There's no denying that Rupert Murdoch built up quite a media empire over the decades -- but that was almost all entirely focused on newspaper and pay TV. While he's spent the past few decades trying to do stuff on the internet, he has an impressively long list of failures over the years. There are many stories of him buying internet properties (Delphi, MySpace, Photobucket) or starting them himself (iGuide, Fox Interactive, The Daily) and driving them into the ground (or just flopping right out of the gate). While his willingness to embrace the internet early and to try things is to be commended, his regular failures to make his internet ventures successful has pretty clearly soured him on the internet entirely over the years.
Indeed, over the past few years, Murdoch or Murdoch surrogates (frequently News Corp's CEO Robert Thomson) have bashed the internet at every opportunity, no matter how ridiculous. Almost all of these complaints can be summed up simply: big internet companies are making money and News Corp. isn't -- and therefore the problem is with those other companies which should be forced to give News Corp. money.
[...] Rupert is thinking along similar lines, and earlier this week released a bizarre and silly statement saying Facebook should start paying news sites "carriage fees" a la cable companies:
The time has come to consider a different route. If Facebook wants to recognize 'trusted' publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies. 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. Carriage payments would have a minor impact on Facebook's profits but a major impact on the prospects for publishers and journalists.
We've seen this kind of thinking many times before. First the argument was used against Craigslist. Then Google. And now, apparently, Facebook. The short version is "these internet companies are making money, we news companies aren't -- ergo, the successful internet companies should be paying the failing news companies."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @08:53AM (2 children)
Conservatives don't like change, by definition.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Sunday January 28 2018, @10:16AM (1 child)
Conservatives don't like change, by definition.
I think it is slightly more accurate to say that Conservatives prefer other people to change in order to preserve the status quo. In other words, you should change to accomodate me.
It is one of those irregular verbs:
I choose
You compromise
He submits
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @06:06PM
Liberals like change for change sake, by definition.
I think it is slightly more accurate to say that Liberals prefer to force other people to change. In other words, you should change but I don't have to..
It is one of those irregular verbs:
I choose
You compromise
He submits