If Rupert Murdoch has his way, then all us regular people will have to pay for our news on the internet. If you don’t know, he’s the newspaper mogul of New York Post, Times, Sunday Times, Wall Street Journal and The Australian. Of course, we’ve been paying for our news when we buy one or the other of these newspapers. But, wait! Are we really paying for the news or are we paying for the printing and distribution of it?

Not one newspaper in the world can make it with subscriptions alone. It is advertising that is the force behind it all. If subscriptions are down, then advertising goes down, if the reputation of the paper is down, then the advertisers lose face and find another avenue for their dollars. Advertising is what puts the pennies in the pockets of Rupert Murdoch, not subscribers.

It seems to me that Murdoch is not utilizing the internet to its maximum potential. If he would just capitalize on the click-throughs rather than charging for the privilege of reading news, then everyone would be happy; and for him there would be even more pennies in his pockets.

In an article on guardian.co.uk concerning the paywalls issue we see a man who is under the impression that news must be paid for. I am all for capitalism, but let’s be reasonable about it. I am a newshound and I have run across only one article in the past 10 years that I wanted to read, but had to subscribe to the publication before I could read it. I found my information elsewhere.

That leads to a most interesting point.

If there is an “event” and only one journalist shows up to the “event”, then there is only one place to find out about that event if one wants to be in the know. However, if the event is of sufficient note, then there will be more than just one journalist who goes to the event. Therefore, there will be more than just one outlet for news of the event. Murdoch wants to control enough of the outlets so that everyone must pay for news no matter where a newshound tries to find it.

Personally, I have not found enough content that is worth paying for in any subscriber driven news source to pay for a subscription. I can pay a cable company, or a satellite company, and sit down in front of my TV to watch news and opinion 24/7 if I want to. And these news channels rely upon advertisers to pay for everything. Would it not behoove Murdoch to at least schmooze advertisers just a little bit since this would seem to be a slap in their face… especially, since I seriously doubt there will be many internetlopers who will want to pay double or triple for their news: 1. cable/satellite; 2. internet subscriptions; 3. local newspaper.

Come on, you know I’m right. Just look at all the same stories that you hear in one day. How many real exclusives do you hear/read?

Be Sociable, Share!