The second time I've done this today:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*wheeze*

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hah, oh, jeez

You're killing me here Jeff!

This is a repeat from 1996.

No, it won't.

And I'll continue to laugh at all the unemployed morons who went to college for Journalism in the last decade because they couldn't see this coming.

I'm laughing so hard I'm afraid I may poop myself.

I would just like to note for the record that I detest the word 'synergy'.

Keep on farking that chicken, Jeffy.

Hopefully his children will murder him for the insurance money.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: No, it won't.

And I'll continue to laugh at all the unemployed morons who went to college for Journalism in the last decade because they couldn't see this coming.

Wait, what?

Newspapers =/= journalists.

I highly doubt that that's his real last name.

That's funny.

Newsflash folks (looking at you too Hulu), if you don't put it out there free, people will gravitate towards the sites that do.

Be happy with the ad revenue you generate, because content related revenue isn't going to work.

You know as insane as he sounds, just watch Net Neutrality get killed and he soon will be right.

It all comes down to net neutrality.

Currently, you have a choice. But if it's up to Ruprecht Murdoch, you'll be force fed their take on 'news'.

/You don't need to know the unemployment is 10.2%, citizen.
//You'll get plenty of 'news' about Jennifer Aniston's latest pair of shoes, though.

AOL

In order to make this work they will first have to lobby very hard to do something against net-neutrality. Then they will have to insure that ISPs start bundeling Internet sites the same way they do cable channels and crack down on anybody who tries to circumvent this stupidity. Once they have managed to create some sort of monopoly where customers have the choice between no online news and their online news they can start charging for them.

Alternatively they can try to get people to pay them to tell them lies they want to hear. You would have to jetison the whole truth angle of the news but it could work.

As a last resort there is always mixing in vast amounts of porn.

Hey Jeff, could you pull my other leg for awhile... I'd like to keep them the same length.

Isn't this the same company that committed financial suicide by merging with AOhell which proceeded to promptly rape it?

/or something like that?

I'd like to point out the irony of the TF'ers in this thread laughing at the guy.

People will not pay for news online.

However, if there was a site that offered stuff that was not news, I'm sure they could find some suckers willing to shell out each month for extra content.

You won that race imgod2u.

Actually I would pay for some really good online news. I highly doubt Time Warner will be offering it though.

ParadigmLeftShift: //You'll get plenty of 'news' about Jennifer Aniston's latest pair of shoes, though.

OMFG! Is she slumming with Manolo's again? OMFG!

He's right.

The revenue streams are dangerously low; expect a cascade of required paid-for logins to plague Fark within two years. Fark will slowly die.

Packages will be the norm, much like cable is now.

imgod2u: I'd like to point out the irony of the TF'ers in this thread laughing at the guy.

There's a difference between paying for news and paying for snark. :)

make me some tea: The second time I've done this today:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*wheeze*

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I came here to do this, but instead I'll just try to help you breathe. Think of something unfunny - like, say, Marge Simpson biting your dick.