Given all the news — most of it bad – that News Corp announced yesterday, Rupert’s bombshell sure looked like a ploy to change the topic. And that he did: few were talking about News Corp’s revenue dropping 10+%, or a fiscal 4th-quarter net loss of $203M attributed largely to writedowns at MySpace and lousy advertising revenue., or even that profits from the parent company of Fox movies/ TV beat market expectations by a penny. Nah, everyone was nattering instead about Murdoch’s pronouncement on the earnings call that News Corp plans to charge for content on allthe company’s news sites. ““The tumultuous and unprecedented change affecting the entire media sector, particularly at newspapers and broadcasters, cannot be ignored. The digital revolution has opened many new models of distribution, but it has not made content free,” Rupe said. ”Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.” The salvo was lobbed: Murdoch is back on the attack. While other news content companies continuously declare “woe is us” and merely talk about what steps to take to stop their financial hemorrhaging, his News Corp plans to act boldly. I have no doubt that others will take cover behind him and follow the leader.
Coinciding with this is the news that 20th Century Fox has instructed DVD distributors to withhold new releases from vending-machine operators including Coinstar’s Redbox kiosks for 30 days. Many media companies like Universal are opposed to the $1 price of Redbox rentals unless there’s a 45-day window, and that has already sparked a lawsuit. But News Corp’s newly minted No. 2 Chase Carey took on the issue in a conference call yesterday, attacking the $1 price has “grossly undervaluing” Fox’s product. Now there’s a statement: “Fox supports the vending-machine business in a 30-day window following our initial home-video street date. We invest enormous money, creativity and effort to make entertaining, high-quality Fox movies available throughout the world.” Who has decided to cooperate with RedBox? Sony Pictures, which recently made a deal for $460M over 5 years to supply its DVDs. But, again, News Corp’s strong opposition will allow other companies to follow the leader.






Fox is just getting greedy. FoxNews may be a cable tv juggernaut but charging for internet content is set to fail. The NY Times tried this a few years ago and failed.
As for RedBox I refuse to rent a movie for more than $1. Why should I be expected to pay more than $1 to rent a movie that I will watch one time? I usually already paid $10 to see the movie at the theater.
Wait…I thought that people were abandoning the “liberal media” because of its bias. Isn’t that the argument that righties have been using to denigrate the Times and other networks for a few years now? Guess toadyism in the other direction can’t pay the bills either…
as usual, Rupert More-DOUCHE continues to prove what a vile, repulsive man he is.
as for the Redbox DVD rental machines, does anyone actually even use them?
Does anyone really think charging for access to news sites is going to be a winner in the long-term?
“Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.”
I totally agree that Quality journalism is not cheap, but that certainly is an oxymoron for Murdoch’s Media Empire. Fox journalistic papers are better used as toilet paper and his television reporters and thugs from Bill O’Reilly and Glen Beck to Roger Ailes give a new definition to the word “disgusting”. I think Rupert needs to clean house and get rid of his garbage before charging the public for content. The only people that are going to pay for the current content will simply be the crazies from the right. No one of intelligence is going to pay for that trash.
Wouldn’t charging for News Corp content be considered a new tax on the stupid, small minded, and moronic?
Sounds like WSJ & The Post are teetering on the brink
There will be blowback from Murdoch’s decisions to change the clearance on release of Fox titles to Redbox and to forbid their selling of redundant disc inventory. The first conjures memory of industry collusion against dollar cinemas (such as the Jerry Lewis Cinemas) in the 1970s, and the second challenges the so-called “doctrine of first sale” as applied to mass produced intellectual properties. Since there is precious little case law on either, now is a very secure time to be a Fox attorney.
As for Murdoch’s proclamation that he has to charge for Website content because “quality journalism is not cheap,” he’s leaving himself wide open for a flood of wisecracks.
But what about Hulu, which Fox co-owns?
And I do really love that Redbox…
wait…Sony is paying Redbox $460 million to get them to stock sony movies?! Or is that the other way around? Either way, it seems non-sensical?
Do video stores cut studios in on rental rev, or is that covered by the upfront cost of dvds?
