got a call from the Lab at the FBI asking which version of the accouting software we used that we were running and what were the passwords.
If that is the general quality of reporting and getting the facts right. I am afraid that every time I turn on the TV and watch the news, or read a newspaper I actually get dummer.
"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (Score:1, Insightful)
And he acts surprised that young people don't read newspapers! Most people don't like supporting businesses that insult them. Imagine what would happen if he had said "we'll have black people reading newspapers"!
Re:Game changer (Score:2, Insightful)
(Plus if you google Rupert, he's beaten to first place by a ginger wizard.)
This only means he's good at staying out of the public's eye (and out of the scope of their wrath).
Most people get angry at people like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and others for saying ignorant, racist, elitist things on the airwaves, while those who really influence public opinion the most never get a second look.