Can News Corp. afford calling Google's bluff?

It was inevitable that someone would seriously consider taking Google's dare.

Rupert Murdoch is reportedly thinking about removing all of News Corp.'s content from Google and striking an exclusive deal with Microsoft's Bing.

(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET)

For years, Google has all but dared traditional media companies trying to develop online businesses to live without the traffic it sends their way. The folks at the Googleplex make it clear that content owners who believe Google is unfairly indexing (or stealing, depending on your point of view) their content can easily remove that content from Google's massive corner of the Internet.

There's a tradeoff for that independence, of course: Don't expect the advertisers that have signed deals based on site traffic to pay the same amount next year.

News Corp. might be getting ready to do what many think is unthinkable. Reports have surfaced over the last several months, most recently in the Financial Times, that News Corp. is in talks with Microsoft to enact a plan that would see News Corp. properties hiding their content from Google's search engine in return for exclusive listing with Bing.

Rupert Murdoch, News Corp.'s famously cantankerous leader, isn't stupid: Microsoft would also have to pay News Corp. for the privilege of exclusive access to that content. But as Microsoft continues to lose billions of dollars a year on its online business, can it afford to be successful with this strategy?

Even if Microsoft is willing to cough up a huge sum (which Kara Swisher at Boomtown thinks is unlikely) for News Corp. content, this plan would only have a chance of turning the tables on Google if News Corp. and Microsoft can convince other large media companies to follow their lead.

First off, the practice of actually removing News Corp. content from Google would be relatively simple. News stories from The Wall Street Journal, commentary from The New York Post, and videos from News Corp.'s myriad cable and satellite television organizations can be tagged with a "noindex" tag, and Google won't index those pages as they are published. This also applies to pages that have been previously indexed, since they will be crawled again, this time with the new tag attached.

However, News Corp. would then need a backup plan to compensate for the revenue it would lose from the precipitous drop in traffic. With 65 percent of the search market, Google is the largest Web site in the world as measured by traffic. And its stated goal is to be the best information kiosk ever created by fielding queries and sending searchers on their way as fast as possible.

Murdoch has proposed removing his Web sites from Google only after constructing pay walls like the one used at the Wall Street Journal to limit free access to content, which is a somewhat controversial notion in this media era.

What News Corp. and Microsoft are reportedly discussing, however, is slightly different. Under the scenario outlined by the Financial Times, it does not appear that News Corp. would erect pay walls for all its content upon removal from Google. Instead, it would continue to make that ad-supported content available for free exclusively through Bing, helping offset the decline in traffic with a cash payment.

The two companies would then presumably market the hell out of the arrangement, because it would require a sizable shift in consumer expectations for Internet search. Right now, people are used to the idea that DirecTV is the only television provider that can offer a full package of NFL games every week, or that Comcast's Versus channel isn't available on DirecTV because of a licensing spat.

But that's not what they expect when they search online for news or information about a certain topic, and it would take some effort to educate them that The Wall Street Journal or Fox News' content can only be found if you're searching on Bing. Microsoft has already invested $100 million into Bing advertising, and would need to increase that amount to drive home the point that Bing is the only place you can find Fox News stories.

So will enough people be interested in that content as to change their search behavior and dramatically increase Microsoft's search market share? It's hard to see News Corp. moving the needle by itself, but modest results could embolden Microsoft to cut similar deals with other news companies and start the ball rolling toward the idea of Bing 2.0 as "the world's news search engine." That would be an interesting product.

As with just about everything, however, such a deal will likely come down to the amount Microsoft is willing to invest in such a project. Microsoft's Online Services Division, which runs Bing, is currently hemorrhaging money to the tune of $480 million in losses during its first quarter alone. Setting up content deals with the media industry would increase short-term costs with an iffy notion of when that investment would pay off in terms of increased search market share. And while Microsoft continues to milk Windows and Office profits, it can't throw money down a rabbit hole forever.

That means there's a sizable chance that this whole operation is geared around News Corp. negotiating a search and technology services deal with Microsoft to replace its current one with Google, which expires next June. Installing Bing as the search provider on News Corp. sites would generate increased searches for Microsoft while denying a common enemy Google some revenue, without kick-starting a huge battle that would have wide-ranging effects.

Murdoch has been able to tap into a well of frustration among those in the traditional media business over the way they are unable to duplicate the profits they enjoyed in the offline world on the Internet. But does he really want to call Google's bluff?

