Rupert Murdoch wants to charge for Internet service and wants to destroy "fair use" content
By John Amato Wednesday Nov 11, 2009 7:00am
All the news yesterday out of Rupert Murdoch's interview with Sky News was about Murdoch's endorsement of Glenn Beck's claim that President Obama is a racist who hates white people. But the rest of the interview had some even more disturbing remarks in it -- especially early on, when talking about his plan to make everyone pay for their Internet content.
Rupert, Rupert, Rupert. He just doesn't understand how the Internet works. If he continues to actively try to destroy the "fair use" of content, readers from all across the political spectrum will revolt against him. Even from his own side. Murdoch hates Google and every other search engine because he thinks by having Google linking to his stories, they are kleptomaniacs and robbing him. When asked why he just doesn't remove his websites from Google searches now, he replies that he will after he turns them all into "just for pay" only sites. If he feels they are ripping him off then why doesn't he do it now? The answer is he can't afford to do that. I dare him to do it.
newsroomamerica writes:
When challenged that his news organisations could just remove themselves from the search engines, he said "I think we will. But that's when we start charging. We do it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall but its not right to the ceiling, you get the first paragraph of each story. If you are not a paying subscriber of WSJ.com you get a paragraph and a subscription form.
Was this WSJ model what we can expect to see in other online publications? "Maybe, maybe. There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe could be challenged in the courts and bar it all together. But it's ok, we are getting a lot of advertising revenue so we will take that slowly."
The doctrine of fair use defines the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as news reporting, and is a content gathering cornerstone for most mainstream media, including publications owned by Mr Murdoch.
The NY Times already tried the firewall approach and failed.
Jamie Holly emailed me and said:
When a search engine goes to a website it reads a file called robots.txt. This is like an instruction manual for search engines on what to search and not to search. You can view my robots.txt file here.
So what does the robots.txt file on foxnews.com say?
Well look at that. Not only is Fox allowing Google, but they are giving specific directions to Google to read files and index those items. So in an analogy sense this is like inviting someone into your home, pointing out all your valuables and asking them to take them. You even help them carry them out the door and wave good bye with a big old smile, then go inside and call the police reporting you've just been robbed.
And Murdoch going after "fair use" is really interesting. The big question under section 107 of the copyright law has always been this:
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.
Google only shows a headline and around 128 characters, which a lot of times isn't even a full sentence for their "news" service, which is also considered a very valuable "research" tool. If he thinks some judge would rule that as not being fair use then he is dumber than I thought.
I really hope Murdoch does go after Google legally on this. It would be so much fun to watch. Of course the only lawyer that I think would take Murdoch's case is Orly Taitz.
Glenn Beck joins the Net Neutrality fight by standing with Rupert and the wealthy as usual. Beck says Net Neutrality would 'destroy the free market that created the Internet'. Oh really?
Yes ma'am, may I have another?
Glenn Beck's idea of 'freedom': Letting corporations control what you read on the Internet
Does Murdoch really believe that every other content provider in one form or another will suddenly join up with him and boycott Google and turn the net into a pay-per-view outlet?
I can only imagine the fun hackers would have at destroying his website security if he actually tried to implement it.
Login or Register to post comments.
Isn't this greedy dirty old son of a bitch rich enough already? Somebody should pack him off to wherever rich old farts go when they have outlived their welcome.
He should be banished to the Australian outback with a tent, canteen and a hibachi!
Ask him to befriend the native peoples and let him offer stock shares in trade for food and water.
Obama should stick him in Gitmo as an enemy of the American people!
... the ISP responsible for providing the Internet and bandwidth to FOX NEWS and their entire offices and studios in New York is none other than Time-Warner Cable -- a subsidiary fully owned by those dirty liberal terrorist Murika haters that also own and operate CNN!
Murdoch started with a tabloid style of news? (if that is way you call something with no facts) and has never looks back...
LONDON — The tricks of the trade of Britain's rambunctious tabloid press came under scrutiny Thursday, after a newspaper reported that a tabloid owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch had illegally hacked into the mobile phones of hundreds of celebrities and politicians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/murd...
Murdoch's tabloid, part of his newspaper arm in Britain, had admitted to one, already well-known case of phone hacking but denied that the problem had been widespread.
