Google may lose WSJ, other News Corp. sites
Rupert Murdoch is threatening to pull his content from Google. Is this a bluff?
(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET)Update: 11:15 a.m.: To include comments from Google.
Rupert Murdoch, the media tycoon who has long accused Google of ripping off content from his newspapers, said this weekend that his sites may soon disappear from the search engine's listings.
Murdoch is chairman of News Corp., the newspaper, TV, and Internet empire that includes The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, 20th Century Fox, Fox News, and Hulu. He made the comments in an interview late last week with Sky News Australia.
After Murdoch accused Google, Microsoft, and others of "stealing" his company's content, he was asked why he just doesn't pull his Web sites from Google's search results.
"I think we will," Murdoch responded. "But that's when we start charging."
Murdoch and other News Corp. execs have said that they intend to charge readers and viewers. In the past, the company's sites have relied on advertising revenue.
Murdoch made it clear he's no fan of the ad-supported model. "There are no news sites or blog sites making any serious money," he said.
"What's the point of having someone come occasionally who likes a headline they see in Google," Murdoch continued. "The fact is there isn't enough advertising in the world to go around to make all the Web sites profitable. We'd rather have fewer people coming to our Web sites but paying."
When asked why he would buck the trend of offering free content, Murdoch said: "(The public) shouldn't have had it free. I think we've been asleep."
Google has said that it feels obligated to help media companies because it needs their content. That hasn't stopped Murdoch and his staff from continuing to make hostile comments about the search engine. What News Corp. hasn't done much of is follow up with action.
Is News Corp. trying to scare Google into making more concessions? Or is it just afraid to pull the trigger?
On Monday morning, Google responded to Murdoch's quotes in a report by the British publication The Telegraph.
"Publishers put their content on the Web because they want it to be found," Google said in a statement. "Very few choose not to include their material in Google News and Web search. But if they tell us not to include it, we don't."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Well we've had the schools and a group of politicians tell us for years we're "entitled" to anything and everything we can think of to steal from those who've worked for it, and the media cheerleaders have pushed the same garbage. We just recently ramped it up to high gear--what do you think the last election was about?
A bunch of dependents trying to vote themselves free stuff from someone else's wallet.
" What he is saying is he will start charging AND start going after the people stealing News Corp. stories."
Your example is an exception that usually only applies to specialized content will little quality competition. Most news sources that have tried to charge have failed worse than their add-click endeavors. His assumption is that most desired sources will follow and that the consumer will have no choice but to pay. If this does not happen it will fail. If a few specialized sources do well, it will not be able to subsidize the rest and users will always be able to pirate the content anyways.
"How did we get to the point where we feel we are entitled to free news?"
Because companies like Google figured out how to make money with free web content and services while traditional news sources shunned the platform and become declining relics. This is just a perfect example of how they have not changed. Also this is not about entitlement. It's about competition. Because of competition, we know we don't need to pay for a news source, so we scoff at the idea. Successful media sales will be tied to advertising or subscription services that are tied to electronic devices and the ones who design the devices and software services will be ones in control of the profits. I think the real outcome will be that companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft will directly or indirectly take over content providers for most forms of media, such as news, movies and music.
Your points are well thought out and relevant. I am not commenting on anyone like you, but more the people who tend to cry bloody murder when anyone has the gaul to try and charge for something. You are correct I saying people like Google and the like have show a better way. Much like TV in that respect. You pay for cable, and not for individual shows. You pay for internet, but not each website. Just remember there is HBO, Showtime, etc that are very successful competing with "free" product. Much like Murdoch is trying to create with paid service on the internet.
IMHO, free news will only go so far. Advertisers are pulling back, simply realizing their online content just isn't getting people's attention. It's never free, but if people aren't going out and buying ad products, then you will start getting hit with news site subscriptions.