If so, he's banking on the notion that while basic news is a commodity, opinion and analysis is not. And whatever you might think of the various News Corp. properties, it's hard to argue they haven't earned a reputation for themselves as a unique source of opinion and analysis.

[Flip4o]

If it was a respectable news source like the BBC I'd be somewhat worried for Google, but Fox's content is execrable and will hardly be missed, I'm sure some right wing fanatics who can't live without Glenn Beck will move over to Bing, but most of their audience will simply click on another link.

[Random_Walk]

Err, isn't Glenn beck on CNN, or did he move?

[MadLyb]

@Random_Walk <br /> <br />Beck moved to Fox over a year ago.

[runMGR]

You do realize that the absolute best business newspaper, the Wall Street Journal is part of News Corp don't you?<br /><br />Well, maybe you don't... Progressives don't read about business, do they?

[Random_Walk]

@MadLyb:<br /><br />Thx... It's been years since bothered keeping up with the perpetually constipated - err, I mean - political commentator class :)

[Endbringer]

I find it sad that someone would think a government owned media company is more reliable than a private entity. Way to go!

[missingxtension2]

yeah sure<br />"You do realize that the absolute best business newspaper, the Wall Street Journal is part of News Corp don't you?"<br />so whats wrong with using the address bar to skim on the headlines yourself, for good websites.<br />They might (unlikely) get more direct traffic.

[Random_Walk]

"I find it sad that someone would think a government owned media company is more reliable than a private entity."<br /><br />Auntie Beeb is a bit of an anomaly... it was originally a radio bureau, formed back when the British still had nearly all of its global empire. The BBC was founded with a global scope, quickly gained a reputation for being _the_ reliable source for world news, and still keeps a huge chunk of that today. It certainly had its share of propaganda (most notably during WWII, for obvious reasons), but actually does its level best to keep to the facts as they are (something that few US news organizations can credibly claim, sadly). <br /><br />The Wall Street Journal is a rock-solid business paper, and has some global reach. That said, its opinion section (http://opinionjournal.com - no paywalls there) is solidly conservative, just as The New York Times is about leaning to the left.<br /><br />==<br /><br />"so whats wrong with using the address bar to skim on the headlines yourself, for good websites."<br /><br />I prefer to get the whole story, since headlines are notorious for being factless attention-grabbers these days.

[Renegade Knight]

@Random_Walk <br /> <br />Good summary. <br /> <br />I prefer to see aggregated results on a search including the news so I can read the snippets and make an educated guess as to which home page has the result I'm after. It doesn't always work as well as I'd like but there is no Plan B to work with without knowing directly who had what I wanted to know available in advance.

[nowimcool]

the idea of unbiased news needs to be realized for what it is, impossible. There is always going to be a bias whether it's with the network or writer. I don't have a problem with bias news, just be open with your bias. I think everyone would be better off every network had to name their agendas.

[darthstupid]

Angry old man doesn't understand Internet. News at 11.

[Super2online]

It's an interesting development for everyone involved including consumers. The question is, where are we headed with this?

[CraigC2000]

I would be very surprised if this was any more than a bluff, as it would most likely backfire on both News corp and Microsoft.<br /><br />Think about the backlash that Microsoft would receive if they genuinely started pursuing active deals that sought to segregate the internet. Ignoring the obvious public backlash, it would be a terrible mistake for Microsoft to even open the door for these types of deals.<br /><br />Being as how google owns more than 6x the traffic and earns much more revenue from search, how could any search company realistically expect to compete with how much money google could offer for exclusive traffic? There are only so many losses that shareholders would be willing to accept, and ultimately it would be a disaster for Microsoft AND consumers if much of the webs content could only exclusively be found on google.<br /><br />Microsoft needs to try to compete with innovation. Deals like this cannot possibl do anything but fragment the search market and ultimately only help google become far too powerful.

[NervClaX]

This is innovation. It's an innovative business model that could help news organizations stay afloat while consumers end their subscriptions. Let's face it. Google IS the market for internet advertising. They aren't sharing enough revenue with news organizations to keep them afloat. <br /> <br />Not all our news can come in the form of opinionated blogs. Investigative journalism is a full-time job and it costs a lot of money. News Corp. has a lot of valuable content (Fox News #1 BABY!) and Microsoft is willing to pay for the privilage of indexing it. If other media companies don't make the same deal with Microsoft, they will at least ask Google to start paying them the same. Otherwise, the most powerful news organizations will tag their content "noindex". They're already facing bankruptcy. They've got nothing to lose.