In that one case, the News of the World's royal reporter Clive Goodman was jailed for phone hacking, and the Guardian story prompted the PCC to look into whether it had been misled over the scale of the problem in its original inquiry.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press...
Start in business
He began to direct his attention to acquisition and expansion. He bought the Sunday Times in Perth, Western Australia and, using the tabloid techniques of his father's mentor Lord Northcliffe, made it a success.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
he's only 78. His mom is an active 100 years old. I'm afraid it will be awhile.
I wonder if she's handy with a shovel...
Rupert may have been in the right place at the right time ONCE UPON A TIME... but it is obvious he doesn't have but a simpletons grasp on the internet, data, and the completely changed and constantly moving markets that drive it. His attempt will be paramount to putting up a chicken wire fence around a 4W Jimmy.
Food, shelter, warmth, content, etc
Threatening to take away something of no value isn't a threat. Frankly I believe the world would be better off with less MSM. Go ahead. Block it all.
It's an honor to hear how well your corporate masters treat you and pay for the privilege, you uppity peasant!
/snark
You can choose to remain ignorent. It has worked so well. Dig a hole and crawl in...but do not take inteligence away from the rest of us!
No wonder we are in such a state!
The MSM, Fox in particular is far more adept as spreading misinformation than actual information. I'm for more informed about the state of affairs since I STOPPED watching television news.
Proving conclusively that having scads of money doesn't make you smart or well read
ready and willing to do all your dirty work . .
... to Rupert means, "Media Matters for America and those pests at Crooks & Liars won't be able to quote us when we say outrageous things. And it'll get those assholes Colbert and Stewart off my back."
Murdoch later added, "I'm going to buy up David Niewert's publisher just so I can destroy all remaining copies of that damn book of his!"
This is another intellectual property argument and I'm hoping people are starting to see how intellectual property is used against us.
For all the difficulties we are going through right now, we are in the midst of another renaissance. The level playing field of the internet that allows equal access for everybody, the open sharing of content, (much or it from individuals) and the ability to create your own content and share free of charge is really advancing the culture of the planet.
If you make this into a cold hard economic model it will stifle creativity and the spread of knowledge and information.
cheap and free has negatives. It discourages gratitude and appreciation for quality.
Its a new paradigm evet. I didn't feel the same way ten years ago.
90% of gratitude goes to the record/movie company executives. Artists who have turned to the internet to distribute their content get 100% of the proceeds. Sure much of it is taken for free, but more and more people are willing to throw $3 or $10 or whatever they can afford.
Also, you are assuming the executives that picked the talent and used pay to play to get them popular had the good taste to pick only the best. I think much of the stuff that is "professionally" promoted and distributed is actually the lowest common denominator of quality, guaranteeing the biggest sales.
That puts profit over quality and creativity.
There was a time when many big Label Exec's loved music and invested a lot of time and money in a bands career to get them heard by the largest audience.
You had to be good to get that level of serious investment and commitment.
Now it's all about marketing and image
You just made an argument that free distribution will improve quality, because the current distribution system has been corrupted.
thanks. Now you're on my side.
.
I have a LOT more gratitude towards things that are given away for free - and RECEIVE much more gratitude when giving things away than charging for them. Once money is involved, it becomes a "serious" business transaction where both sides are trying to get the best deal for the least cash and success truly only happens when you walk away and think you the other person's a sucker and a fool.
'Intellectual Property' is a pernicious term and must die. What copyrights (and patents, etc) are is *TEMPORARY* (or at least they're supposed to be -- not so much anymore thanks to Sonny fucking Bono) monopolies granted by the government for the purpose of encouraging the arts and sciences. They should last exactly as long as required to do that, and not one second longer.
I think we should go back to the old 14 yr copyright term, renewable for a single 14 yr extension. And that extension should be very expensive.
I would move unilaterally to block Murdoch's content from my search engine. After somebody threatens to sue me, I take steps to disassociate myself and my business dealings with that person. Let Murdoch discover for himself what 100,000 clicks per minute does for him and let him discover for himself the fact that most people are unwilling to pay for web content. Rupert, thy name is Greed.
to pack sand.
Murdoch on charging for content "You'd be surprised how much can be done for so little."
Translation: We will pay more and receive less content.
