Remove them from the web altogether while you're at it, you fuckfaced, corporatist curmudgeon.

Another stupid old fuddy duddy from the Newspaper business who does not understand and is clueless to what is happening in his industry.

This is very dumb. Say what you will about Fox but Murdoch does have good business acumen, this is surprising.

Please do. Go away forever, Rupert.

Cya wouldn't wannabeya So long Rupert Murdoch. bwhahhahahahahaha

Cya wouldn't wannabeya So long Rupert Murdoch. bwhahhahahahahaha

#5 | Posted by LarryMohr

Larry,

He's just another media mogul who is seeing his power slip away and he's fighting it. Same thing is happening to the once powerful News Papers that have been compromised by multiple popular sites.

I don't believe it... He'll be back

He'll start his own search engine.

He'll start his own search engine.

#8 | Posted by Lee_Atwater

If fux snooze is any indication-no matter what question you ask-you'll get rtard talking points for answers.

Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to know.

Murdoch needs to be run out of the business of dispensing news, information people need to make informed decisions and have effective speech.

If ever there is a need for the concept of 'We the people' it is applies here.

If what this man thinks is that information that can affect your everyday life must be paid for then RUN HIM OUT OF THE BUSINESS!

He dose not understand his obligation of owning these news and information outlets is not profits but letting people (i.e. citizens - you know what the heck a citizen is?) know the information they need to make informed decisions.

What is he saying other than if you can afford it you can then have the right to know. Idiot! If it's possible, RUN HIM OUT OF THE BUSINESS!

We'd rather have fewer people coming to our Web sites but paying

Good luck with that, Rup.

That business model has been tried and failed several times.

But, you are welcome to give it your best shot.

I certainly won't pay for any of his precious content, nor will I miss it if he follows through with his threat.

Maybe he should start a Super Duper Rupert club, just for his friends who want to pay him for the inside scoop on the events of the day.

Murdoch's right, though--ad-supported content sites don't make money. If he can't charge for content on WSJ or Barron's, nobody can.

Or maybe Google's right, and everything should be free, and they should be able to have every printed word on planet earth in their listings so they can better sell advertising. We'll sell.

I've worked for two different companies owned by Murdoch, and his business problems do not stem from the Internet. They stem from dysfunctional corporate bureaucracies so risk-averse that when all is said and done - about 99 percent gets said, and only one percent gets done.

Drudge righties will be heartbroken. No stupidity to link to and they'll actually have to spent a few pennies to buy Rupert's rags to find out what they think.

^.^

I don't see it happening, but the first few words states a logical and reasonable motivation :: site content being stolen.

And what does Rupert get around here? Laughter, ridicule, and hatred ... about what you would expect from Liberalistas with nothing better to day.

JEB

And I'll give a fuck.

"JEB

#15 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-11-09 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag: NEEDS TO FISH JETHRO OUT OF THE CE-MENT POND

TVBYTHENUMBERS.COM says it all. FOX WINS every night. MSNBC is for sale. Enough said.

"No stupidity to link to and they'll actually have to spent a few pennies to buy Rupert's rags to find out what they think."

Too funny yet also too true flag!

"TVBYTHENUMBERS.COM says it all. FOX WINS every night. "

Well, yeah...unless you compare them to the Main Stream Media.

Isn't his gripe the same as the other folks who post content online?

And Che--maybe you are too young to remember--but we all 'paid' for newspapers when that was the mode of reading content.

There are still some papers around--doing poorly.

Maybe Rupert is trying to get paid more from Google et al. and in doing so--will help the other content sources.

Fox is not even linked that much here on the DR.

WSJ--yes--

Barrons ?--can't recall anyone linking that source.

"TVBYTHENUMBERS.COM says it all. FOX WINS every night. "

Judge Judy gas 5 X's as many viewers as FoxNews.

we should be so lucky!

do it Rupert, please. Just do it, and then you can retire and the Fox network can gracefully collapse because they can't do it without you. King Rupert: A Legend in his own Mind.

fux snooze

There's some of that "intelligent liberal discourse" we always hear about.