[Vegaman_Dan]

It could, if successful, drive companies away from Google, whom they would see as profiting directly from their own content as Murdoch is making claim to here. You might see other exclusitivity deals reached and soon you may have to pick and choose which portal you want to use to get the results you want, further breaking up the world wide web into individual pockets independant of each other.

[disco-legend-zeke]

Google already deals with this issue with creator deals on the YouTube side. <br /> <br />Google wants to be partners with content creators after all. <br /> <br />My own websites are supported in part by google ads, certainly this should scale up. <br /> <br />if a brand name provider is offered big bonuses for being exclusive to a specific search engine, there would certainly be mutual gain in traffic. And traffic IS the new money.

[riku78]

We don't care for News Corp. We wont miss it for a single minute. This is pure arrogance on their side.

[aMUSICsite]

I rarely read anything from news corp anyway, but am a regular user of googles great news service. Almost all stories there have hundreds if not thousands of sites carrying each article. If news corps papers are removed people will just get used to Reading the stories from a different site. You know what... I think google knows this and are not scared one bit. <br /><br />Will fail

[void(0)]

I suppose google's "Don't be Evil" not compatible with "News" business model.

[ddhboy]

How much of newscorp's traffic is from google searches? It seems these days that google is more keen to show blogs on your first search result than it is actual news websites. I think newscorp will huff and puff and Microsoft is throwing more gas on the fire. I doubt Microsoft thinks that newscorp will actually take them up on the offer, but the concept of search engine exclusives are a dangerous precident. Regardless, the moment that Newscorp pulls all of its sites off of Google is they day that their hits drop terribly, and their internet revenue drops becuse advertisers won't tolerate paying so much for limited space. This is double death for Myspace. Its bad enough that most users don't log onto the site anymore, but loosing the fly by traffic generated by myspace searches will be the deathblow.

[gggg sssss]

blogger yes, blogs, no

[Random_Walk]

Super2online is correct - this is a tricky deal for all sides. On the one hand, while Murdoch is a big name in news, but OTOH, they're not the only game in town - by any stretch. <br /><br />They can make nice with Bing all they want, but Tom brings up an excellent point - Bing is a giant money-sink as it is, and their share appears to be leveling out (at least according to anyone who isn't comScore). Their Windows/Office cash cows are under pressure now (not necessarily by competition, but by a combination of other projects competing for the money, coupled with little things like netbooks, etc).

[Vegaman_Dan]

You bring up good points, Random_Walk. However you did ignore the massive release of a new OS called Windows 7 and all the revenue that will be bringing in. I think Microsoft has quite a bit of resources to invest in projects like Bing at this point- or else they wouldn't have bothered in the first place. <br /> <br />Personally, I don't like it and hope that this doesn't happen. I don't like exclusivity deals like this. If Bing gets Murdoch's content, how soon will it be before we see Google signing a similar deal with some other media conglomerate? Soon we'll have to remember which search engine has access to what resources and that can only hurt the entire point of the Internet- to share and distribute information. <br /> <br />Google, Microsoft, Murdoch, and even end users like you and me all stand to lose from such a situation.

[Renegade Knight]

@Vegaman_Dan <br /> <br />As soon as Google and Bing start segregating search like that they defeat the purpose of why we use search engines. Some scrappy punk programmer will ignore all the "don't index my site" issues, win the law suit on grounds of fair use and become the new player we all use so we can actually find what we are looking for regardless of who has the info. <br /> <br />The prescident of indexing periodicals has been around a lot longer than the internet.

[dhavleak]

