So keep doing what they've been doing, then?

I used to print newspapers in a large market in Minnesota, and I always figured that if they could figure out how to reliably fly the papers in from Mexico, I'd be out of a job.

I might have to add Murdoch to my "Cromwelling after they die" list. At least he has some good company.

/I'm looking at you #43

FTFA: By Andrew Orlowski

And close the tab ...

Mmm worst case would be I'd stop hearing about crap that I really don't care about happening to people in places I've never been to, can't afford to go visit and ultimately I'm in no position to do anything about (even if I had the inclination).

Never mind that by doing this, he'll shift viewer-ship to outlets that do provide free content. Which means a modest advertising scheme will give the other agencies a nice advantage.

idsfa: FTFA: By Andrew Orlowski

And close the tab ...

Seconded. Waste of bandwidth. "I'm going to restate the obvious action, without thinking through the obvious reaction, and claim genius."

This article seems to think that the primary use of Google is to search for news. I have never, in my entire life, searched for a news article, yet I use Google every day. Rather, I search for information on my hobbies, or for items I wish to purchase, or interesting images, and of course for porn. If the news section disappeared completely I don't know that I'd notice.

To be fair - 99% of the crap on fark comes from the fluff stories that the AP puts out.

Here's how it usually goes. Local reporter comes across an interesting story - which is on the local news (be it newspaper or TV). The overnight guys at the AP picks it up, and the next morning, producers/editors across the country schedule a minor rewrite/edit of the story as the their afternoon newscast/print. Sometimes even re-voicing the piece with local talent. Usually they have to do this because their staff is so minimal, that 50-75% of the content has to be grabbed from outside sources.

Between the middle of this, Fark submitters see the story and put it up on this site. Then, the *next* day, local morning radio show producers grab the headlines and roll with them the next day. Depending on what market your in, it'll take a good 3 days for a story to filter through one outlet after another. 5 days if it makes national news, because there will have to be a follow-up.

/former CBS affiliate news producer
//recovering morning show producer

Hell, our little rinky-dink newspaper has the "Fark Headline of the Day" section on the editorial page. Can't help but think there's some trademark infringement in there somewhere.

After RTFA, I'm convinced that if Murdoch (and other "spineless" execs) gets his way, he will create a precedent that will fragment the internet to the point where it becomes useless for people to try to create new content without having an already-established non-internet identity.

In otherwords, STFU Murdoch, and try to find a different way to save your "traditional" media. Keep your hands off my internet.

It is so fun to see the old coot try to "take down the internet". I bet in his youth he fought to "take down the automobile" and save the horse and buggy. Old Rupert is old.

modestlivinglegend: It is so fun to see the old coot try to "take down the internet". I bet in his youth he fought to "take down the automobile" and save the horse and buggy. Old Rupert is old.

You should've read his scathing expose on the Renaissance. "It was culturally dark when I grew up, and that's the way I like it!"

kumquat: This article seems to think that the primary use of Google is to search for news. I have never, in my entire life, searched for a news article, yet I use Google every day. Rather, I search for information on my hobbies, or for items I wish to purchase, or interesting images, and of course for porn. If the news section disappeared completely I don't know that I'd notice.

This. Clueless Reporter is clueless.

wait, don't the papers pretty much outsource about everything except production?

I mean, if a majority of the articles are AP or Reuters, exactly what are they doing?

The entire second page of that article lost me. All I could really understand from the author was that Google is doing something wrong and Murdoch is Jesus. Really, someone please explain the second page.

I see I'm not the only person who uses "pinching a Fark story" as a euphemism.

loonatic112358: wait, don't the papers pretty much outsource about everything except production?

I mean, if a majority of the articles are AP or Reuters, exactly what are they doing?

Local stories. Oh, and printing.

Jeebus. TFA reads like it was written by a spambot. Halfway down the second page whatever it was becoming so damn unclear that I was beginning to wonder if it was a bunch of random words thrown together by a computer to see if it could pass as a legit article.

Murdoch is threatening to block his sites and news stories from Google searches, because Google is harming news outlets somehow. TFA doesn't explain how. I had to bring up another farking article to learn that he's doing it because Google is letting viewers see articles that he wants to charge for free. What kind of hack leaves out basic background info like that?

"Public broadcasters such as the BBC and ABC (two organisations singled out in his interview for leeching off print), would continue to pump out web material. But these are swamped and suffocated by the chaff, all eaten by the Pacman."

I have no idea what the hell that last sentence is supposed to mean, or why we can't just get our news directly from those organizations' websites, instead of from Google.

How to destroy Rupert Murdoch?

When the man has left himself open to so many easy gut punches you have to wonder if he is trying to bait rather than attack.

Wait, If murdoch takes his content of the internets, doesn't that include Mr. Beck & Fox News? How is this a bad thing?