All he has to do is put his money where his (big) mouth is. Other news providers without paywalls will triumph and we'll all be well rid of Murdoch and his, quite frankly, money obsessed ilk. If he can't monetize the many, many thousands (millions?) of visitors Google sends, then I'm sure someone else gladly will and it can't come too soon as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, and yes, there IS a future if all content is free forever.... we will just move from the unfair capitalistic system to a more socialistic system.
However, I have yet to see a workable model. I am not paying $10 a month for one site; more like $5 a month for access to 50 sites that I like. Then options to add more. This will likely never happen.
Micro-payment models have also been proposed with little to no interest.
Has the internet doomed the world? Not likely. In the short term bloggers will continue blogging and newspapers will continue their gradual decline. In time, we will come up with a mixture of advertising and reader support.
Fails to adapt? Last I checked adapt means change, right? So they currently don't charge, and are moving to a pay model... Hmmmmmmmmm, isn't that trying to adapt? He may not be right, but he certainly isn't doing what everyone else is. I think you're confusing "adapt" with "lemming" "
Perhaps YOU need to learn the meaning of the word adapt.
ADAPT: "To make suitable; to fit, or suit; to adjust; to alter so as to fit for a new use;"
Not sure how using a old world technique is adapting. Kind of like saying the best way for polar bears to adapt to global warming is by growing more fur.
Man you people are really dense... Old world technique? The internet is 15 years old, and he believes it will work. For 15 years his sites have been for the most part free. And now he is changing that philosopy. So yes, he is trying to "alter" his websites "so as to fit for a new use" and "make it suitable" in what he believes to be a dying business model. It is the essence of the word adapt.
Why do you think that someone isn't trying to adapt if they are doing something you don't like? Adapt doesn't mean success, it means trying change something. Will Murdoch be successful? Probably not, is he trying to adapt his web business? Yes. As he states in the interview he doesn't believe there is enough advertising to go around to fund the free web. Again, he could be tottally wrong, but he is trying to adapt.
You're last comment was just stupid. Saying that history has no value is rediculous. Many things have gone away from certain business models, only to return to them years later with new success. Just because it's "Old World" does nessesarily mean it won't work. You don't need to come up with the idea in order to use it you know. For that matter, TV and Newpapers are totally different mediums, saying it's an old idea is saying that those forms of news media are the same as the internet, which is again wrong. The Romans had plumbing, aqueducts, etc. Their empire failed and for years no one built anything. Over 400 years later people and places started to look at what they accomplished and use it for their own prosperity.
It's time to realize that news is supposed to be free in this day and age. Maybe 100 years ago back in the day of no computers, it was okay to charge for news..... not now.
BTW Most people under 30 dont even watch regular tv anymore. More of it is online nowadays. not just on Hulu, but ABC.com NBC.com etc...
(I do not have a solution either. I think that reporters need to be paid, but google is not stealing.)
Oh, and to mtngem.....if you are dealing up pop-up ads every 10 seconds, you are either on a porn site or a virus site, one or the other. ZDNet only shows one popup every 10 or so pages. Same thing for USAToday and every other legitimate non-porn site I can think of.
Google is not stealing.
Share-holders, time for a hostile takeover?
The fact is that ad-supported is the wave of the future, and if you don't realize that.... you are going to die a death more painful than 1000 red-hot daggers plunging into your flesh simultaneously to UNDERSTATE it.
There have been other companies who have tried going the 'paid route', one namely being our local paper in my area called the Aegis...... it is losing money because NO ONE wishes to pay for viewing news, even local news, anymore.
Everyone wins!
Murdocks position is just saber rattling, I mean seriously, just do it already- find some 15 year old intern and get him to change the file! It would take 3 minutes tops. The WSJ is just another Fox outlet and I stopped reading them completely. Financial Times and NYT business sections are much more independent and credible.
Rupert Murdoch you do not pull the plug on google...you will also switch yourself off. There are just too many bloggs and tweets out there..who needs biased reporting???
- by Bristol Slim November 9, 2009 9:39 AM PST
- Rupert's daft. He's not going to follow up because there's no way he can exist in a parallel universe.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (120 Comments)