@ Renegade Knight<br /><br />I do agree that segregating search would be a bad outcome. But I actually wouldn't expect that outcome (not over the long-term, that is).<br /><br />Basically, media companies (not just news ones) have a beef with Google for getting rich on their content, but not sharing the wealth. Google until now has been the only game in town so they didn't have to address the media companies beefs. Along comes Bing desperate to gain market share -- so they tell the very first big media company that will listen ("hey dude, we'll share revenue with you -- come hither"). Other media companies will sit up and take notice and want to partake of a similar revenue sharing agreement. This will threaten to lead to relatively large-scale deflections (or rather robots.txt delistings). Google will eventually get concerned enough to enter into similar revenue sharing agreements. Media companies will flock back to Google (because Google will bring them more visibility, since more people use it). And we'll be back to where it all started -- with content available on both major search engines. The only difference being that media companies will no longer be an endangered species, and search, while still lucrative, might not be as lucrative as it was before (which is a good thing - competition always drives the cost of a service down to commodity pricing -- so this is a sign of healthy competition in search). <br /><br />As to why sites would not choose to enter 'exclusives' with either Bing or Google (or anyone else):<br />Google won't be able to make exclusive deals -- it'll attract antitrust attention. Bing doesn't have the search numbers to make it attractive for an exclusive deal (i.e. once Google also offers revenue sharing, Google has the bigger search eyeballs, so a media company would need some serious dough from Bing to stay exclusive, to make up for the lost revenue. Bing couldn't possibly offer enough to make up for that loss of revenue and still make a profit.<br /><br />So while I agree that segregated search would be a terrible thing, and I do agree that segregation would happen for a short time, I see this as a growing pain for the search industry. It's could be the beginning of what might become standard revenue sharing deals between media site and search engines. It would also take some of the profits out of the search business (since those profits would have to be shared). All signs of healthy competition.

[Pete Bardo]

How about MySpace content? If they block this content, too, MySpace will suffer and probably finally die altogether. Murdoch is an antique who doesn't understand the internet!

[Random_Walk]

MySpace is dying anyway... this would just hurry the inevitable.

[gertruded]

The man will be 79 years old in a few months. He is from the last century. I say retire Mr.Murdoch, you have overstayed.

[t8]

Same goes for Microsoft. They have never understood the Internet.<br />So these 2 old dogs are resorting to dirty dealings, rather than innovating their way to success.

[captain_numerica]

lol @ MS never understood the internet. Someone needs to study history.

[t8]

@ captain_numerica <br /><br />Yes that person is you.

[captain_numerica]

Nice t8. Please explain to me how MS never got the internet. Also, while you're at it... please explain to me why it is you have a PC in your house? I mean.. that wasn't very common not too long ago. And MS (love them or hate them) can be widely credited with pushing for a world with a PC in every home. <br /> <br />If you think I'm ************ or fanboyin', you're mistaken. But I do hate ignorance. Now if you want to say MS didn't get the internet with IE &lt; v8, then I would totally agree with you.

[captain_numerica]

PS: why on earth was "d i e h a r d" filtered upon posting??

[Police_States_of_America]

i think its Google thats calling NewsCorps bluff. traffic will nosedive and so will ad revenue.

[bwillner]

I don't really understand why this is "calling Google's bluff" or anyone's. Are you suggesting that when push comes to shove Google will pay News Corp for rights to index their articles? Or will Google start to ignore the noindex tag?<br /><br />This should be of concern because if companies start picking exclusive search engines, the usefulness of the search engines will suffer. Suddenly we'll have to use multiple search sites for all searches (or aggregator search sites which will be quickly blocked by the big search engines).

[Tom Krazit]

It's more that Google is essentially telling media companies they can remove their content if they want, and Google would be just fine. That's true for any one company, but if everybody did it Google would have a problem.

[SteveW928]

@ Tom Krazit -<br /><br />True... but unless M$ could organize a more major coup against Google, the first company who tries it will pay dearly. In other words, if my primary search engine is Google, and News Corp drops out... I'll simply no longer realize their content exists.

[kgsbca]

If the News Corp blocked google search engines, the hit to google's ad revenue would be miniscule. If other newspapers followed suit, then the ones that remained open to the search engines would end up getting better placements in the search results. And I doubt that MS is going to start paying every news organization a fee for exclusive search rights, they just aren't that stupid. this is a pathetic bluff by Murdoch, and it's not going to work.<br /><br />I don't understand the complaint by the newspapers. google news only reports the first sentence or so on google news, and if you click on it, it takes you to the newspaper's website. If they are claiming that people don't click through because they get enough news from the headline, then they're wasting their money printing full stories, because obviously readers don't care. <br /><br />Also, if MS wants to have Bing cater to News Corp readers, they will have to create a special version that only returns results with single syllable words.

[JoeF2]

It is NewsCorp who is bluffing, and losing.<br />NewsCorp generally doesn't create the news, they report them. So, there will be a lot of others who could fill any possible void.<br />In addition, some world-class news organizations, e.g., the BBC, have to keep access to their news for everybody. They have a mandate from the UK government to provide news for everybody. And then there are other such organizations in other European countries, who have similar mandates to provide news in their native language, as well as in English.<br />And I am sure Mr. Murdoch, owning newspapers in the UK, knows all this, as well as does Google.

