AP, News Corp bosses say pay up

BEIJING (AP) -- The message from some of the world's leading news providers at the first Beijing international media summit was clear: It's time to demand payment for online use of content.

After free-falling profits and massive changes in technology and in the way people obtain their news, global media leaders who gathered in Beijing said Friday that it is time for search engines and others who use articles, photos and video without fair compensation to pay up.

"We content creators have been too slow to react to the free exploitation of news by third parties without input or permission," Tom Curley, The Associated Press' chief executive, told a meeting of 300 media leaders in Beijing for a conference on the challenges and opportunities the media face from the Internet, technology changes and the world economic crisis.

He said content aggregators, such as search engines, and Web services such as Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook are directing audiences and revenue away from the content creators.

"We will no longer tolerate the disconnect between people who devote themselves -- at great human and economic cost -- to gathering news of public interest and those who profit from it without supporting it," Curley said.

Rupert Murdoch also told the opening session of the World Media Summit in Beijing's Great Hall of the People that content providers would be demanding that they be paid.

Click to expand...

Source: AP, News Corp bosses say pay up - Yahoo! Finance

I don't think they "get" it. In a world of free (from Operating Systems to Online activities), do they really expect us users to pay for biased and agenda driven content they proudly boast as news?

Really?

Their arrogance is pathetic. There is a reason why Facebook , Twitter, and Google are hugely profitable - they are free to use. It is called innovation.

This decade has been the "war against MP3s", the next decade is the "war against big News". Mark my words.

Damned welfare queens out for the government handout again I see. Somebody needs to explain to these idiots that capitalism means you need to compete to make money, its not a damned right.

Google news provides a service that people want, and thus people use it. Idiots at news corporations are trying so hard to charge people for content that they haven't figured out that most of their crap isn't worth paying for. Newspapers make money by selling their reader base to the advertiser who give them money. The point of writing stories is to get people to read your paper. The cost of a subscription to the paper simply covers the cost of producing and delivering a physical object the customers doorstep. In the internet, where you don't have such costs, customers aren't going to pay for them.

That said, some papers might be able to make it online by requiring a subscription. The Wall Street Journal has excellent brand reputation, and many of its readers wouldn't mind paying for its content, so it might be able to succeed. However, its not a damned guarantee, its a calculated business risk that everyone else in the business world has to make.

vauge said:

Source: AP, News Corp bosses say pay up - Yahoo! Finance

I don't think they "get" it. In a world of free (from Operating Systems to Online activities), do they really expect us users to pay for biased and agenda driven content they proudly boast as news?

Really?

Their arrogance is pathetic. There is a reason why Facebook , Twitter, and Google are hugely profitable - they are free to use. It is called innovation.

This decade has been the "war against MP3s", the next decade is the "war against big News". Mark my words.

Click to expand...

Typical Chinese lameness. When China's news media is no longer owned by the state then they can start asking for payment. Until then, they can shut their filthy biased pie holes.

Vader said:

Typical Chinese lameness. When China's news media is no longer owned by the state then they can start asking for payment. Until then, they can shut their filthy biased pie holes.

Click to expand...

Eh? you even read the article? Since when are AP and Newscorp Chinese? You do understand that it is AP and especially Murdoch's Newscorp that are pushing for "pay news" online right? The only things that are standing between what we have now and that is.. government funded news organisations like the BBC...

No surprise here News Corp is 2 billion in the hole right now. Maybe fox news makes makes a profit but it ain't holding up the murdoch agenda. Bye bye Glenn Beck, news corp needs advertisers.

vauge said:

Source: AP, News Corp bosses say pay up - Yahoo! Finance

I don't think they "get" it. In a world of free (from Operating Systems to Online activities), do they really expect us users to pay for biased and agenda driven content they proudly boast as news?

Really?

Their arrogance is pathetic. There is a reason why Facebook , Twitter, and Google are hugely profitable - they are free to use. It is called innovation.

This decade has been the "war against MP3s", the next decade is the "war against big News". Mark my words.

Click to expand...

Meh... I'm not overly concerned. Like the mp3 war, the media content war won't get very far. The best they'll be able to do is find a compromise. Think of all the third party news providers out there who re-post primary content. Those are global. How do the media conglomerates propose to shut them all down?

The next decade is the war against the free internet, period. Those who are losing money because their offline content is being translated to digital and distributed are going to try and fight to the last to maintain the status quo. They won't be able to. The internet is about humanity's transition to being an information species. The dinosaurs will go extinct.

That, and the current incarnation of corporate power won't last either, along with the current consumer model. Both have only been around for a short time and like everything else they are subject to the winds of history.

PeteEU said:

Eh? you even read the article? Since when are AP and Newscorp Chinese? You do understand that it is AP and especially Murdoch's Newscorp that are pushing for "pay news" online right? The only things that are standing between what we have now and that is.. government funded news organisations like the BBC...

Click to expand...

The emboldened above scares me. I know there is PBS and NPR, but the next thing we will hear is Murdoch is "too big to fail".

vauge said:

The emboldened above scares me. I know there is PBS and NPR, but the next thing we will hear is Murdoch is "too big to fail".

Click to expand...

Dont worry about that. Newscorp may be "big" but it is also a whole different "dog" than say a bank or AIG.

For one, Newscorp divisions are country dependent. Hence splitting off say Sky in the UK, Sky in Italy and Sky in Germany would be rather simple, since they already are running on the stock exchange as separate companies. This goes for most of Newscorp.

Plus I suspect there could be some issue with the fact that Newscorp has not even been a US company for that long. Yes legally it has only been a US company since 2004. Before that it was an Aussie company. Which is funny enough one of the reasons Murdoch and Fox News back the Republicans. Clinton blocked Murdochs attempt for years to incorporate Newscorp in the US.. you see, the law states to own media in the US, you have to be a US citizen...

But the danger of companies like Newscorp is when the owners exact an editorial view on the over all view of the news gathering and reporting mechanism. And in Newscorp's case it has been quite considerable. Private ownership of news gathering organisations are as dangerous as public owned organisations when they both are actively influenced by their "owners" to show a certain view. That is why rules and regulation's are so important.

PeteEU said:

Private ownership of news gathering organisations are as dangerous as public owned organisations when they both are actively influenced by their "owners" to show a certain view. That is why rules and regulation's are so important.

Click to expand...

I totally and completely 100% disagree with that statement.

From what I heard you say, getting your news from a King is better than listening to a pauper.

Wrong, capitalism is the only fair way of balance. People will pay for what is the best price and the best news. Take out all the "regulations" - and let true evolution take its course and the strongest survive. Sometimes the King might get it right and other times the pauper is the one to listen to. Let private ownership thrive and then will we receive quality news again.

vauge said:

Source: AP, News Corp bosses say pay up - Yahoo! Finance

I don't think they "get" it. In a world of free (from Operating Systems to Online activities), do they really expect us users to pay for biased and agenda driven content they proudly boast as news?

Really?

Their arrogance is pathetic. There is a reason why Facebook , Twitter, and Google are hugely profitable - they are free to use. It is called innovation.

This decade has been the "war against MP3s", the next decade is the "war against big News".
Mark my words.

Click to expand...

No need to thank me there.

vauge said:

I totally and completely 100% disagree with that statement.

From what I heard you say, getting your news from a King is better than listening to a pauper.

Wrong, capitalism is the only fair way of balance. People will pay for what is the best price and the best news. Take out all the "regulations" - and let true evolution take its course and the strongest survive. Sometimes the King might get it right and other times the pauper is the one to listen to. Let private ownership thrive and then will we receive quality news again.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that free market capitalism is going to produce quality news...it seems to be the opposite, as news organizations promote sensationalist headlines and scramble to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Back in the day, the news agencies of media conglomerates were loss leaders...and the parent companies were OK with that.