We are paying for internet access. many countries it is free and in municipalities where it has been offered, the media and telecom companies rail against it.
... could charge for air, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
... so I would not put it past them.
can go fuck himself!
Apologies to everyone having parents who are on in their years, but personally, I'm looking forward to the current generation of old white men just being gone.
I mean I'm getting older and becoming a fuddy-duddy, but I can't imagine trying to shut down younger generations just because I don't get it.
Charging for propaganda? Isn't that kinda defeating the purpose?
As the Chimp says, "Bring 'em on!"
the internet content they will f it up as bad as they have fd up the rest of the media, newspapers, magazines, radio and TV.
Let the mofu paint himself into a corner. It can only be a good thing.
Rupert, please please PLEASE take your content off my Google News homepage. While sometimes it's humorous to see your headlines twisted into something completely different than what the rest of the world says, I really could do without you. I have tried all combinations of page customizations and Adblock filters to make you go away, but it just doesn't work. Do both of us a favor and take your entire empire to a sub-only model. The world will be better off.
at delivering low-cost, low-quality, high-availability crap and entertainment that have become the sole concern of the People.
Now the Law of Unintended Consequences is biting him in the ass.
Did you know if the internet was left alone and telecom companies didn't have so much representation in congress phone service would be free these days thanks to VOIP?
costs ZERO to the telecoms as well.
1K is 1,000 characters. A tweet is 140, barely 20% of 1K.
You're paying for an intangible like convenience/connectibility rather than the actual technical 'cost' of transmitting data.
At the same time, the corporations don't want you sending large data streams. Large data streams suggest movies, music, academic effort ... far better to keep the masses at the level of the trivial and prevent more complex thought streams/memes from being spread.
Marginal cost of an SMS message is zero as long as usage rate isn't high enough to saturate the control channels that it travels over. Also, the infrastructure still costs money to build and maintain -- if everyone used SMS rather than voice, then the cost of maintenance would have to be billed against it.
That's not to say that SMS rates in the US are anything other than absurd.
Of course he wants to get rid of the fair use clause.
His talkers were the only ones up in arms about the fairness Doctrine. They were screaming about how it would destroy American Radio. Just seems natural that they all got their talking points from the same source.
Job Security, scream what Rupert tells you to scream.
I worked for Murdoch in the late 1980's. The man has no sense regarding computers and how people use them. He spent a lot of money trying to build the Hotel Database which he ultimately sold to John Reed. It was a good job though, got free copies of Star magazine every week.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071804/
Above is a link to an indie film called Ink. This movie just came out and was made for a budget of $250,000. Like all other movies, it was immediately pirated and made available as a torrent all over the internet.
The producers of the film begged media moguls to help them distribute the movie but it was only debuted in 9 markets across the nation.
The movie was downloaded over 400,000 times in three days and has been getting rave reviews.
Would you rather see this for free or pay $11 to watch GI Joe and a bunch of commercials?
Free content will make for better content.
Not a good way to make a living.
You don't understand. This guy is now famous.
He will receive attention and movie offers that will open doors to much bigger opportunities. Many people are willing to pay for content they received for free. If this 400,000 people paid just .60, the movie would be covered. If they paid a dollar, he would have a pretty sick profit in just one weekend.
When you put a paint brush onto canvas, or some other creative pursuit, are you thinking about all the money you will make from this or are you doing something because you get pleasure from doing it?
Is there any such thing as art for art's sake anymore?
Thank you, curtilingus, for this most astute observation!
Hedonism and hierarchy...humankind's insanity writ large.
I suggest you check out Amanda Palmer's excellent blog screeds on how she makes far more money connecting directly with her fans than she's made on her major label studio album. The majors are nothing but rent-seeking con artists. It's a lot easier to monetize fame than it is to make money on a contract with the majors.
To whom do you pay dues?
I think Rupie's gonna do a fine job of destroying his own if he takes this tact.
that proclaimed "Eat The Rich".
Cafeen Man, Old white CONSERVATIVE men. Not granpa Simpson please.
I'd like to apologise to the world as I always do when I talk of the old toad. He was here in Australia last week, and the whole nation has to sit up and take notice. He had the audacity to criticise the Labor govts. refugee policy as unfair when he supported the conservative oppositon's draconian measures for years. He's so used to being a bully. Last year he gave a series of lectures basically telling us how we should run our education system. The media reports it as if we have to obey him.
a great PR job fo themselves but they are not the friendly face they portray, they are trying to do EXACTLY the same thing with printed books:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/30/google_...
people will have to do that.