[knowles2]

JoeF2 <br /><br />He does. What is worrying is that the BBC is under almost constant attack by Murdoch news papers an others here in the UK. Murdock are also backing the conservatives, they basically the Republican without the religious dogma, an they basically want to cut the BBC licence an reduce the size of the BBC substantially, they have not really spelt out the full extent of there plans, but I an everyone else thinks it will be bad. If they win the next election then one of the things they will focus on is repaying there media friends. BBC already relies it got a major battle on it hands an one several of them over the last year to maintain it position. <br /><br />Personally I am thinking of not voting for the conservatives base on this only. An I hate our current prime minister. But I am thinking of taking the approach of sticking with beast you know rather than a new one.

[Renegade Knight]

@SteveW928 <br /> <br />That's true for news corp. However if enough do it to where my search results are not getting me to useful home pages on whatever I'm tying to look up they become worthless and at that time I'd be inclined to try another search engine. Preferable one that tells folks "Don't want your site intexed, don't attach it to the internet, or hide it behind a wall".

[BigDragon2]

bwillner, the exclusivity deals are what concerns me the most. I really really despise exclusives. I want the same games on PC as on 360 as on PS3. I want the same movies on DVD as on Blu-Ray as on HD-DVD. I want multiple sources of news on Google as on Bing as on some other search engine. Erecting artificial walls to try to force me to change my ways and search in a specific way just makes me not interested in searching for that content at all. I don't want to change my ways. I don't want a company thinking they can change my ways. The customer is always right, and if you're a big company you better listen up because the only way you're going to receive revenue from me is if you cater to what I want. I'm not going to cater to News Corp or any other company.<br /><br />Google needs News Corp and News Corp needs Google. The web is quite literally a web of interrelated interests. By erecting tariffs and trade barriers with exclusivity deals it stifles revenue for both companies. News Corp will get less traffic and advertising clicks and Google will have less content to display in results and link to with smart ads. If News Corp wants to go ahead with this bone-headed decision then so be it. If their stories don't show up in my searches then I'm obviously not going to read their content. Is that a loss? Yes it is because we should embrace differing opinions and points of view even if we don't agree with them.<br /><br />I hate exclusives.

[Grasor]

I'm of the opinion that Google should do a preemptive strike and remove all News Corp material. Then see who cries..

[usarioclave1]

Content on google is a means to sell advertising. If news corp moves, it breaks the concept that "you can find everything with google."<br /><br />Long term, this may cause problems for google, but only if other content providers opt-out as well.

[baconstang]

Right, you won't find as much crap on Google if News Corp opts out.

[SteveW928]

News Corp's business isn't selling advertising though... but providing useful information and content to a readership. This, in turn, drives the advertising. If they disappear from Google, they have, essentially, dropped off the face of the Internet earth. No content to readership... no advertising revenue.<br /><br />That Murdoch seems oblivious to this point should qualify him as STUPID. Thinking your business as a content provider is enticing M$ to fund you to beat out their competition is asinine.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Take a look at all that Murdoch includes in his list of companies whose content he controls. This isn't like some small travel agency pulling their content- this is a very significant and prominent name involved. I don't like it when content companies want to control who can see their content when they are trying to entice you to use them in the first place, but it is what it is. <br /> <br />I don't see anyone winning if Murdoch pulls his content.

[tvjames_]

@SteveW928 - "News Corp's business isn't selling advertising though... " - bzzz... wrong. That's all most forms of entertainment are - whether it's straightforward interstitial (ad banners, tv and radio commercials, ad blocks in magazines) or less straightforward (product placement), that's all you're doing - creating a mechanism for advertisers to inform us about products we didn't realize we were lacking, or to remind us of products they'd like us to consume more of. <br /><br />Now... some, like News Corp. with the Wall St. Journal have learned how to have their cake and eat it too - sell advertising space and also sell a healthy (profitable?) number of subscriptions as well. <br /><br />News Corp. believes that they can make more money without Google. The Microsoft thing, if true, is another stupid hairbrained idea that won't go anywhere. Unless Microsoft is planning a tablet with its own paid content structure, this is just going to make Microsoft's lawyers look bad when they loophole is pointed out that lets News Corp. put its content on the new Apple tablet and charge for it.<br /><br />I don't buy it. News Corp.'s complaint that people who come from Google only read one story and then move on sounds like NC's problem, not Google's. Perhaps NC is failing to produce quality sites that lead the reader from article to article or page to page.

