Rupert Murdoch Pushes Facebook To Pay For News To Guarantee Quality (bloomberg.com) 104
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Rupert Murdoch, the media billionaire who controls the Wall Street Journal, called on Facebook to begin paying publishers fees to carry the news that its users post and share online in a sign of the print industry's growing frustration with social media. "If Facebook wants to recognize 'trusted' publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies," Murdoch, the executive chairman of News Corp. said Monday in a statement. "The publishers are obviously enhancing the value and integrity of Facebook through their news and content but are not being adequately rewarded for those services." "Facebook and Google have popularized scurrilous news sources through algorithms that are profitable for these platforms but inherently unreliable," Murdoch said. "Recognition of a problem is one step on the pathway to cure, but the remedial measures that both companies have so far proposed are inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically." Murdoch, who also leads 21st Century Fox, called for a system similar to that in cable television, where large distributors like Comcast and AT&T pay fees to the TV network owners that attract their viewers.
Come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt the evil he currently stands for will stop with him. His organizations will continue as usual as long as they bring in the money.
But the headline does raise a question.
Have Murdoch ever indicated that he is capable of providing quality news? He seems to only push tabloid "news" that are more lies and gossip than not.
Re: (Score:1)
At this point most news organizations have lost credibility. They're all biased and dishonest. CNN, NYT, WaPo, FoxNews, it's all the same problem; the things they report and the way they report them, it's always driven by politics.
And it goes beyond just the actual news; the moderators on their comment threads are also biased, the op ed they promote are biased, and as we saw with Keurig even the ad selection is biased.
These news providers should package their crap and sell it on build-your-echo-chamber.com
Re: (Score:2)
NPR is probably the most unbiased and go-to radio news source
I guess in the process of being an unbiased news source NPR forgot to report that the former NPR CEO confessed that NPR has a liberal agenda. And the guy doesn't talk about a conspiracy, but simply of NPR being a liberal echo chamber. See:
When you are liberal, and everyone else around you is as well, it is easy to fall into groupthink on what stories are important, what sources are legitimate and what the narrative of the day will be.
https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:1)
At this point most news organizations have lost credibility.
A lot of them are bad, but it appears to be mostly because of laziness.
Sometimes you see other newspapers print something that was reported by RT without doing any form of verification if the info was correct.
That is how lies and propaganda finds its way into most newspapers.
When it comes to Murdoch he directly instructs his "journalists" to not do research and instead pushes information he knows is incorrect.
Anything Murdoch touches really takes a dive to the bottom.
You can pick anything that he doesn't ha
congratulations (Score:2)
If you can't see the difference you should probably not vote
There we go.
Step 1: only allow people who think like you to vote
Step 2: force people who don't think like you to wear a visible mark on their clothes
Step 3: start sterilizing them
You lovely tolerant liberals have started your journey to pure evil, and to the bitter end you'll keep thinking that you were right. What a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.
Used to tell people like you to go to hell, but lately I've started to wonder if we're not there already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.
Re: (Score:1)
What are you talking about? We saw several hundred in Charlottesville, about 200-300 in the Shelbyville/Murfreesboro TN protest, and a handful more at other rallies. You can't see the snowflakes because they are white and blend in with the natural snowflakes. Try harder, n00b.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.
Here you go: On Campus, Trump Fans Say They Need ‘Safe Spaces’ [nytimes.com]
Lots of dimes and dozens on both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's wrong with that? Leftists needed safe spaces. It seems like you're arguing against your own side. How's it OK when you do it, but suddenly wrong when others do it. I really do not understand.
He didn't say there's anything wrong with it; he said they're snowflakes, which the parent asserted do not exist on the right. If you need a "safe space," you're a snowflake.
Re: (Score:1)
In the same post you manage to say:
the whole "snowflakes" thing was nothing more than a construct for discrediting others, and justifying dismissing their statements out-of-hand to begin with
and:
a right-wing "snowflake" as most people would put it does exist. [...] As of this post he runs the white house.
You can't have it both ways. Next time only pick one of two conflicting statements if you want people to take you seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, Trump IS a motherfucking snowflake.