How of earth are you equating Google's actions trying to offer universal access to books with Murdoch et al shenanigans regarding net neutrality.
Good grief.
Google's is not OFFERING action universal access to books Tyler, read the article. They want perpetual rights to digitized copies of copyrighted print works.
So they can sell access. Get it?
Heres part of the transcript that I didnt read:
BREWSTER KAHLE: What they’re doing is they’re digitizing books up a storm, so out-of-copyright works, which are works before 1923; in-copyright, but out-of-print works, which are the vast majority after 1923 and the present. Most books are out of print. And they’re even digitizing books that are in print. And they’re working with publishers to try to make sure that things that are in print, they can have in their search engine. In the out of copyright, it’s OK; there’s no rights issues there, they can make those available.
It’s those books in this limbo. It’s the books that are not commercially viable, things that are—make up the vast majority of our libraries, the books in our libraries, but they’re not saleable. The question is, who can do what with those in the digital age?
And there’s been orphan works legislation. These works are called “orphan works.” These are things that are—there is no real owner. There’s no one to speak for them. And there’s been attempts to deal with this through the legislature, and the libraries are starting to loan these books. But Google had a different idea. They thought they could go and digitize these works and, through this class-action settlement, get an explicit license to be a digital bookstore of these works.
AMY GOODMAN: To sell?
BREWSTER KAHLE: To sell and make subscription access, to build a subscription library that is the only library that has the ability to go and sell and subscribe access to these.
... the only ones throwing allegations against google for scanning books, out of copyright, and putting them for free are collectives which are throwing all sorts of allegations (in many cases driven by sheer projection).
These are the same peopel who wanted author rights to be extended almost indefinitively so that they can suck off the tit of somebody else's talent. Google has had a much better track record regarding fair use than their accusers have.
I am speaking in terms of the major Universities who will have to pay Google for access to their own collections, which Google digitized under false pretences, said Universities are now distancing themselves from SaintGoogle as fast as they can.
As far as ... "collectives which are throwing all sorts of allegations (in many cases driven by sheer projection)"
the most vocal critic of Google is the founder of archive.org, you know, the Internet Wayback machine guys?
Anyone that would accuse them of self interest is seriously deranged.
Heres the site for these greedy money sucking pigs:
http://www.archive.org/
See any ads on there?
... so far we pay diddly squat for google books, but we have to pay through the nose for online journal subscriptions. Heck, sometimes we have to pay to access articles we have written.
Google books in comparison are darlings to us.
Also, you also left out the fact that the most vocal critics of google books are companies with vested interest in extending copyrights, like Amazon, book publishers assc., et al. So yeah, they are pretty self interested on this one.
"Also, you also" -awk., redundant
suggested:
Also,[Y]ou also...See google books, grammar and syntax structure, available for .99 cents
There I fixed it for you Tyler.
... they are of no use to me right now ;-)
and I work with Ejournals, print serials and Cataloguing/Metadata at a non-major University. I am referring to Google's plans for the future, this is coming.
I was referring to the criticism coming from Open Content Alliance (OCA) ...
I dont really care what Amazon, ChaptersIndigo or anyone else with a vested financial interest says.
A lot of E-serials publishers have already consolidated and have their $$ stream in place. They arent much better than Amazon.
spreading fear and uncertainty regarding google's "plans" are people with vested commercial interests, that mimic these socalled plans by google. Thus these alleged "plans" seem to be nothing more than a bad case of projection.
In fact, I can't wait until google decides to offer free access to academic journal publications. So I can get to read the accusations against google, by the same people who are ripping us off right now.
I have been able to access a few out of circulation books via google books, all for free and in a rather convenient fashion. Personally, I take free and convenient over the $500 a reseller was demanding for the same book with a four week delivery window.
we'll agree to disagree ...
but I think I'll keep my eye on SaintGoogle,
and you can go ahead and think a huge publicly traded corporation
hmmmm...?
http://www.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=NASD...
will bring you a pony for Christmas ... good for you.
