Comments on: Rupert Murdoch vows to take all of Newscorp's websites out of Google, abolish fair use, tear heads off of adorable baby animals

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Considering the great expense of the dead-tree distribution, I’m surprised that advertising only revenue isn’t enough to support traditional newspapers. I wonder whether the legacy costs of a printing and distribution infrastructure sized for a much greater hard copy circulation is the killer.

By: jjasper

jjasper — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

If only Google would pre-emptivley de-list Newscorp properties.

By: Oshkosh John

Oshkosh John — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Tell me again, how did Rupert Murdock become a bazillionaire? Verily, the stupid is strong in this one. As print media becomes more and more irrelevant, how does boycotting the new media grow ones business?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Why are we charged for music or movies? If the artist says their trying to send a message through song or film, it should be part of “fair use” I felt it was a scam that the music industry went after “napster” and the other one with the “K” in it. But I fail to see the difference in the news/media or the film/music industry.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

OMG please please do this.. I would be nice not to have tainted news. And please triple what you charge for fox news to the cable companies….

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Wait, Congress is to blame for the housing bubble?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

When one door closes another door opens

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Go ahead Rupert, take the cork off the fork and find out what happens. We all know you won’t do it, you’re a typical selfish neocon you haven’t the guts to actually do what you threaten because you know you would be the loser in that scenario. And I love how you want the courts to be activists when it comes to the things you care about, but lordy try gettin some justice for the little people and suddenly the court system is all Marxist. File this one under empty threat and nobody cares what this scraggly old bag of dirt thinks anyway.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Gee, all this huffing and puffing from a man who came into the Twin Cities, bought two local tv stations and then outsourced jobs to another state a few years later. All is fair in raping, pillaging and corporate business. As an aside, didn’t Ronald Reagan say or at least imply that corporations could take better care of workers than “big” government? Surprise! They don’t, they can’t and they won’t.

By: thechicgeek

thechicgeek — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Just thinking out loud: If newspapers and other media outlets are losing money at breakneck paces, why don’t they just set the advertising rates higher? I know that the typical advertiser wants high click through rates and all that, but companies that advertise on TV don’t expect the same results. It’s all about getting people to view your products and brands, so why pay to have that visibility. Everyone knows who Miller Lite is, everyone knows who McDonald’s is. Everyone knows big brand names, because that’s all they care about, they shouldn’t have to care about click through rates.

I think maybe newspapers made a very bad decision years ago to not charge the same rates as they would with their paper counterparts. I don’t know. I just know a pay wall will never work on the Internet.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Are there Google Adsense ads on his content pages? If not, why not? That’s a simple way of getting Google to pay him.

On another tack, he would be doing the world a favor if his faux news is only accessible to the brain dead who want to pay for it.

By: chris23

chris23 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Jason Calacanis offers an intriguing angle on this. How to Kill Google:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

s/Murdoch/Moloch/g

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks! For my fellow clueless Americans: Sky News is owned by British Sky Broadcasting, and News Corporation owns around 40% of BSkyB’s shares. James Murdoch (the son of Rupert Murdoch) sits as the chairman of BSkyB.

By: scifijazznik

scifijazznik — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Did you just tell Murdoch to put his jowls back in his pants?

By: Ms Holly

Ms Holly — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Wouldn’t it be an awesome preemptive strike if google blocked them first?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It could only be an improvement if Murdoch sites weren’t indexed. Google’s newspage often is polluted by Fox’s garbage and debunked misinformation.

By: mn_camera

mn_camera — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Murdoch needs Google far more than Google needs Murdoch, and Google knows this quite well. Does sorry old Rupert?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Thank god that means my google news page wont have links to fox news anymore. previously I had to be very careful in not opening a fox news site(it only pollutes your mind)

By: tim

tim — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Please, Google, just stop displaying newscorpse sites for say a week just to let them know how effective it would be. Call it an experiment in how things would be if they got their wish.

By: zikman

zikman — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

omg thanks for editorializing the headline cory. now I won’t be able to sleep tonight.

By: chris23

chris23 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Oh noes, Uncle Murdoch! Pleeeze don’t make it harder for the sheeples to get access to your glorious yellow rag! BTW how is your Spruce Goose coming along?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Wow, I’m really surprised by this magnanimous Murdoch gesture to help clean up the internet by removing Newscorp crap from Google! Less noise, more signal FTW!

By: klintron

klintron — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

If search engines and big content providers do as Calacanis suggests, wouldn’t it more likely kill robots.txt than Google?

By: ill lich

ill lich — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Reminds me of an old-school recording industry mini-mogul I know who thought that because people were selling used copies of albums on ebay, that he owned the rights to (or even listing them on discogs) that meant somebody on the internet was stealing from him.

“How DARE they list my books in a library card catalog!!”

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Never ceases to amaze me how traditional media types STILL don’t understand that pay-for newspaper models don’t work. They never will. Just because it’s not indexed on Google doesn’t mean we still can’t find it for free elsewhere.

By: ArizonaMildman

ArizonaMildman — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

What can you say about Rupert Murdoch? He wants to take his dollies and run home because no one actually wants to pay to listen to tabloid news? You might read the headlines on the Enquirer to see if you can read the story about the alien baby found in a cornfield in Iowa, but you won’t pay for that ad rag. The same is true of ALL of Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda networks. If anyone asks him directly he wil admit this. This is the guy who has been avoiding paying his income tax for 57 years and really made out good during the Bush tax Cuts for the wealthy because someone for president that buys a company, bankupts it and leaves is able to be manipulated. Especially if you offer to tell the world any nonsense that he wants them to believe. The scandals that are going to come out as soon as this guy dies are like an avalanche waiting for a warm spell. Now doing business in the United States for the last 57 years is not exactly an enormous feat. Doing without ever paying your fair share of income tax is the feat. He picks pressidents who are corrupt and will allow him to continue to exploit the American public and makes a negotiation. He then launches a propaganda campaign that would make Joseph Goebbels envious and even in awe of Murdoch. He was a success from the beginning. When Rupert was 22, his father died, prompting his return from Oxford to take charge of the family business; becoming managing director of News Limited in 1953. He has been producing limited news since then. His idea of news is entertainment that influences you without the need for honesty, ethics, or integrity. This is the guy who says someone owes him more money or he will leave. We could only hope. I have been waiting for the day that something got rid of him, and I am hoping we finally found it. If you don’t pay the old felon he will leave. I wish to thank whoever figured that out.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

you know what would be totally awesome? if google de-indexed his sites. the entertainment value of rupert begging to be added back would be hi-larious :)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

As much as I agree with Murdoch being a douche and all, could you please research the (non-)relationship between the UN and the WTO a little more before making abstruse statements like this:

“The WTO’s rules — and Berne — are necessarily subservient to realpolitik, viz., the US gets $1 trillion of economic activity out of fair use, and it’s not going to get rid of it because it makes some UN agency sad (if the UN mattered to the US, the US’d be paying the billions in back-fees it owes).”

You are getting this fundamentally wrong – and it seems you have missed much of the international debate about the WTO since 1995 as THE means of the US to control international trade. And how you manage to add the UN to this, is unclear, being that the UN does not make any international trade rules at all.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Mr Murduck, you are a knob. Your newspapers aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, they’re biased, misinformative, unreliable pap. The BBC kicks your sorry butt every time.

Please please please withdraw your crap from the web and go bankrupt a.s.a.p. Please also fall slowly into one of your printing presses

have a really crap ‘rest of your (hopefully short) life’

no-one will miss you or your toilet-papers when your gone