He's not. You're corrupting the meaning of words in your quest for insults. Donald Trump is a liar, a ruthless businessman, and tacky as they come. But he's not a snowflake, or a nazi, or a dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
snowflake
Idiots like you who use "snowflake" as a generic insult are like fat girls who start wearing yoga pants; just ruining a good thing for everyone.
Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? (Score:2, Informative)
In the same sentence?
Is that supposed to be a joke?
There's a reason we call it Faux News.
Re:Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Both Russia and Rupert have similar motivations: break up large western countries into fractions. For Russia, it's to prevent opposition to their reforming the USSR (well, in size). For Rupert, it's to better manipulate the populace and make money.
Re: (Score:3)
Rupert also owns The Sun. Rupert also spends more time and effort influencing governments than the Russians.
This is what I was saying about Brexit. It was propaganda from the leave side... but the Propagandists weren't Russian. We know damn well who they were and that they weren't Johnny Foreigner.
Murdoch hates the EU, he was once said (I'm probably paraphrasing a little):
"When I go to Washington, they listen. When I go to Whitehall, they listen. When I go to Brussels, they ignore me".
Murdoch is quickly losing his position as kingmaker... and it's about damn time.
However the consequences of the likes of
Slow to post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slow to post (Score:4)
What's his point? In 2018 nobody would read shitty news sites and see their crap ads or promote murdoch's political agendas without social media.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What's his point? In 2018 nobody would read shitty news sites and see their crap ads or promote murdoch's political agendas without social media.
Correct, except it's not just murdoch's political agenda, it's also the clinton agenda which currently dictates headlines in mainstream media (case in point, russiagate).
Re: (Score:1)
Horse shit, Trumpster.
Re: (Score:2)
Over a year after Clinton lost and with her being largely an irrelevance now, and you are still blaming them for the media's interest in POTUS's possible links to Russia? This is a pretty lame conspiracy theory.
I know she was an warmongering crook, literally hitler and all that, but it's a bit much blaming her for Trump's problems in 2018.
Re: (Score:2)
Over a year after Clinton lost and with her being largely an irrelevance now, and you are still blaming them for the media's interest in POTUS's possible links to Russia?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should blame Muller. When he interviews Trump it's going to be a media circus, 24/7 non-stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should blame Muller. When he interviews Trump it's going to be a media circus, 24/7 non-stop.
Clinton launched this idea as a hail mary to bury the embarrassing contents of the leaked DNC emails. I don't think they expected this to snowball that much, but for all intents and purposes I suspect Trump himself isn't too angry about this. Think of it; it's a bullshit story - after a year if there had been anything there it would have rocked the white house already - and it keeps the haters busy who otherwise would have been looking for something else to freak out about.
Re: (Score:2)
i quote
"." "Facebook and Google have popularized scurrilous news sources through algorithms that are profitable for these platforms but inherently unreliable," Murdoch said. "Recognition of a problem is one step on the pathway to cure, but the remedial measures that both companies have so far proposed are inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically.""
all this is valid criticism of Facebook and google.
it of course does not take away from the hypocrisy of "fair and balanced". If these statements w
Re: (Score:1)
Unmod
Re: (Score:2)
I was too busy picturing the Australian supervillain Cyberswine [internationalhero.co.uk] swinging into battle on a long rope, emitting a leather-lunged battle cry of "scuuuuurilouusss".
You're a disgrace to trolls. (Score:1)
How exactly is he in the US? He's an australian. The best news in the US is probably the Strategic Forecast.
I mean I know it's your job to post this shit but at least put in effort. You're by far the least believable shill I've ever seen and that's saying a lot. You should't post on slashdot because we're a nation of trolls from well before 4chan or in your case dvachan and we see right through you, I'm getting 2nd hand troll embarrassment from you.
Re: (Score:3)
How exactly is he in the US? He's an australian.
Murdoch became an American citizen [latimes.com] in 1985.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What about infowars? They provide factual, unbiased news. Such as this:
When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, the U.S. middle class would be destroyed. The U.S. population (what was left of it) would be reduced to a status of enslavement, starvation, death, and disease.
When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, the U.S. would have no borders, the Constitution would be revised to remove the Bill of Rights and all fundamental U.S. freedoms, and the population would be disarmed by the repeal of the Second Amendment.
When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, there would be no electoral college.