You may want to think about who is providing the content for academic journals ... I for one can't afford to work for free ...perhaps your colleagues can, that's nice for them....
Anyway I'm done here ... Just don't accuse me of not reading the links I provided again.
'K?
BTW, as an author I am part of the people who provide the content so spare me, OK?
I am not claiming google to be a saint, I am just pointing out that it takes a special set of brass balls for the current leaches/IP thieves to warn about how bad google may turn out to be, when they are doing the same (or worse) crap themselves right now.
I see no reason that most of those books should even be under copyright protection.
Jon Stewart catches Murdoch's network altering footage to make the GOP's anti-health care reform rally looking bigger
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/jon-...
Because, you know, Murdoch's network is "fair and balanced" not a propaganda wing of the GOP.
This is PRECISELY why Fux should not be given ANY credit by the WH as a news organization.
If he hates Google so much then Google should just add all News Corp sites and their affiliates to their blacklists and stop serving ANY content for them.
See how long it takes Rupert to ask them why they are treating him so badly (ala Fox's latest whinning).
Is there any way I can remove all NewsCorp content from my Google searches right now? Then I wouldn't be subjected to accidental exposure to any of their crap.
Murdoch is living proof that obscene wealth fails to disguise batshit crazy...
Furthermore, the stench of his hubris taints anyone who is willing to work for or with him.
realize internet ads are not really influencing people to buy anything.
You don't know much about anything do you?
. .
Still a believer in the "New Economy"?
... and that is why google is making billions a year, and you are doing what? trolling around an internet weblog for free. LOL.
right . . Pixel Billions
sure. The massive googleplex I drive by in Mountain View says otherwise, but hey... when have you let reality get in the way of your babbling, eh?
I've made many on-line purchases based on links attached to sites I viewed. Indeed, I sent some flowers yesterday after seeing an ad while I was looking at a evite page.
On what planet do you spend most of your time? I know quite a few small businesses that get 50% or more of their business from Google Ad Words. It's the most cost-effective form of advertising out there if you're not farking huge.
but having a robots.txt does not prevent a search engine from indexing your site, it's more of a courtesy thing.
... if you notice a spider bot which has bypassed the robots directive, you can ban their IP addresses (or even full ranges), or have a decent firewall directives to deal with ill behaved crawlers.
Then again, I assume Mr. Murdoch thinks it is more cost effective, for his organization at least, to shovel insane legislations down our throats than having to hire competent software people.
Google's crawlers respect well-formed robots.txt files.
EEEEUUUUww!
As a computer gamer, a LOT of online content has always been charged for. I don't see what's so wrong about what he's demanding here. Sounds to me like he's only saying that what content he puts on his site should be charged for. He just wants to put up a pay portal. That's fine with me. Let him learn how accepting we on the internet are of pay portals for news content. There are hundreds of other sites that are willing to provide the same, for free, getting ad revenue in exchange.
As for fair use, I'm gonna ignore him about that.
... it is not about fair use, or pay portals. He is trying to shovel tiered internet down our throats. As a gamer, you should know that a non-neutral net would impact your collective fairly significantly.
he is free to put up whatever pay portals he wants right now, btw.
I'm just not seeing it. He complains about how google is pulling the content from his site, even beyond his pay-wall, and wants to just pull out of google (hey, feel free).
As a gamer, I am well aware of the dangers of the loss of net neutrality. I just don't see this as an attack on it. Nowhere does he indicate that he'd LOVE to pay ISP's to prioritize his site's content over other sites (which is what the abttle is over).
Strange, though, how he feels that sites linking to him (which is all google does... FOR FREE) are actually a drain on his income. Which would be true, if the only way to access that content legitimately is behind the pay-wall.
Again, feel free to pull out of google. feel free to put up your content behind a pay wall.
were that he felt that "free" content were a threat to his business model, not that he was simply going to put his content behind a pay portal. I have no problem with murdoch expecting people to pay for his sh*tty content, I have an issue when he wants to change the system to prevent other people from providing free content. And I took that indication from this interview.
All I can say is good ridannce to these degenerate greedy dinosaurs, who feel entitled to my money... even though all they provide is shitty content (which I have no rights over, even after I pay for it). Plus they want to force fed me even more advertisements while treating me, their customer, as a criminal. F*ck'em...
that Murdoch is a megalomaniac. He actually believes he owns the news.
