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.'"
Tiered content (Score:4, Interesting)
Good idea:
For the people who can read newspapers, there's the full story loaded with factual detail.
For the rest, there's a blog-style two-paragraph campy tongue-in-cheek story that's easy to read.
He can charge money for the real content, then have his editorial staff of college hipsters convert it into a blog for $8/hour.
Smart, this guy -- he's good at spotting markets and catering to them. I doubt he holds any of the opinions featured in his newspapers.
Who wants to pay for "Short and snappy"? (Score:2, Interesting)
According to the LA Times, it will publish customised content that will be tailored both to the digital medium and the tastes of the target readership. Stories will be short and snappy, the Times's source said.
As a young person (does 26 still count as young?), I find the whole premise insulting to my intelligence. The internet is full of short, snappy, and FREE content. Why would I want to pay for more crap? For me to consider paying for an online publication, it would have to be informative, and probably confined to a niche in which I have a strong personal or professional interest.
I predict failure of epic proportions.
Re:Everyone has bias, so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I get my news from 2 places:
- jon stewart, daily show (seriously)
- fark.com (half serious)
the commentary 'by the people' is far more educational and revealing than any paid mouthpeace in a cute dress.
go where there is a lot of left AND right discussion and you'll see a spectrum of the total truth (if there is such a thing).
the news is in the people; not the anchorperson, anymore.
find the discussion boards that relate to current events and start there.
Re:If there's one thing Murdoch knows, it's kids. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Not that I don't think the lawsuit is stupid, but wow, what a pointless diss. Rupert Murdoch owns a company in the UK that some North Americans haven't heard of - so what? We've certainly all heard of it over here.
By the way, BSkyB isn't a "news organization", although they do have a news channel or two.
Re:Tiered content (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you've paid much attention to R. Murdoch before, have you [independent.co.uk]?
Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't want to read their news. They'd rather hear it (radio) or see it (TV, streaming videos).
I'd be really curious to see statistics on this. I'm probably on the upper end of the youth demographic, and the only way I get news is by reading it. I think TV news is mostly a waste of time, radio is too inefficient compared to quickly scanning an article, and streaming video is the worst of the two -- most of the "stories" delivered by video are just fluffy human interest pieces, or clips that have some spectacle to them. (Of course, this is all my personal experience, and I don't believe I'm necessarily typical. Hence, I'd like statistics.)
Naturally, I don't read printed newspapers, I read their websites. At least, the ones not behind a paywall.
Re:Game changer (Score:1, Interesting)
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?
Nobody does. However...
(especially MSNBC which has been caught doing it)
At least MSNBC's "propaganda" is factually accurate, more often than not.
Re:Who wants to pay for "Short and snappy"? (Score:2, Interesting)
While I find Fox News just as reprehensible as you or any other rational human being - I really can't agree with the tone of your postings all over this thread. I find it very reminiscent of the sort of "right wing" comments I see over the internet. You know, the "Obama is a SOCIALIST", and the "LIBERAL FASCISTS want to take away our freedom" type comments. In short - by omitting the "why" part of the argument and jumping straight into attacks (with various negative keywords emphasized in capital letters), you are creating noise.
Noise - no matter which side it comes from - makes it harder for people to think rationally. And when people can't think rationally, it makes it impossible for democracy to function as originally intended.
Re:Everyone who thinks this will work... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm raising my hand. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire for a reason. He's right more often than he is wrong. And he has the resources to back this venture.
No. He was right more often than he was wrong 20+ years ago at the time he made decisions that caused him to became a billionaire
A lot can change in 20 years.
The world we lived in underwent major changes when the internet and online news became popular.
We are in a completely different world today, and Murdoch is very much living in the old world. So he may be right less often about things; doesn't mean Murdoch is dumb, it just means he has an incomplete/lacking understanding of all that has changed.
