Print 40 comment(s) - last by glitchc.. on Sep 22 at 7:18 PM

Eric Schmidt says in general paid content plans don't work online

Print publications that run websites are fighting to convince their peers and readers that paying for content online is the only way to go. The problem is that a generation of internet users are used to getting content for free and getting them to pay for the content will be difficult if not impossible.

Publishing tycoon Rupert Murdoch has previously stated that his company will begin charging for access to the content on all of its websites. Currently the only publication that charges for content in Murdoch's empire is the Wall Street Journal.

Shortly after Murdoch made the decree that all of News Corps. websites would charge for access to content, Google CEO Eric Schmidt scoffed at the plan and said that newspapers don’t want to "piss off" readers. Schmidt has again scoffed at Murdoch's plan to charge for online content.

Schmidt told attendees at a meeting of a group of British broadcasting executives that it would be very hard to charge for content online because the same content is available free.

Reuters quotes Schmidt saying, "In general these models have not worked for general public consumption because there are enough free sources that the marginal value of paying is not justified based on the incremental value of quantity. So my guess is for niche and specialist markets ... it will be possible to do it but I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do it for all news."

Schmidt is basically saying that the Wall Street Journal being successful with charging for content online is the exception, not the rule.

Murdoch has still not rolled out his pay for content scheme to any of the other websites in his publishing empire; perhaps he knows deep down that wishing readers would pay and getting them to do so are two very different things.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By DarkElfa on 9/18/2009 11:34:29 AM , Rating: 5
Anyone smart scoffs at Rupert Murdoch. He's the epitome of everything wrong with modern journalism, Fixed News not withstanding.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By troysavary on 9/18/09, Rating: -1
By someguy123 on 9/18/2009 2:16:57 PM , Rating: 5
tabloids are always popular.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By ImJustSaying on 9/18/2009 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 1
I find it funny that you should use part of Fox's slogan of "Fair and Balanced" when criticizing another network's slogan used to describe Fox, "Fixed News." (MSNBC: Keith Olberman's Countdown).

Just saying....

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By Octoberblue on 9/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By headbox on 9/18/2009 6:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you're not even aware of the manipulation done by the agenda-driven media empire, with Murdoch as chief neo-con architect, makes your entire line of thought irrelevant. Fox is just another fear-mongering corporation that sells us a 2-party system instead of a truly independent view of our nation.

The biggest joke is the idea that Republicans are "conservative" with their interventionist overseas empire, big deficit spending, loss of moral reputation, and regulation on everything ...but just a little less than the "left" so they can still say they're on the "right."

By Shining Arcanine on 9/18/2009 7:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think that you are not even aware of the fact that you lack a truly independent view of the situation.

You keep going on about it without any sort of thought as to what the actual situation is like. The biggest joke is that my description of you accurately describes most people when they talk about politics.

By Flunk on 9/19/2009 10:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
There really is no such thing as a "balanced" news agency, the whole idea is laughable. In theory such an agency should report with equal biases for all sides, and I really can't see anyone truly being able to do that. Unpopular opinions will never be voiced, even for the purpose of balance.

What news should be is unbiased, without any spin and in that regard all of the major US news services fail miserably.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/19/2009 2:03:14 PM , Rating: 1
The fact is, any balanced news source is going to appear right-wing to people who are accustomed to the extremely left-wing traditional outlets.


Give me a break guys. The coverage by the other big networks besides Fox on pollitical evens is just terribly slanted and biased. Fox isn't perfect, and sure Murdock is a douche, but they are the most balanced out there.

Asking hard questions and pointing out what a disaster this administration is isn't "right wing bias". It's called good journalism.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By cruisin3style on 9/21/2009 1:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, truth...

Like when Fox News "accidentally" labels that congressman who had a fling in Argentina and another recent congressman conducting similar mischievous acts Democrat next to their state instead of Republican (which they were)

i.e. D - GA or whathaveyou

I realize I am somewhat biased (to the left) myself, but if you had seen the Outfoxed documentary or seen some of the completely INSANE things fox puts on it's (mostly nighttime, as I understand it) lineup that I have seen clips of on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows....

yeah, unbiased may not be possible, but biased is Fox News baby

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By ChristopherO on 9/22/2009 1:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
Like when Fox News "accidentally" labels that congressman

You do realize *all* the networks do things like this all the time? Places like Media Bistro (the TVNewser blog) tend to catch the egregious ones. Of which there are a lot, on all networks. Singling out Fox is just disingenuous in that regard. It's usually just human error, some graphic guy in the control room, who isn't paid very much, just makes a typo, and a producer catches it later. There was also the issue awhile ago where MSNBC or CNN put something up during one of Bush's speeches that appeared to be inflammatory, but it was a system error message from a crashed editing box.

