Rupert Murdoch plans charge for all news websites by next summer (Guardian)

[Drew Wilson]

The billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch suffered the indignity of seeing his global empire make a huge financial loss yesterday and promptly pledged to shake up the newspaper industry by introducing charges for access to all his news websites, including the Times, the Sun and the News of the World, by next summer.

Stung by a collapse in advertising revenue as the recession shredded Fleet Street's traditional business model, Murdoch declared that the era of a free-for-all in online news was over.

"Quality journalism is not cheap," said Murdoch. "The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."

The Australian-born press and television baron was speaking as his News Corporation holding company slumped to a $3.4bn (£2bn) net loss for the financial year to June, hit by huge writedowns in the value of its assets, restructuring charges and a dive in commercial revenue.

More... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/06/rupert-murdoch-website-charges)

When he throws up a paywall, he'll happily watch his profits fall faster than a tonne of bricks I'm sure. That's what happens when big business heads have a death wish.

[mountain_rage]

Why doesn't he do what has worked for him so far, turn his "news" into even more rant filled, opinion pieces. He almost makes you think that his paper requires money for research, his empire is very closely mirrored by blogging in how accurate it is a describing real world events. Even then, at least blogs have a mountain of commentary to fact check.

[fleecy]

"Quality journalism is not cheap," said Murdoch.

how would he know? fox doesn't have any.

i'll be damned if i'll pay for something i wouldn't even wipe my butt on.

[norm1515]

The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free
Guh!... What part of "Information wants to be free" don't you understand, Murdoch?
:p

[Hath]

This is almost as bad as what the AP has already done. Fucking retards.

[YWD67]

If he thinks his cheap low IQ viewers are going to pay for anything at all he is nuts
He is pouring his cash down an bottemless pit.
And that bottemless pit is located on top of Glenn Becks head.

[moneoa]

Its actually a lot better than Rupert being a retard because years ago most of the majors charged for "premium content" and failed in trying to make a paid subscription base. Thàts why its free now

[drtoker]

Our paper only provides 15% of its content for free online. You have to pay for the rest. Its not like they charge a lot though, its like dollars a month for a subscription.

Online subscription sales are through the roof. Believe me, when its restricted, people will pay for their local news at least. Now the global/national news may be another matter all together.

Edit: Should mention that when you pay, you get the exact paper, page by page scanned in, with all the ads and coupons as well. Kind of neat.

[mfgbypooter]

It's like paying for porn, if I have to pay for it I don't want to know.

*

[norm1515]

If I recall, the New York times was considering a system where articles could be viewed online for free up to a certain amount per month. Anyone who wanted to read more than a dozen or so articles per month would need to buy a subscription. Can't say I'm a fan of charging for online content, but that business model makes more sense then a paywall. That way folks can read the occasional article linked from a blog without having to buy a subscription, and serious readers of the times can pay to see all the articles they want. The disadvantage? I'm sure you could view more than the set amount of articles for free by using a proxy.

I forget where I read this. I might have heard it on NPR.