Granted, I don't think government-funded media is necessarily high-quality, objective news either (although PBS does a fairly good job). But let's not pretend that the free market is going to solve all the problems here. The media is not exactly a heavily regulated industry as is.

PeteEU said:

Dont worry about that. Newscorp may be "big" but it is also a whole different "dog" than say a bank or AIG.

For one, Newscorp divisions are country dependent. Hence splitting off say Sky in the UK, Sky in Italy and Sky in Germany would be rather simple, since they already are running on the stock exchange as separate companies. This goes for most of Newscorp.

Plus I suspect there could be some issue with the fact that Newscorp has not even been a US company for that long. Yes legally it has only been a US company since 2004. Before that it was an Aussie company. Which is funny enough one of the reasons Murdoch and Fox News back the Republicans. Clinton blocked Murdochs attempt for years to incorporate Newscorp in the US.. you see, the law states to own media in the US, you have to be a US citizen...

But the danger of companies like Newscorp is when the owners exact an editorial view on the over all view of the news gathering and reporting mechanism. And in Newscorp's case it has been quite considerable. Private ownership of news gathering organisations are as dangerous as public owned organisations when they both are actively influenced by their "owners" to show a certain view. That is why rules and regulation's are so important.

Click to expand...

so nice to see you actually can be a constructive participant in threads without bashing america

vauge said:

I totally and completely 100% disagree with that statement.

From what I heard you say, getting your news from a King is better than listening to a pauper.

Wrong, capitalism is the only fair way of balance. People will pay for what is the best price and the best news. Take out all the "regulations" - and let true evolution take its course and the strongest survive. Sometimes the King might get it right and other times the pauper is the one to listen to. Let private ownership thrive and then will we receive quality news again.

Click to expand...

What has capitalism brought us for news? Corporatism. The mass media conglomerates only care about money, and therefore ratings, and therefore about producing the most trashy, sensationalist news possible. Kandahar is right, there is no journalistic integrity in broadcast news anymore. People have sold out left and right.

PeteEU said:

Eh? you even read the article? Since when are AP and Newscorp Chinese? You do understand that it is AP and especially Murdoch's Newscorp that are pushing for "pay news" online right? The only things that are standing between what we have now and that is.. government funded news organisations like the BBC...

Click to expand...

Regardless....

Murdoch can stick in his ear.

News is free in the country. If he doesn't like it, he can go hump a roo.

vauge said:

I totally and completely 100% disagree with that statement.

From what I heard you say, getting your news from a King is better than listening to a pauper.

Wrong, capitalism is the only fair way of balance. People will pay for what is the best price and the best news. Take out all the "regulations" - and let true evolution take its course and the strongest survive. Sometimes the King might get it right and other times the pauper is the one to listen to. Let private ownership thrive and then will we receive quality news again.

Click to expand...

And I disagree fully.

If we look at the US news media market (TV) and the UK market (TV) we see 2 very different things.

In the UK where there are rules and regulation, (not imposed by the Government btw, but by the industry), the TV news media is considerably unbiased and actually reports the facts. People actually trust the news media far far far more than Americans.

In the US we quite the opposite. It is the wild wild west of News gathering. Sensationalism and making up stuff just to prove your political view. There is not much factual News left in the US news media. That is your "free market" in the works.. and you are happy with that?

A free market where Fox News is a major player and yet has hard time with the truth and unbiased reporting. Where the opinions of the owners shines through the editorial bias on a daily basis. That is not news, that is propaganda.. that is what we had in Europe before put in safeguards to prevent it. In Europe it was the state owned companies that were the problems, but every since we cut the cord between (except financial) the two and put in rules to prevent bias, then things changed. Yes free market private companies also joined in and have to live up to the same rules.

The free market and capitalism are on paper lofty goals, however in reality they are subseptable to the greed and power hungry urges of humankind and that is dangerous as hell since it goes against the principles of free market and capitalism...