Things like this happen, get over it.

I personally hate all cable news. CNN is boring as heck, seriously, where do they get their anchors? MSNBC is obviously heavily biased to the left. They were a failing network, waaay behind in 3rd place, and made a conscious decision to go "all liberal" and are now in second place behind Fox leaving CNN in the caboose. Fox is obviously tilted right, but seriously, what's wrong with that?

You *always* need contrary opinions to keep a check and balance on things. The rest of the media is going quite soft on Obama right now. Fox isn't. During Bush's years, Fox was more favorable, and everyone else wasn't.

Frankly I wish there were more viewpoints available, but we have what we have.

For the record, the only news show I watch is Special Report w/Bret Bair. It's Fox 6pm ET. Best out there. The first 40 minutes is hard news, no celebs, no sports, no crazy outlandish murders, etc. It's like the video equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. The last 20 minutes is like a Sunday talk-show panel. Most of the time they are pretty fair with right-to-left people, some days they only have moderate-to-conservative panelists. If it's a dumb topic, I just skip-it. I'm really there for the first 40 minutes.

If anyone knew of something similarly unbiased with hard-news-only (politics, world, etc), I'd be willing to hear about it.

By ChristopherO on 9/22/2009 1:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, Jim Leher on PBS. I forgot about him. Bret Bair and Jim Leher's Newshour are similar. If you like one, you might want to check the other. Jim can get stories that Fox can't (since democrats usually refuse to talk to Fox to appease the left-wing, same reason republicans avoid MSNBC), and Fox can get stories that Jim can't since they've got a vastly bigger budget than PBS.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By headbox on 9/18/2009 6:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Like ALL other mainstream media channels, they get their "news" from the AP wire. The don't even have ONE of their own reporters in Afghanistan... so all "coverage" from them is just hearsay.

FAUX News fair and balanced? How about their push to make Giuliani the #1 Republican candidate? He received virtually no primary votes, no campaign dollars, yet they always referred to him as "front runner." In their own debate they only interview "undecided" voters who "decided" in favor of him. Their own poll showed he got around 3%, while candidate Ron Paul won a substantial victory... so Fox called their own poll inaccurate.

This is only one example of the agenda-driven "news" source run by Murdoch.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/19/2009 2:30:55 PM , Rating: 1
Dude wtf are you talking about ? Ron Paul wasn't running as a Republican.

By OAKside24 on 9/19/2009 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Actually he was running as a Republican in '08 (a real, traditional Republican), because that's the only way to have a shot at the U.S. presidency these days: The two-party system.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By BZDTemp on 9/20/2009 6:54:33 PM , Rating: 1

Just because Fox claims to be balanced does not make it so. In fact it is almost so that if Fox says it then it must be wrong!

Oh, and as for Fox and their ratings. If you want the real picture you need to compare Fox with pretty much everyone else combined. Fox is pretty much alone with their version of the truth so they compete with no one where as the others compete. Face it if you thing Fox is right then anything else is lies and vice versa.

Please watch some Daily Show. They make a point in showing how Fox operates - it sounds like you could need some perspective.

By Reclaimer77 on 9/20/2009 8:41:54 PM , Rating: 3
lol The Daily Show !?? You must be joking. It doesn't get more liberal than the Daily Show, plus it's a comedy show. If you are seriously looking to them for "proof" about something you need help.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By dark matter on 9/18/2009 2:08:21 PM , Rating: 5
I don't know why this poster is being voted down. He 100% correct.

I would like to bring to the attention of those on the right (who more than likely voted him down) that his post was in fact completely neutral. Those papers that favour the left are almost as bad. But the Murdoch empire are marginally more sensationalist.

It's all proganda and blown out of proportion. Generally the world is a boring place, and who wants to read a boring newspaper, hence the need to "spice" things up a little, on both sides of the fence.