Buh bye Rupert.
He should make Fox News a premium station on cable, and then he can charge $15.00 or so a month for it. Who wouldn't pay for that?
He is expanding the limits of greed.
There are subscription websites Rubert, go ahead and make the Fox website a subscription website. That's actually be great cuz most red staters are poor and won't pay it. So instead of simply doing what you do on the WSJ, you are trying to changes the laws to turn the internet into your own private oil field.
It is a market economy for zilionaires who have already pillaged and are looking for crumbs.
... that is why he figured subscription for his sites would go nowhere, when free alternatives are out there which equal or superior content. Thus, this a**hole wants to shovel tiered internet down our throats so that his outdated business model can survive.
Ain't it funny how all these "free market" "pulled by their own bootstraps" people are the first ones to run to their nemesis the "government" to pass legislation to squash their competitors and make sure barriers of entry are too high for everyone else?
is the biggest misnomer of all time. Capitalism always turns into a perverted socialism for the super rich (in the sense that they use the government to keep and expand power--not real socialism).
I'm sure Rupert will be calling for tax payer bailouts of his media outlets if he already hasn't. The MSM is too big to fail.
(after all News Corp shares have been heading straight for the toilet) and with a straight face, claim that he needs money from the goverment because his message that people should not get help from the government is "too important."
Let him go ahead and charge for Fux news.
Have you seen the tea baggers? They'll see it as highway robbery and a theft of their freedom. You think those
moronspeople are going to pay for his news?Why does it surprise anyone that he should want to charge for people to read "his" news.
Go for it Rupert. We don't need the WSJ and I certainly don't allow Faux Gnus to contaminate my home.
What's at stake is creating a system which forces all or most websites to charge $. That's what Murdoch is fighting for. It's not just a subscription system for Faux. The interviewer did a shitty job calling Murdoch out on a number of issues. He'd be great at any of the major networks over here.
I agree. He has a bigger agenda, he's just trying to wedge the door open now.
Once the NYT started charging, I decided I could live without it. Simple as that. No "news" is worth it to me, not the crap we get today.
This way unsuspecting people will not be routed to the propaganda spread by your piece of shit so-called news organizations.
The real reason you want to block free use is because many blogs expose the propaganda your organizations spit out. Makes it difficult when facts get in the way doesn't it Murdoch.
Don't you guys know? These "corporate citizens," these "Galts," these "Andrew Ryans," they own everything, and there's nothing you can do about it. Right?
It's worth noting that Fair Use originated in case law, and only later was codified in statute (so even if Congress repealed the section dealing with Fair Use, it might remain a valid legal principle).
Thus, the concept that Fair Use ``could be challenged in the courts'' is laughable at best.
Google is raking in billions in ad revenue, while his own News Corp is losing ad revenue left and right... since his content is crap. Plus the demographics he has been serving are some of the least profitable ones.
Tiered internet access allows this leach to continue his dying business model, at the expense of other people's.
The fact is that he got beat at his game by google et al, and now he is throwing a temper tantrum. These "free market" types as you said are anything but for "free market"
Then nobody will read their crap!
Looks like Emperor Palpatine's coming out of the woodworks lately. To enact his final master plan?
Here you go - you go for it!
Block or remove pages using a robots.txt file
If I was the hacking type I'd simply drop a robots.txt file on every newscorp site.
Why on Earth would you want to aid them in their quest for "plausible deniability"?
I am staying away from it.
...pretty much sums up the way I feel.
Old men that don't get it, and refuse to even try.
I've been exchanging barbs with a Dittohead on YouTube, that wants "audio/video PROOF" of Rush's racist remarks.
It became clear to me in that moment that the ultimate goal of Murdoch is to make it more difficult to quote or "fact check" Fox News.
Because if you can't Google it, they can deny it.
Let him tapdance out of that not being racist...
He doesn't see anything "racist" about that. :)
But specifically, he wants "audio or a transcript" of his "take the bone out of your nose" comment... which, according to Snopes, Rush admitted making in 1990 (pre-Internet).
there is no worse blind, than the person who doesn't want to see.