You all are missing the bigger picture. This is not about Murdoch or Fox News it's about the content.

The AP is also squeezing google to start paying for the content they link to.

The Internet is and should be free. Information should be free. If you want it printed you pay. If not, not.

thing is, web reporting/news sucks
its terrible across the board, including all the major networks. And you want me to pay for that?

id rather buy a newspaper.

The Internet is and should be free. Information should be free. If you want it printed you pay. If not, not.

#27 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-11-09 11:40 PM

It is? How do you get free internet access? Do you steal you neighbors access or let the people paying taxes provide it at the library?

Either way somebody is paying for it.

The Internet is and should be free. Information should be free. If you want it printed you pay. If not, not.

What about information that someone had to be paid to write? Should that be free to you as well?

What other items that cost someone to make should be free to you? Books? Cigarettes?

The top Dog on Fox News is Orielly an he averages about 3,500,000 viewers a night. To all of you ignorant Fox watchers this is a Country of 350,000,000 so Mr. Orielly get his jollies off by being seeing by 1% of the American People, Big Fucking deal..........Only you Fox Republicans think that this is something special, GROW FUCKING UP!!!!!!!

Celisary - not EVERYONE can tear themselves away from entertainment television. One percent of U.S. delight in being informed.

The Internet is and should be free. Information should be free. If you want it printed you pay. If not, not.

#27 | Posted by sitdown at 2009-11-09 11:40 PM

Yes, I agree. Computer manufacturers should be required to donate hardware to all internet providers. Nobody working in the internet should ever be paid for anything, nor should they ever incur any costs. Everything should be free. Free as the wind. Free as the air. Free to be me...

And those journalists out there trotting around the globe looking for the information we all like to read at our liesure? They should also work for nothing yet the airlines should give them free seats on their planes and the hotels should house and feed them for nothing. Free. Free as the wind, free is the way, I got to be....

Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing.

We want to be free!

#34 | Posted by bellaspapa

The government will pay for it.

All "news" involving celebrities should be free. All White House press handouts reported as "news" should be free. All fake news should be free. Fox "News" should be free; because it's fake.

Fox "News" should be free; because it's fake.

#36 | Posted by igmoramus at 2009-11-10 07:26 AM

I guess you'd apply the same logic to silicone titties?

One of the great scams is corporate logo-wear. Nike really should pay me for running around town with the swoosh on my winter skullcap. Ah well, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the check.

I don't understand how he can remove his sites from google in the first place. He would need to take down all the sites altogether. All he can do is stop paying for ads on gooogle. At any rate it sound like a stupid idea. Google news is his only real gripe. They probably bring him 90% of his sites traffic. It will be interesting how this will work out.

Murdoch is actually doing the rest of the mass media a favor by taking on Google. Since his network is the only one booking solid profits, he's in a better position than the others to help fight over what should be free, and what should be paid for.

I don't have a horse in this race, really. Plutocratic billionaire studios who pretend to have the rights to all artistic content for all time on one side, versus billionaire Obamite thirtysomethings who think they can build a good search engine, and therefore have every book, TV show, song, and movie for free. If the libbies on this board had any sense, they would realize that this is a more interesting debate than simply Rupert Murdoch on one side of it who should be opposed because his company owns Fox News. But no.

Note to RCADE, MonsterMan, Larry and other assorted ignorant retards.

WSJ has ALWAYS charged for their content. People who care (and have better things to do than fuck around on blogs all day) pay serious money for WSJ to consolidate the news for them.

Having never earned money, nor paid for anything, I'm sure this is very surprising to you leeches

As a former journalist, I have mixed feelings. I think Murdoch is right to be worried about free content hurting business and trying to ensure revenue. Journalism does have a cost and without a revenue stream it's hard to maintain good content. But fighting Google is a baffling drive down a dead-end street. A Dickensian tragedy in the works. A classical Luddite argument from a doddering old fool who made big bucks on what is now an outmoded business model and can't stand to see the changing of the guard and a diminution of his wealth. No way in hell can this work.