It’s curious that in all his snowballing posturing on this subject, Murdoch doesn’t seem to differentiate between the well-off audience that exists for the WSJ, Times of London, etc. (and who can easily pay discretionary money for online access) vs the blue collar fans of his downmarket properties such as the NY Post and Fox News, who have much better uses for their money these days than web content. Of course, mentioning “quality journailsm” and Fox News in the same breath is the most amusing thing I’ve heard all day.
“Quality journalism is not cheap,” says Rupert. Neither is paying off Andrea Mackris. LOL
Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said they routinely fed Faux News talking points. That’s what’s known as state controlled media. The Soviets had a similar set-up. Fair and balanced my ass.
thanks be murdoch.
Charging for content is not a bold move. It’s thee move of an aging dinosaur. Fox News might be abl to attract some of its higher income Conservatice viewers to pay for content, but somehow I doubt it will be the financial windfall they hope for — even if other media companies follow suit. Moreover, the phrase “quality journalism” should never come out of the mouth of Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert must be on Propofil.
WSJ.com is a unique diamond of a product.
Good luck getting anyone to pay for NYPost or FoxNews online content.
The idea is stillborn.
I don’t blame Murdoch for trying. And I’m not sure the concept of paying for content will fail. I pay today for WSJ.COM, and I pay to be an ESPN Insider, which gives me access to their best sports columnists.
If I want content, I’ll pay for it.
Of course, mentioning “quality journailsm” and Fox News in the same breath is the most amusing thing I’ve heard all day.
Yes, Fox News is certainly not the paragon of integrity and impartiality that National Propaganda Radio and Communist News Network are.
In a way, I guess this was inevitable.
But big media missed the chance of implementing a system to get consumers to pay for online news outlets. After years of free news, it will be really tough to convince people to pay for something that used to be free.
Will that mean there will be pirate bays for news?
Though the term news is used very loosely when talking about Murdoch…
Fox Fake News viewers are among the dumbest people on the planet and will no doubt gladly pay for their daily dose of rightwing lies, so this might not be such a bad idea. Fleece those flag-waving non-enlisting Bushturds, Rupert. We’re behind you all the way.
Hey libs, try not to be so myopic. Right now huge news orgs face an uncertain future and the state of news media on television and radio has *never* been as dismal as it is today. Some of this is driven by zeitgeist but a lot of it has to do with the fact that news orgs were once flush with cash in the pre-internet glory days and are now just considered synergy elements of larger rapacious media giants. It’s clear that in the future ad revenue isn’t going to be enough…yuck it up all you want, but merely by injecting competition and controversy Fox has probably done more to stall the collapse of other news outlets than their own executives have.
Have none of you heard of Topix?
It is http://www.topix.com/
What a bunch of tools. Murdoch knows more about this stuff than we will ever know. He knows he can’t charge the end user for News. But he and the rest of them are setting up a premise for charging all the “Blogs” and “rebroadcasters” far republishing their stuff. They are trying to set up a case against “Fair Use”… Try reading the news once in a while… &*)
That’s a winking smiley face for you young-ins out there.
So happy I’ll never have to look at fox news, ny post, etc. again. Good riddance and goodbye; may the innovators and entrepeneaurs rise up and crush this desperate beast and his fledgling empire once and for all. All empires fall; it is the nevitable nature of history, Mr. Murdoch, you can lk it up…for free.
Why all the hating on Fox News? It’s one of the least biased news channels out there…and the only one that doesn’t bow down to Mr. Obama. Stupid people are the ones playing sheep listening to the crap put out by MSNBC and CNN.
But paying for internet content, like FoxNews.Com, is going to fail miserably. It’s the only thing that can drive up traffic to cnn.com and others. Actually, CNN has a better website already.
I love Redbox. I could see them wanting to maybe delay distribution to Redbox by 1 week, so they can cash in on the suckers that want to see a new release as soon as it comes out…but 30 days is too long. What the difference, dollar wise, between Redbox and Netflix? Not much.
Everything is available somewhere on the web. If the Pentagon, NASA etc can be hacked, Rupert`s stuff is ez pickings. These computer sciences grads & drop-outs can make this boxes sing & dance….to their own tune.
While everything is available out on the Internet, forces are mustering to change that. The big guys want their money back.