Here in the UK, the murdoch papers are constantly in court for printing false stories. Not to mention the sensationalism that was "SWINE FLU". I thought we would all be dead by now.

And they actually expect me to PAY to read that guff. Give me a break.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By jhb116 on 9/18/2009 6:04:48 PM , Rating: 3
Yes Fox News is biased right - won't dispute that fact. Left almost as bad - what? The NY Times called Bush Hitler and MSNBC is just a media outlet for left wing rhetoric. The only channel that seems to have pulled itself to a somewhat more neutral stance (but still leans left) is CNN. (The BBC and other news sources not corrupted by US bipartisan politics aside.)

Reality is that paying for what is being broadcast today - sensationalism for the sake of viewership and whatever point of view they support - will likely fail. Real investigative journalism that presents facts and tries to pull in all the pro's and cons and leaves it to the individual viewer/reader to form their own opinion - may have a chance at being able to charge for access.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/20/2009 12:35:45 PM , Rating: 3
OH and I think Fox News was also the only network that actually covered the march on Washington last week with any seriousness, while the other left wing rags are trying to pretend it didn't happen. But I guess like a million citizens protesting against it's government isn't really news, nope, just more right wing bias...

Get a clue guys.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By JoshuaBuss on 9/21/2009 9:18:55 AM , Rating: 2

I hope you're trying to be funny..there were around 75,000 people.. not 'millions'. if you're being serious, your post is hilarious for being so pathetically wrong.. but if you're being a sly and sneaky comic, you've earned my respect.

By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2009 9:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
No it was just poorly written. Millions of Americans ARE actively protesting the government. I didn't mean it to come as meaning they were all there at the event however. My bad.

By superPC on 9/18/2009 8:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
why do we resist this so much? we always pay for scientific journal like nature, science, and the like. other scientific journal are also paid journal like IEEE, etc. ever since my undergraduate days i always pay journal (via my campus) and now my workplace pays for those journals. i mean if we don't want to pay for it, then find other source of news.

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By ElderTech on 9/20/2009 3:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
After attempting to stay out of this one, the bias toward Fox news brought me in. With a conservative background, I've become more moderate, and yes, even liberal in some areas, as I age, just like my mother suggested I might many years ago. But with my particularly fiscal conservative roots, I still view much in life with that bias.

However, when it comes to news, accuracy is the most important aspect for me. And that's where Fox in particular falls apart. Their ultra conservative bias is far more prevelant than the bias of other major networks in general, the exception being specific venues like Keith Olbermann, et al.

The reason Fox news is appealing to the younger demographics of 19-39, etc., is due to their packaging. It's a slick, glossy and fashionable (read unusually attractive presenters) that follows in the trend of tabloid hype. There are no real people presenting the news, just hollywood types that are making a fashion statement, with the Murdoch spin attached. It's unfortunate that even the tech-savy like this audience are taken in by their approach. I would think this crowd would have a more cynical approach to this topic and Fox News in particular as they do to most others.

That being said...
By killerroach on 9/18/2009 11:48:08 AM , Rating: 3
...while Google is making some good points, a lot of this to them boils down to self-interest.

After all, in Google's world, Internet content is supported by a full stream of ads, all of which come directly through them. Of course Google doesn't like the idea of some company charging for their own content, they'd rather themselves be paid for everyone's content.

Even still, I don't see a paid content model succeeding without either large amounts of exclusive content or a wide-ranging array of content portability and delivery options. As was said earlier, the competition is all over the place, and it's really, really hard to compete with free.

RE: That being said...
By nafhan on 9/18/2009 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 3
It's not really self-interest. It's the people at Google being smart enough to understand a fundamental aspect of the internet and aligning their business accordingly, while Murdoch and Co. don't seem to be getting it, despite numerous examples.

RE: That being said...
By someguy123 on 9/18/2009 1:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
don't see how. even if the news were to go subscription all that would happen is google would need to remove certain sites from their news search. they aren't accountable for other sites, and there's no real way to prove your news was stolen unless someone directly copy and pastes it.

google realizes that, even if they went subscription based, it would only be a matter of time before the internet got a hold of the news and spread it for free elsewhere. news companies would definitely make more money running free sites off ads than they would running subscriptions of news you could get elsewhere.