[gggg sssss]

@SteveW928 articles are what goes between the ads. No ads, no pay for reporters or office rent. Unless of course you are the BBC who live off other people's taxes, telling them what to think with their own money. But heck, England still has a buch of useless. tax money sucking royalty, so not likely a good example for the rest of the world to follow..

Speaking as someone who loves Google and uses their products extensively, this change would mean I would never visit another unlisted site again. I am by no means alone in this attitude. There is no content on these sites that cannot be found elsewhere. I suggest Murdoch considers this before proceeding.

[KHannemann]

Well, I simply MUST have my daily overdose of Fox "News" including such luminaries as Bilious O'Reilly and Glenn Bucks. I imagine if they try to use the "no index" system, Google could simply reprogram to look for News Corp and ignore no index in that specific case. Where is it written that its not legal?

[tvjames_]

@KHannemann - sure, it's not "not legal" but it is evil. That's the whole point of noindex, to give the world an informal way of telling the search engines to stay out. Of course, that means if it continues to appear on Microhoo!, then that means they're violating noindex.

[Mergatroid Mania]

The arrogance here is by Google.<br />"can be tagged with a "noindex" tag, and Google won't index those"<br /><br />Once again the rules are different for Google. This is on par with negative option billing which has been made illegal is various places. Google will index your page and put links to your content unless you add this tag. It should be the other way around. Google should not be able to index anything unless there is an "index Google" tag present.<br /><br />Why are the rules different for Google? Now, of course, you can find partial copies of your written works on Google unless you tell them not to. Google is getting too big for their britches. <br /><br />I think all the companies that have their content "indexed" by Google without permission should all pull their content, join together and create their own news site and share the site, contribute their stories and share the advertising revenue.<br /><br />Is Google giving these companies a portion of the advertising revenue Google makes? I haven't heard, so I can't say. However it seems to me that all the content providers should get a slice of the money Google is making from their content.<br /><br />Google used to be a great company. They had a good product that worked well. Now, when you search for something, you have to wade through ads and sites claiming they have what you want when they don't. Try doing a search for "Your boring mother in law" and see how many sites pop up claiming to give you the best price on "Your boring mother in law".<br /><br />Google has outlived it's usefulness unless you're looking to buy something. Then, of course, you O.D. on how many different places try to sell it to you.

[markab21]

The comparison of a negative-option marketing tactic to having a listing made on google is simply absurd. <br /><br />Having a good ranking on google is like throwing a fit because the yellow pages has a full page ad for free in the phone book. <br /><br />99.99% of the websites out there that are customer facing WANT Google traffic, negative options are usually associated with deceptive marketing tactics. The fact that most people that are capable of putting a PUBLIC website up are capable of also setting a robots.txt hint for the search engines leaves me scratching my head how they are at ALL related.<br /><br />If Murdock doesn't want Google indexing their website, they should simply have a session based login for readers to pay for the content. Hey, it works for the porn industry, maybe big news can save their sinking ship by charge-for-use basis.<br /><br />Who'd of guessed in the 70's that bottled water would be a multi-billion dollar industry. Maybe News Corp will shock the hell out of us, I for one will not pay for their content but I'm sure there are many that would disagree and happily pull their wallets out.

[baconstang]

I guess if you search lame, you get lame responses.

[CyR00k]

1) News Corp has had an exclusive search ad deal with Google for years. Which, if you don't know what means, is that all of the ad income that News Corp makes on the web comes through Google.<br />2) Your Negative Option Billing analogy requires that Google is getting paid by the websites in the first place and then adding on extra services and fees then after the fact telling the companies that they can have those service and the associated fee removed. Google doesn't charge companies money to be listed. Beyond that, I have no idea who would want to run a commercial website that wasn't indexed by a search engine to drive up traffic.<br />3) Paid search results are on every search engine not just Google as you seem to believe.

[kgsbca]

"Once again the rules are different for Google. "<br /><br />No, they're not different for google, they're the same for every search engine. Google doesn't do anything that other search engines don't do.<br /><br />If News Corp wanted to stop google from indexing their stories, it wouldn't be a lot of work. Google would probably do it if they asked, but Murdoch hasn't asked. And he won't.

[JoeF2]

@megatroid<br /><br />It would help if you would actually learn about how the Net works before showing your cluelessness and ignorance to the world...<br />Google didn't invent the noindex metatag. And neither the robots.txt file. Both of these things predate Google's existence.<br />And actually, nobody is required to honor these tags. It is just a common courtesy among all serious search engines to honor them.

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

Um, this is how all search engines have worked since they were first created. Actually, it's kind of nice for Google to provide a tagging method to avoid having stuff indexed; most search engines will only listen to robots.txt, which blocks access to everything on the site.

[Renegade Knight]

Your backwards on this one. <br /> <br />This is indexing. In internet card catalog if you will. Before the internet to search periodicals for an article of interest they actually had books that did just that. <br /> <br />Indexing is fair use. That google offers an "Opt out" method is nothing more than Google playing nice. Personally Google is less useful to me (and it's counter to their own interest) to actually allow this option. It's far simple to say "the internet is a public network where anyone can see your content, and we will index all the info you have available for public consumption". That would mean the way to opt out is to not be on the net or behind a pay wall. <br /> <br />BTW if all the companies got together and did what you suggest that's fair competition. Heck if they want some of Googles add revenue they can buy Google stock or creat their own search engine. <br /> <br />Ignoring all that, I agree I'm starting to have Google Ad's get in the way of finding my results. In time that may push me to a site that doesn't do their adds in such an obrusive way.

[gggg sssss]

Wrong. The robots.txt and noindex were invented before google existed. If News Corp wants a different form of WWW, they coudl invent their own. Otherwise, if you put it on the web as we know it, it will get crawled. News could of course hire a programmer smart enough ( well, any programmer with a pulse would do ) that can simply not respond to googlebot or any other crawler. But that would require a clue or two. In short supply here and at News.

[unknown unknown]

The smart companies who actually understand the internet have systems in place to monetize the traffic Google sends them.<br /><br />Search indexing has been ruled fair use on several occasions. Fair uses do not require permission or compensation.<br />These site could remove themselves from Google, but they would be giving lots of traffic and ad revenue.<br /><br />FYI robots.txt has been around since Alta Vista was the top search engine, so over ten years now. So no, the rules are not different for Google. Murdock is just a greedy old man

[t8]

I strongly disagree Mergatroid Mania.<br /><br />The default is and should be that if you are on the Web, then you want to be indexed unless you say otherwise.<br /><br />That would be really silly to have a tag that says "index me". For a start 95% of the Web wouldn't be indexed and many wouldn't know why.

[Arbalest05]

No big deal. Pull your web sites off of Google Rupert, I dare you.<br /><br />Murdoch is still living in the sixties. He has no idea what the Internet is about, or why preventing Google from indexing his company's web site will hurt them. Just pull the plug, edit those robot.txt files and get it over with. We'll see what happens.<br /><br />--good luck with that.

[SenorFrog]

It's not just Murdock, this seems to prove Microsoft still doesn't get the internet. Data and information will flow. Any void created by News Corp will be filled by other sources. When I search for news, there are rarely, if ever, just one single source for that information. CNN must be drooling.

[Kiljoy616]

What makes even less sense is MS, to me I really believe MS is back in the 90 when they took on Netscape, a small company, maybe they think that Google is Netscape. Rather than bringing out innovation now they are having a tantrum over search engine, who cares is that the best they can come up, oh wait Vista was the best they can come up with. <br /><br />Ms when it wants to can come up with good stuff, Windows 7 is something that came out of screwing up Vista so bad, now its Bing, which takes them in a whole new direction, I guess when you can milk an OS and Office for so much money in the business field they figure we need to spend it on something, what a waste of good resources.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Kiljoy616: <br /> <br />Let's lay your diatribe against MSFT aside, since really, this story doesn't have much to do with MSFT at all other than MSFT is looking to make a buck and they see an opportunity to get it from Murdoch and take a swat at Google's market share in the same move. <br /> <br />What happens if this actually occurs? Other content providers will see that they can get money from search engines by signing exclusivity deals. What do they get by letting Google troll and take their content for free? Nothing. If they sign some deal with another search engine company, they can get millions. That's pretty hard for them to ignore. They get money and tighter control over who sees their content and how it's presented. <br /> <br />I don't like it, but I can see how it would appeal to content providers.