Future presidents would be elected by a majority of the popular vote, giving control to large states like California, New York, and New Jersey that can easily be overrun with illegal immigrants voting for the traitors and their anti-American conspiracy.
If illegal votes were not enough to make sure the Democratic Party traitors dominated all elections, George Soros would be allowed to install voting machines to make Democratic Party voter fraud easy to achieve electronically.
When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, the U.S. military would comprise a very small percentage of the U.S. budget, with transfer payments making sure excessive taxation redistributed income to minorities and illegals sure to vote for the Democratic Party traitors.
U.S. military bases would be closed worldwide, beginning in Germany. Russia, China, and rogue states including Iran and North Korea would no longer need fear U.S. military reprisals for their evil expansion.
Only “Project Mockingbird” PRAVDA-like mainstream media willing to be controlled by the CIA to disseminate the Obama/Hillary traitors’ anti-American ideology would be allowed to survive.
All other news would be censored, with Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet giants unleashed to eliminate from “Social Media” even the most private or coded communications patriots might attempt.
https://www.infowars.com/treas... [infowars.com]
Interestingly I've heard the other extreme in some mainstream media, like Donald Trump being a puppet of Russia, which is obviously impossible since even his own party can't control him.
Build a Wall (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
So... why not take this idea then? That way we can tell facebook to shove it and not pay him, thus blocking his news articles from showing up.
To me, it seems like a great idea, Murdoch requires payment, facebook doesn't pay, Murdoch blocks facebook, everyone benefits.
Rupert Murcoch is the definition... (Score:5, Insightful)
... of fake news. I love this bullshit that mainstream media has been pushing. The reality is the elites have lost control of the public mind and don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't negotiate with Australian Terrorists (Score:2)
And I actually buy a print copy of the WSJ once or twice each week.
Just say NO!
Fox News is a beacon of journalistic integrity?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?
During the election, I actually had no trouble finding Fox's coverage of the same stories Trump supporters refused to read because it came from the "biased liberal media". Of course, once I posted a link to Fox, they still wouldn't read it, because that's cognitive dissonance for you.
Heck, it wasn't even that hard to find an article on Breitbart [breitbart.com] where they're not exactly singing the praises of Trump's tax plan. But I'm sure those drinking the kool aid just see it as an acceptable casualty of making sure t
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News - as watched (and regularly praised) by the US President!
Tells you all you need to know ;-)
Babbys first troll (Score:2)
Sasha's first day on trolling job, please go easy on him.
Re: Babbys first troll (Score:2)
Ah ah epic
Comment removed (Score:3)
If anyone did journalism, I'd probably pay for it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: If anyone did journalism, I'd probably pay for (Score:2)
BBC does real journalism, as you describe it.
They have a huge network of reporters around the world, embedded in the local cultures for years at a time, picking up the kind of fascinating news stories that I don't see elsewhere.
Listen to the programme 'From Our Own Correspondent' for a taste. US listeners don't need to worry. Most of what's covered hasn't reached the US level of attention needed to give it partisan spin yet...
True there are other bits of the BBC that don't do real journalism as you describe
Because Rupert Murdoch epitomzes quality! (Score:3)
He doesn't get it (Score:2)
It would make him some extra cash, but it wouldn't improve anything other than his bottom line.
I'm confused... (Score:2)
But does he have a point? (Score:2)
If money was changing hands, would it help the "fake news" problem on facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy fake news as well as real news... but I'd say that if you've chosen to pay, at least you're going to choose what you're paying for.
So if Facebook had paid news feeds, you'd have some confidence that they were feeds Facebook had approved. What that is worth depends on your assessment of Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I also assume that more than anything, Murdoch wants to get paid. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point, but it is certainly worth noting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue it'd make the problem worse (although as an ex-FBer, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about).
If the only 'reliable' news sources (as marked by FB) were actually paid for, then FB would probably avoid chosing the more expensive ones if they could. Thus, the only 'reliable' sources of news will be the cheap ones. "Cheap" and "reliable" aren't usually synonymous.
For example, let's say both the BBC and Fox News have coverage of (say) Trump's 30% tariff on solar panels. The BBC generally do a pretty
Wallstreet content should be free then to users (Score:1)