I also think Murdoch brought on at least some of this himself, cheapening journalism with his tabloidist predilection for celebrity gossip, scandal, titillation, and in-your-face commentary. To his credit I will say that, for the most part, he has left the Wall Street Journal alone. He knows it's too revered to dismantle. But while the journalism there is still relatively healthy, the paid-content model is limited. I subscribe at my business because my company covers it because it might help us make money. But the portion that is available only to paid subscribers is actually shrinking, because the WSJ, like every other media outlet, wants the largest audience possible. In fact, a story in Vanity Fair says: "One theory about the decline in the fortunes of The Wall Street Journal (which allowed Murdoch to buy it) is that, because of its paid wall, the Journal was not a factor in Google searches, causing a fundamental decline in its importance, impacting its brand and standing with advertisers."

and have better things to do than fuck around on blogs all day)

#40 | Posted by vernon at 2009-11-10 10:30 AM

Where the fuck did you get THAT from?

Here, check this out:

MURDOCH, an the leeches, at his Fox-Republican News shows, are all in a flutter because it appears that Major Hasan may have indeed acted alone, NO CONSPIRACY, WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why does the Fox-Republicans need this to be a Terrorist Act?????? One guy losing his mind just won't be enough for these Right Wing lug nuts....

It didn't take these Radio Nuts long to blame this on the President, how do these people sleep at night????????????

Celisary--you do realize that you're insane, I hope?

^.^

As someone else said on this thread, this matter has more to do with whether Internet content can and should be paid for, and it already is...

- Again, as someone else said, people pay for Internet *access* either by going to a library that has it, or by paying through Cable or DISH or whatever.

- The government is looking for ways to gain money from the Internet, their current scheme being taxing Internet use.

SO, people already pay for access to the Internet, and the government is trying to get a piece of the action, so to speak.

Murdoch is trying to stop sites like Google from using his site content without paying for it, and again as someone here said, Associated Press already charges people to use their content. Murdoch's just doing what makes business sense.

It's not about love or hate of any of Murdoch's companies at all.

JEB

^.^

Why is it that the Liberalistas have to have the Hasan matter NOT be about terrorism? Oh! He had PTSD, perhaps the first ever case to have happened *before* the traumatic event! As a psychologist, I can pretty much tell ya that line is a bunch of BS.

Then we get: "he acted alone, so no conspiracy!" Well, why is it then that he attempted to contact Al Qaeda? WHy is it then that he went out of his way to try to fit the profile of an Islamo-terrorist while he was doing the shooting? Shouting "Allah Ackbar" and all that ... certainly looked like a terrorist to pretty much any sane person...

Liberalistas simply don't like it when their mortal enemies in the news media (FOX News) gets something right. They were probably apoplectic when the ACORN thing broke, and now they're having seizures over the Hasan killings. It's like if John Stewart had broken a scandal on George Bush, they'd be overjoyed.

JEB

"As a psychologist....."

*shudder to think.

^.^

You probably shudder at pretty much anything outside your rather small world, I imagine.

JEB

This is just Murdoch rattling his saber.

He's a douchebag but he's not stupid. He knows that pulling the sites from google is bad business.

TVBYTHENUMBERS.COM says it all. FOX WINS every night. MSNBC is for sale. Enough said.

#18 | Posted by aclusux at 2009-11-09 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yippee for you!

Now when FAUX News whines about the 'Mainstream Media', they'll be pointing the finger squarely at themselves.

After all, you don't get more 'mainstream' than having the #1 ratings.

Seems 'Crazy' really needs affirmation these days.

commondense is too fucking stupid to comprehend #1 Cable News Network.
Is anyone surprised?
In fact, how fucking stupid does one have to be to not get that people are talking about the cable news race?

Good. And good luck with that charging for your
"news?" content too...