Less complete understanding of the present makes it a bit harder to understand let-alone predict and be right about the future
His thinking about iPad may be more hope than realistic expectation.
It's true the iPad presents an opportunity for him to sell electronic digital content.
But then again we have similar things available on computers and web sites..
News Corp's best chance at selling any news subscriptions for the iPad will be if it becomes more convenient for people to buy/read his content than other free sources, which is doubtful to be true for long.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good luck... (Score:1, Interesting)
Haha... can you imagine if people had to pay to nominate someone as a friend? People would be suddenly shocked to discover they have 2 real friends, and 498 acquaintances!
Wrong, Murdoch knows old people (Score:1, Interesting)
Checking out the demographics for Fox News, as of today August 14th 2010:
Watching cable news is not for the young. A new Nielsen survey shows Fox News has the oldest audience, averaging 65 years of age. CNN was right behind Fox, with a median audience age of 63, followed by MSNBC (59) and CNBC (52). The same survey showed that those who tune into network programming tend to be middle-aged, with CBS’ median viewership being 55 last season. ABC’s audience came in at 51 and NBC at 49. Fox’s network audience, helped by such programming as its animated comedy block, has a median primetime viewer age of 44. The youngest of the networks is CW at 33, which is not surprising since its target audience is women aged 18-34. [allgov.com]
That's right folks, the average age of a Fox News viewer is 65 years old. Please, downmod Spaznwich as he obviously hasn't checked the "youthful demographics" at all.
Re:Game changer (Score:2, Interesting)
I have recently been evaluating http://www.opednews.com/ [opednews.com] for bias and it seems ok but I wont be sure until I have read it for a few weeks straight. The layout on their site bothers me but that is something I may have to deal with.
Haven't you noticed his travelling show? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose the business model is:
talk to governments about IP laws and brang google as pirates, then take the money google would normally get.
The Murdoch press and media already had a HUGE beatup over google collecting wifi information and had some success in changing public and government opinions about google. He's also been speaking everywhere he can get anyone to listen about how the net is a denizen of theives and we should all be restricted to paid content or jobs will be lost - or something along those lines, check your local Murdoch paper for details. He has more influence than anyone here would like, understands the net more than many here (he had an ISP in 1993 FFS and has always listened to experts) but doesn't care if he breaks it so long as he can get money from the pieces.
Re:Tiered content (Score:3, Interesting)
While Murdochs views on health care and education are progressive he still would break the net and get money from the broken bits if he had the power to do so. If enough people with power listen to him that may happen.
Only one (Score:2, Interesting)
There is only really one existing "free market" and that is the "black" market..in anything. Very successful, despite a lot of effort to try and eliminate it. Pick a goods or service demand which has to be met in the "black" market because it is "illegal" otherwise..and it is over all successful, and there is usually a lot of competition, and even if some of the "marketeers" try to eliminate their competition, that usually fails in general terms.
All other markets are regulated in some form or another and can't be classified as free markets.
Just an observation, not making a judgment call on anyone's business.
Re:"We'll have young people reading newspapers." (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny thing is that Murdoch turned his Aussie fiefdom into an empire during the 80's by curcumventing the similar mentality of the Fleet St unions who refused to allow newspapers to modernise their printing presses. He did it by setting up his own modern digital printing presses in direct competion with the old clunky mechanical stuff the unions had under their control. Now the worm has turned and it's Murdoch who is desprately clinging to the old clunky methods and crying foul about others who are modernising the industry.
Re:Game changer (Score:4, Interesting)
You will never find a news organisation which isn't biased. I'd suggest using multiple sources with biases you can determine. I used to use the Guardian, BBC and The Times. The Guardian because its left wing, BBC because their biases are insanely obvious and the Times because it's right wing.
Most people don't perceive a bias if it matches their own. It's why Fox News can exist in the first place.
Re:Good luck... (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually I know about twenty or so people who would near-thoughtlessly pay 59.95 for a year of Facebook