RE: That being said...
By glitchc on 9/20/2009 12:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
That is a silly argument. If a newspaper is subscription-only, the google crawler cannot access it. No access = content unavailable. Therefore, as far as the user of the search engine is considered, the site itself is invisible.

RE: That being said...
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2009 2:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
And what is your point? That news on subscription sites stays on subscription sites? Ever looked at porn? You can find just about all of the subscription stuff for free. Nothing stays on a pay site for very long.

RE: That being said...
By glitchc on 9/22/2009 7:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Porn tends to be the exception rather than the rule, quite possibly due to demand exceeding supply. Generalizing the porn statement to say, Wall Street Journal is fallacious at best. It's typically the opinion pieces that are subscription-only. If there is a natural disaster in some part of the world, of course all news sites will have it, but an exclusive interview with a high-ranking businessman/congressman/etc. conducted by a WSJ correspondent will only be available on WSJ.

RE: That being said...
By Suntan on 9/18/2009 3:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
...while Google is making some good points, a lot of this to them boils down to self-interest.

I would argue that it is in Google’s business interest for a lot of the major news sources *to* move to a subscription based setup.

If all the major news urls turn subscription only, it will be that much harder for the vast majority of the people (those of us that aren’t going to pay to hear the news) looking for news online to find it by just typing in, or, etc. …therefore, they will rely on search engines more.


Paying for content...
By ksuWildcat on 9/18/2009 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
Paying for content might work for some things like "insider" reports on investing or sports, but it isn't going to work for traditional news which can come from any number of sources.

RE: Paying for content...
By kattanna on 9/18/2009 12:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. and most free "news" sites aren't even worth that much, IMO.

RE: Paying for content...
By Suntan on 9/18/2009 3:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
I would say it wouldn't really hold up for a lot of "specialized" niche areas either.

For anyone with a subscription to the WSJ, feel free to post an article, written at any time, and I bet someone can find an article that tells a similar story and was released close to the same time frame on a free website.


RE: Paying for content...
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2009 2:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think for certain things you're not paying so much for the news, but for the credibility of the news. Doesn't do much good to find a financial "report" if someone just made up the numbers after all.

Not going to happen
By Motoman on 9/18/2009 10:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
...virtually all news online is commoditized...and democratized. Fundamentally, the only way a news source could get away with charging for content is if they were well and truly a unique, niche offering that no one else could compete with.

I can think of precisely one example: WSJ.

I don't believe for a second that regular newspapers have any chance in hell of charging for content. Especially not unless they can convince other online sources like Reuters and CNN to start charging for their content too.

If you got every online newspaper to charge, then people may pay because they feel they have no choice (bloggers and similar stuff notwithstanding). Granted that at least one credible news source will always be free, no other regular news sources can ever charge for their news.

Bringing the A Team
By ZmaxDP on 9/18/2009 12:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
All I know is, Murdoch better bring his "A-Team" if he's trying to roll against Google. He'll need Hannibal, the Face, and B.A. if his crazy scheme is going to work. Of course, this isn't their usual MO, and I'm not sure welding nail guns and a jack hammer to a forklift is really going to help out much on the internet...

In other words, great picture choice...

Riddle me this
By Ammohunt on 9/18/2009 1:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
I already pay for the content via my Direct TV subscription. So i get to pay extra for the same content but a different delivery method? No thanks.

the measure of unbiased journalism
By chromal on 9/21/2009 4:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is when you can watch the news article and the thoughts being journalistically explored on the topic and not find yourself screaming the blatent biases and omissions back at the television set by the end. Fox has always flunked this smell test. CNN et al do poorly as well, but for them, I feel as though it's more a spirit of neglect, rather than the malicious manipulation Fox seems to try and pull.

Though it's not journalism, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart does a reasonable job of dragging fox through their own offal from time to time, for example, Fox's coverage of demonstrations in D.C. during the Bush regime, vs their coverage of a conservative coalition demonstration a week or so ago. Again, their hypocracy was nicely summed up by the Mon, Sep 14th, edition of The Daily Show (article covering Fox's coverage of the recent D.C. demonstration starts about 10 minutes into the program). Here's a URL, use it while it's valid:

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki