Don’t let the bastards keep you down

Rupert. He’ll kill a Golden Age of media if he starts charging for every one of his rags on the Net.

Couldn’t be worse timing with Copenhagen coming up.

It’ll kill blogging and the way media is accessed nowadays. Paying a fee to access every one of Rupes’ rags? Let alone all the others? You’re talking thousands upon thousands of dollars per person if he intends to go on regular newspaper prices – or even a fraction of. And as a blogger, who cares if you do pay that fee?… Not as if all the readers will have.

In an age of unprecedented global connectivity among people, Rupert is essentially advocating a return to the one rag state of affairs.

And that’d be a real shame… Next up, bus crash in India kills 23. Hint: That’s what journo’s used to do if there was space to fill, but no story. Who’d know? Who’d be none the wiser? Tizona’s older readers would know about this. Tizona’s younger readers should.

Yes, they’d just make it up, and nobody would be the wiser. How could they be? But everyone trusted the media, and dutifully bought their paper (singular) every day.

See the dilemma? Rupert does. But what he’s advocating is a return to the old. Which, yes, appeals to the conservative side in folks. Eek, progressive media?!

Confused? You’re meant to be.

Old timers, it’s no use applying the old rules and saying you’ll gladly pay a subscription fee to the likes of Andrew Bolt. Newtimers, it’s no use saying you want global action when all that really means is a loss of the freedoms you might not be fully aware that you have.

Pay directly for every link you click? It’ll stuff linking. It’ll stuff the free exchange of information. It’ll stuff what is freedom in the modern world.

Besides, the millions of links bloggers working for free (or for nominal sums) sending traffic to Rupert over the years? The millions of comments? What? That doesn’t matter? That counts for nothing?

And regardless, we already do pay for every link we click. Did you get your Internet connection for free? Do you get your download limit for free?

(psst, by the way, it’s unlimited downloads and uploads in Korea, up to 5MB/second [alas, usually only around 700 kB/second]… Internet and satellite TV with hundreds of channels is about $50/month…shhh)

Rupert is stuck in the past.

It is, and was, not a good thing that Brisbane, my home town, has/had only one major daily rag. Thank goodness (and certainly not Al Gore) for the Internet.

In an age highlighted by the MSM’s complicit suppression of Climategate, where will we stand, post a “successful” Copenhagen cahoot, if, effectively, our access to news and media is, effectively, stifled?

It’ll send us back 25 years.

Do the math.



15 Responses to “Don’t let the bastards keep you down”

  1. onepointsixoneeight Says:

    Remember, Fairfax are in talks with News Ltd.

    What if all media outlets around the world unified on google, and each person pays for all the media outlets, any additional advertising goes to that prospective company?

    In a capitalist society we have choices, including watching free ABC or other areas to source information. Just a thought. If you can’t afford it then we should have a slush fund for you.

    • bingbing Says:

      😉 Now there’s an idea. A yearly fee for ALL news sites?

      But when does a newspaper become a blog… and vice versa?

      Still… getting there.

      Advertisers still seem to be the ones holding out.

      And don’t say, “And us.” That’s so lame. Whether as commenters or posters – bloggers – we give up countless hours of free time (gotta love the double meaning there) in pursuit of all this jazz.

      Rupert is dead wrong on this.

    • elsie of brisbane Says:

      “In a capitalist society we have choices, including watching free ABC or other areas to source information.”

      The so called free ABC (funded by taxpayers), has been notorious lately for its Labor slanted bias. Do you really think you would be informed by Kerry O’Brien or Tony Jones? Did the ABC openly report on its news service anout the Climategate e-mails? Get my information from the ABC! Not on your life!

      Making people pay for online news would greatly disadvantage students and elderly people. Murdoch and co are just greedy bastards.

  2. onepointsixoneeight Says:

    Don’t you realise we all have the ability to be journalists?
    Bolt’s/Blair’s readers are very intelligent and witty and help source interesting news arenas. You, the reader are all journalists at heart. Your voice is important.

    p.s. Pensioners have access to libraries and internet is free and libraries should subscribe.

    • bingbing Says:

      True. But the thrust of the point is, if every online newspaper starts making us pay for every publication, be it every year or every day, let alone pay for every story we want to read, it’ll kill blogging, and thus kill that ability for us all to be journalists.

      It’ll kill dissemination of information and essentially everyone will be relegated to reading just one newspaper a day… just like in Rupert’s formative years.


      Good. Now add Copenhagen into that mix.

      *sigh*Oops! I just breathed created some carbon pollution.

      Cap n’ trade me. Sign me up to a carbon pollution reduction scheme.


      And no, GG, this comment is not directly directed at you personally. Hope you get what I mean. It’s late. Sunshine and lollipops…

  3. Col. Milquetoast Says:

    we already do pay for every link we click. Did you get your Internet connection for free? Do you get your download limit for free?

    but did the creator of the content get paid? No pay means no incentive to create more.