[stubbsonic]

Bing? So, that's going to become the cultural phenomenon that Google has become? "Oh, did you hear about the complete mental break-down Glenn Beck had on-air the other night? No? Just "Bing" it and check it out". Somehow I just don't see people "Binging" stuff has much as they "Google" I'm afraid.

[tvjames_]

Bing knows what you like to Google: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1915736

[Flip4o]

"Why are the rules different for Google?"<br /><br />They have never been different, Google is first and foremost a search engine, it crawls the web and finds content, it then links to the content so other people can find it. It can find pretty much anything, which is why people love it so much they made it a verb. The fact that so many people use it means the content is available to a much wider audience, since most news sites are supported by advertising this traffic provides revenue. It's a symbiotic relationship and everyone is happy with it aside from Mr Murdoch, who is very rich, very old, and so very out of touch.

[gerrrg]

Net Neutrality, anyone?

[baconstang]

Am I the only one to think Of News Corp and MS as a perfect marriage made in Hell? What an easy pair to totally ignore!<br />Google could do us a big favor and quit listing anything News Corp now.

[tvjames_]

Throw in Yahoo! and AOL (pre-order now - goes on sale Dec. 9!) and you can set them all on a garbage barge and push them out to sea.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Don't forget to do so, they also need to delist any and all Simpsons references, X-Men, American Idol, Rotten Tomatoes, Hulu, Fox Sports, SPEED, any all movies from 20th Century Fox, etc. <br /> <br />People seem to focus only on the news content aspect, but Murdoch is talking about taking his entire content off Google, not just news. This is much more far reaching that I think people realize.

[will_col]

Internet Explorer was the only browser bundled on PC's to kill of Netscape Navigator, I know this News Corp thing isn't quite the same, but it certainly shows that Microsoft haven't changed.

[DrtyDogg]

According to reports News Corp approached MS about a search deal, not the other way around.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@drtydogg: <br /> <br />While you are correct that MSFT was approached, it doesn't really matter in the end. It's a bad deal all around in my opinion.

[DemonDuck000]

Please Murdoch -- stop making promises you don't keep! Please move NewsCorp to Bing.<br /><br />I never ever use Bing so having your stuff on Bing would be a perfect match for me.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Ever go to a theater to watch movies? Ever use Google to find a movie theatre? What about television shows? There's a lot that people don't realize Murdoch controls.

[Renegade Knight]

@Vegaman_Dan <br /> <br />True enough. I'd manage though. I'm sure there are some great Bollywood movies just waiting to cross over.

[CyR00k]

Am I the only one that thinks that the companies that own Fox News (News Corp) and MSNBC (MS) forming an exclusivity contract for news delivery is humorous? In terms of news commentary they are ideologically opposed. <br /><br />Beyond that, News Corp has failed miserably in their endeavors to make money online. Murdoch has for years been highly vocal about his belief that all content on the internet should be pay per view only. He and his staff have adamantly refused to attempt any methods of driving up traffic or of producing material that consumers want. To borrow a line from the entertainers on his "news" network. If his business model isn't working then it deserves to fail, the "market" will correct itself (of course minus his company). Hey, if that mentality is good enough for his employees then it should be good enough for him.

[missingxtension2]

what that idiot fails to see is that on television all content is produced by content providers.<br />In the internet nobody needs to pay an endless barrage of licensing set in place to stifle competition.<br />The traditional method (internet way of) doing things is to log in, then go to go0gle.

[MadLyb]

Even if Murdoch gets MS to fund the gap in revenue, it will be a short-term fix to the very real fact that the loss in traffic will kill their ad revenue. <br /> <br />Of course, we are talking about the guy saying he is going to put all these sites behind a paywall. A concept that has not succeeded for anything but porn. <br /> <br />I wish him luck in his attempted brinkmanship with Google as he little to no chance of winning on this one,

[SteveW928]

@ MadLyb -<br />"Even if Murdoch gets MS to fund the gap in revenue, it will be a short-term fix to the very real fact that the loss in traffic will kill their ad revenue."<br /><br />Bingo! And people wonder why American business is in trouble?<br />It is people like Murdoch and so many other 'business leaders' who don't seem to understand business in any kind of holistic way any longer that are driving the economic demise.

[george_liquor]

It'd be ironic if Google's cloud initiative finally killed that Windows/Office cash cow while Microsoft is busy pissing money away on News Corp's Internet content.