When anyone can say with a straight face that "Barack the magic Negro" wasn't a racist tour de force by Rush. Then you have to realize they are either too far gone down their rabbit hole, or incredibly disingenuous. So no amount of discussion is going to work on people so vested in keeping their position no matter how much proof of their ilk's hubris is presented their way.
.
"Murdoch hates Google and every other search engine...."
If memory serves me well, News Corp. owns Ask.com.
According to Wiki, Barry Diller used to be the CEO of Ask.com, but lists it as one of 50 businesses owned by "IAC", and Internet Conglomerate.
... and ask.com is basically a portal for a crappy algorithm that uses google for most of its backend anyways.
old rich pricks get all flustered when they can't really defend their policy of greed and control. I think Rupee has the right idea with building walls around his empire. Close yourself off along with your bullsh*t newspapers. I don't buy them, and I only read those articles when they are being pointed out as the hypocritical nonsense that they are. Shut yourself off,pull the links from Google, charge us for propaganda and good luck keeping customers you dirt-bag. The real problem with his argument is not that he feels cheated by free information, it's that he feels threatened by it. He wants to control the internet as do all the other people at the top. They don't want you to know the truth. You can't handle the truth!...lol what a creep.
Why don't we petition the Congress to remove this guy's citizenship, something he does not respect, and wanted ONLY so that he could QUALIFY FOR AN FCC LICENSE and the subsequent ownership of his media empire.
This guy would be a traitor if he were really an American.
I say strip him of his citizenship he bought and paid for.
Name him persona non grata and deport him.
Slam the door on him after he leaves and make it unlawful to do business with him.
Go ahead. There are many sites that charge a subscription fee. There is no law preventing Murdoch from using this model.
Go for it. No problem.
See how many of your KRACKER AUDIENCE has any money to spend on your content!!!
If they want it, ok.
If they don't? ok.
At least if you're pay for play you're out of MY face because I won't pay you a thin cent.
Rupert and his bride Roger have made it perfectly clear that they want this President to fail and are doing everything they possibly can to make that happen. The rest of the world needs to get over it and accept this reality. Its time to quit saying, "I just can't BELIEVE what Fox is doing!?!" Believe it. Reality meet Rupert.
So, Ok. Rupert says he agrees with his evil butt spawn Glenn Beck that this President is a racist. To date, due to the gallant efforts of Color Of Change, 62+ advertisers have pulled their ads from Glenn's show over this baseless hateful diatribe - BUT- they HAVEN'T pulled their ads from Fox ENTIRELY. Just moved them to other Fox noise programs. No real money lost to Rupert.
Do we ask Color Of Change to ramp it up? I'm for that. How can we support them in their efforts? Why WOULD an advertiser who pulled their ads from infant psychopath Glenn's show not want to go all the way and pull them from Fox entirely when its clear that Papa psychopath Rupert agrees and supports his evil baby butt spawn Glenn?
How much more does Wall Street have to witness from Fox before these people who put millions of ad dolloars in Rupert's pockets realize that he and his GOP thug propaganda channel represent a clear and present danger to our democracy?
Increase the boycott. Turn it up to 11!
only wish to squeeze more money from their turnip franchise. If Rupert eats liver & onions instead of steak the worlds news will get worse.
When the Murdoch cocoon portal is complete, he'll return in 30 years to hunt down more money after new security is in place.
to pay for probably about one tenth of 1 percent of what I read on the internet. I would also be more inclined to pay for news stories on the 'Onion' before I would pay for the crap on Fox News!
Google (effectively) told him to go yell at a cloud. When he actually means to do something, he does it without talking all that much about it. When he jawbones about his plans to do something, he's bullshitting.
Pull your nauseating content from free use, so you'll only have gullible jackasses reading the vile crap you sell. Let the suckers pay you right out of their wallets. We'll see if their preferences change.
Your sense of entitlement is underwhelming. You can only sell your junk on television or elsewhere because most people will try out truly cheap entertainment, whether disguised as news or not. You're the pro wrestling arm of the journalism world. So go ahead and try to sell your garbage as if it were respectful and real. Let others pay a premium price for your "exclusive" material. I dare you. No wonder you're not "ready" yet.
Murdoch needs to retire, forget about the internet, and hope he doesn't get indicted for war crimes in propagandizing a war that caused 1.3 million deaths.
Login or Register to post comments.