    I don’t think Rupert will be able to form a cartel and without a cartel a paywall won’t work (probably). Even if he could form a cartel (for antitrust reasons that won’t be the word used) there would likely be a competing cartel(s), temptation of cartel members to “cheat”, a rise of independents and there will still be the Fair Use exception to copyright.

    If free content is unsustainable then it won’t be sustained. I can’t say I’m sure what the future will look like but I’m not as pessimistic.

  4. fay of perth Says:

    OK…. Wii we paying blog members get free viewing of the ABC, then, which uses taxpayers money for all their pitiful political campaign comedy acts like the Insiders, etc etc which is all they can show us for our amoney,- – good BBC dramas and documentaries exempted? Are we witnessing the death of newspapers.because of internet blogs and talk back radio? Serves them right for their blatant bias and hypocricy.

  5. Carpe Jugulum Says:

    I have commented on similar topics before, and if that is ruperts business model it will succeed or fail on its merits.

    IMHO, i don’t see this as a success mainly because there are a bucketload of “citizen journalists” out there. The type of commentary they offer would take a hit initially but other media such as radio, Youtube, independant journalism and jornalist bloggers fill that void. Think – Michelle Malkin, RS McCain, Brietbart, BigGov, HuffPo, PJTV, ZoNation, Hotair, AoSHQ and many others.

    Pay for all access – will not stop the average person paying the $1.50 for the hardcopy and just paraphrasing nor would it stop breaking news such as the ACORN scandal, the reporting may be more difficult iniatially but it gets out there in the end.

    In this modern age with high levels of communication, Rupert restricting his media would be rapidly replaced by an alternative, getting that alternative into the mainstream, That is the trick.

  6. fay of perth Says:

    Sorry for the second post, boys,but I have just had a robust debate with my 2 sons-in-law.They say we should pay for commenting on newspaper blogs.Reasons being,

    1. iI we don’t ;–AB’s blog will not be able to carry on. financially
    2 It keeps the trolls out.unless they are being financed by the Rudd government.
    3. We need all the conservative blogs we can even if we have to pay a yearly fee. to be on them unless you want a socialist state permanently.
    4 Do we wish to be censored by Rudd.? How much is it worth to get rid of the little nerd?
    I pay for Foxtel and so can see Fox New. so why not for blogs?
    I have been won over. Yes! i would pay Rupert to keep AB’s blog alive and kicking, rather than having it closed down altogether.Yes and I would pay theTizona group too.

    • bingbing Says:

      LOL, pay us? Splitting the revenues would be a nightmare. Have thought about individual donate boxes for each editor, but I don’t know if wordpress facilitates that, and even if they did, I don’t have admin powers so can’t set it up personally anyway.

      Your sons haven’t won me over so far. Even if I paid to access AP, News Ltd, Reuters, etc, if my readers haven’t, then how can they check the links and thus the veracity of my opinion?

      For sure, paying for each individual blog or newspaper (the lines are blurred) would be prohibitively expensive thus stifling online dissemination of news and opinion.

      And in a way, we already do i.e. our monthly internet charges.

      I still want Rupert to squeeze Google, Yahoo, advertisers and ISPs harder. They’re the ones with lots more money.

      Seems like a no-brainer to me although I do see where your sons are coming from.

    • bingbing Says:

      Remember, we are not the consumer. We are the product.

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:


      You do raise some valid points but the blogs & commenters that do have a pay for comment system usually rely on the good old voluntary paypal button or do an annual fundraiser that is also voluntary (think Stacey McCain or Day by Day cartoon, both of which do very well but there are many others). The second alternative is to have paid advertising on blogs etc, which (anecdotally speaking) can also be a good income stream (think townhalls blog in the USA)

      If Rupert went down that path i don’t see great success from the individual, but if major news outlets had the same rules then yes it would turn a profit (copyright considerations aside).

      As for Boltas page he would be better served running either an annual fundraiser to cover his costs (which would work like a treat IMHO) or just having the paypal button (my god, i’m repeating myself).

      If king of the douchebags sullivan can do a fundraiser and raise $80K twice yearly then high volume sites such as Bolts can do a damn site better, something Murdoch obviously hasn’t been appraised of by his minders.

  7. Kaboom Says:

    I am positive that Bolta would be much more comfortable having his own blog (with a bit of advertising etc) where commenters can comment with the usual disclaimers.

    Bolt and Blair have, quite simply, gone to the Dark Side, and have thus disavowed the immediacy of commentary where those such as a silly filly can be immediately slapped down by several more erudite and knowledgable commenters.

    As it stands, with “moderation”, there are 3 or 4 hours between a comment and a reply. No wonder Bolta gave it up, and Blair will soon follow.

    The holy dollar.

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      You make a good point with moderation Kabs, people neither want nor need a delay of several hours between postings. A medium like blogging requires a certain immediacy that keeps a debate alive and allows for the real time beotch slap that trolls require.

  8. Will Rupert make us pay? « James Board Says:

    […] mogul, Rupert Murdoch, will set up a pay wall for his online newspapers, try here, here, here, here, and […]

Well, SAY something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: