Not letting Google find your sites

Rupert Murdoch is considering yanking his many news operations–which include Fox News–from being accessed by Google:

Mr. Murdoch said that consumers shouldn’t have had free access to information online that they paid for in other formats.

“I think we’ve been asleep,” he said. “It costs us a lot of money to put together good newspapers and good content. They’re very happy to pay for it when they buy a newspaper, and I think when they read it elsewhere they’re going to have to pay. Not huge sums. You’d be surprised how much can be done, how cheaply, into the average home.”

Echoing accusations of “parasitism” and “kleptomania” that other News Corp. execs have levied against Google for featuring their content on Google sites, Mr. Murdoch said search companies “steal our stories.” News Corp. declined to comment.

Mr. Speers said that those sites argue that they’re helping news outlets, by sending them readers who click the search results. “Isn’t it a two-way street?” he asked.

“They don’t suddenly become loyal readers of our content,” Mr. Murdoch said. “We’d rather have fewer people coming to our Web site but paying.”

“The other argument from Google is that you could choose not to be on their search engine,” Mr. Speers said. “You could simply refuse to be on it, so that when someone does do a search, your Web sites don’t come up. Why haven’t you done that?”

“I think we will,” Mr. Murdoch said. “We do it already, with The Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it’s not right to the ceiling. You can get the first paragraph of any story, but if you’re not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com, you get a paragraph and a subscription form.” (Journal articles are currently indexed by search engines and are available for free through Google results. Visitors reach the pay wall only after clicking subsequent articles after the article discovered through search.)

Mr. Murdoch added that News Corp. believes that the fair-use doctrine, which allows for use of copyrighted materials in limited ways such as search results, “could be challenged in the courts and barred altogether.”

He thinks that the courts would do his bidding and eliminate the fair use doctrine? At any rate, does this make sense? Would you pay to access Fox News Online in a special trip to that site? Or would you just go with whatever comes up on Google?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • fws

    I have thought for a good while now, that the likes of ann coulter and beck exist as a form of entertainment, and that they really do not believe what they say on tee-vee.

    It is about making those $$$$$….

  • fws

    I have thought for a good while now, that the likes of ann coulter and beck exist as a form of entertainment, and that they really do not believe what they say on tee-vee.

    It is about making those $$$$$….

  • Doug

    We do not get any TV programming nor do we subscribe to any printed news media. So yes, I would pay for news programming online but only if all of the news agencies started charging. Otherwise I would simply migrate from Fox to another network.

  • Doug

    We do not get any TV programming nor do we subscribe to any printed news media. So yes, I would pay for news programming online but only if all of the news agencies started charging. Otherwise I would simply migrate from Fox to another network.

  • Jonathan

    No way I’d pay to use Fox News dot com. Murdoch obviously makes plenty of money off the advertising. I think that would sit really badly with Fox’s audience and would make them start to see Fox as FWS does.

  • Jonathan

    No way I’d pay to use Fox News dot com. Murdoch obviously makes plenty of money off the advertising. I think that would sit really badly with Fox’s audience and would make them start to see Fox as FWS does.

  • Carl Vehse

    “I have thought for a good while now, that the likes of ann coulter and beck exist as a form of entertainment, and that they really do not believe what they say on tee-vee.”

    fws, this thread is about Google access to Fox News, not your imagined mental perception of what other people on another continent are secretly thinking in their own minds.

    Focus, fws, focus.

  • Carl Vehse

    “I have thought for a good while now, that the likes of ann coulter and beck exist as a form of entertainment, and that they really do not believe what they say on tee-vee.”

    fws, this thread is about Google access to Fox News, not your imagined mental perception of what other people on another continent are secretly thinking in their own minds.

    Focus, fws, focus.

  • Bruce Gee

    Doug makes the point: this will only work if the various news organizations collude. It would have to be done en masse, else we’d just go elsewhere. The WSJ does happen to have that unique status however, that might anchor such a movement.

    For me, I pay $9.92 per month to have the journal delivered to my doorway six days a week. The rustle of paper! I like my hard copies.

    In any case, I wouldn’t bet against Mr. Murdoch.

  • Bruce Gee

    Doug makes the point: this will only work if the various news organizations collude. It would have to be done en masse, else we’d just go elsewhere. The WSJ does happen to have that unique status however, that might anchor such a movement.

    For me, I pay $9.92 per month to have the journal delivered to my doorway six days a week. The rustle of paper! I like my hard copies.

    In any case, I wouldn’t bet against Mr. Murdoch.

  • John C

    In 1976 my bumper sticker stated, ‘Murdoch is bad news’– nothing has changed.

  • John C

    In 1976 my bumper sticker stated, ‘Murdoch is bad news’– nothing has changed.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    There are newspapers that charge if you want to view certain sections etc of their paper. So far I have not paid to view those sections. I don’t know. If they all colluded, could you then get them on an anti trust law? Do the papers makes as much from Advertizing when they are on the internet? It takes money to run a good paper. If advertizing could cover all the costs, why weren’t the old News Papers free?
    Problem is these days I don’t care for the news at all. I have stopped listening to talk radio. I’m a conservative, and I can’t stand Glen Beck! What a hack. Definitely not going to pay to listen to that man’s whining. Sean Hannidy gets annoying at times too. I don’t need 24 hours of news and commentary. What happened to the days when you got real news for an hour, and not 24 hours of commentary on nothing?
    Sorry for the tangent.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    There are newspapers that charge if you want to view certain sections etc of their paper. So far I have not paid to view those sections. I don’t know. If they all colluded, could you then get them on an anti trust law? Do the papers makes as much from Advertizing when they are on the internet? It takes money to run a good paper. If advertizing could cover all the costs, why weren’t the old News Papers free?
    Problem is these days I don’t care for the news at all. I have stopped listening to talk radio. I’m a conservative, and I can’t stand Glen Beck! What a hack. Definitely not going to pay to listen to that man’s whining. Sean Hannidy gets annoying at times too. I don’t need 24 hours of news and commentary. What happened to the days when you got real news for an hour, and not 24 hours of commentary on nothing?
    Sorry for the tangent.

  • http://www.scyldingsinthemeadhall.blogspot.com The Scylding

    Well, here in Canada, I can still read the CBC for free. Sure, it has its slants, but you learn to read through it. And for other international perspectives, there are a plethora of foreign sources. I just mix up, insofar possible, the biases of the source, and then make up my mind. I for one cannot afford the extra expense of paying for news.

  • http://www.scyldingsinthemeadhall.blogspot.com The Scylding

    Well, here in Canada, I can still read the CBC for free. Sure, it has its slants, but you learn to read through it. And for other international perspectives, there are a plethora of foreign sources. I just mix up, insofar possible, the biases of the source, and then make up my mind. I for one cannot afford the extra expense of paying for news.

  • Tom Hering

    The problem with 24-hour news is that there isn’t 24 hours worth of national-interest news in a day. Most days there isn’t even one hour’s worth. Even on 9/11, they kept repeating the same stuff over and over, and filled in with a lot of useless speculation. So, most weeks, they make up “controversies” to fill the time – even if they have to malign people to do it.

  • Tom Hering

    The problem with 24-hour news is that there isn’t 24 hours worth of national-interest news in a day. Most days there isn’t even one hour’s worth. Even on 9/11, they kept repeating the same stuff over and over, and filled in with a lot of useless speculation. So, most weeks, they make up “controversies” to fill the time – even if they have to malign people to do it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bruce said (@5), “I wouldn’t bet against Mr. Murdoch.” To which I would reply: I wouldn’t bet against the Internet.

    I mean, come on. Fox News, et al. aren’t providing one-of-a-kind reporting. It’s not getting scoops that no one else has. Stuff like that doesn’t happen anymore. Heck, a quick search just now on FoxNews.com showed plenty of AP stories. You think I can’t find AP stories elsewhere? Even the stories that Fox produces itself are based on facts that are widely disseminated.

    Admittedly, opinion pieces are unique content that Fox could try to capitalize on, but the The New York Times has already tried that and they gave up on it, for whatever reason. But even that is mostly personality-based — that is, Glenn Beck isn’t unique for his opinions and his rants, but rather because he’s Glenn Beck. The same opinions and rants can be found in spades on the Internet — some influenced by Beck, and a few likely influencing him.

    The horse is out of the barn already, and Murdoch is years late in trying to close the door. Unless there’s 100% collusion by all media outlets (which would be illegal), there will always be a free source of news — after all, what barrier is there to my reading it, no matter where in the world it comes from?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bruce said (@5), “I wouldn’t bet against Mr. Murdoch.” To which I would reply: I wouldn’t bet against the Internet.

    I mean, come on. Fox News, et al. aren’t providing one-of-a-kind reporting. It’s not getting scoops that no one else has. Stuff like that doesn’t happen anymore. Heck, a quick search just now on FoxNews.com showed plenty of AP stories. You think I can’t find AP stories elsewhere? Even the stories that Fox produces itself are based on facts that are widely disseminated.

    Admittedly, opinion pieces are unique content that Fox could try to capitalize on, but the The New York Times has already tried that and they gave up on it, for whatever reason. But even that is mostly personality-based — that is, Glenn Beck isn’t unique for his opinions and his rants, but rather because he’s Glenn Beck. The same opinions and rants can be found in spades on the Internet — some influenced by Beck, and a few likely influencing him.

    The horse is out of the barn already, and Murdoch is years late in trying to close the door. Unless there’s 100% collusion by all media outlets (which would be illegal), there will always be a free source of news — after all, what barrier is there to my reading it, no matter where in the world it comes from?

  • Ryan

    ‘Not letting Google find your sites’ Now if there isn’t a challenge to the tech hipsters and hackers I don’t know what is.

  • Ryan

    ‘Not letting Google find your sites’ Now if there isn’t a challenge to the tech hipsters and hackers I don’t know what is.

  • Gary

    Removing themselves from google at this time would put them in the grave. I don’t understand why he’s talking so silly. We are still trying to adapt to the technological leaps and bounds, and we’ve yet to determine the best way to make money off of technology, much less regulate it. It boils down to this: if it’s good and I like it, I’ll pay for it. Otherwise, there will be plenty of other stuff out there that is close enough and available for free.

  • Gary

    Removing themselves from google at this time would put them in the grave. I don’t understand why he’s talking so silly. We are still trying to adapt to the technological leaps and bounds, and we’ve yet to determine the best way to make money off of technology, much less regulate it. It boils down to this: if it’s good and I like it, I’ll pay for it. Otherwise, there will be plenty of other stuff out there that is close enough and available for free.

  • Nat

    The whole time I was reading that, I was thinking, “I would consider paying for good journalism. I.e., not Fox News.”

  • Nat

    The whole time I was reading that, I was thinking, “I would consider paying for good journalism. I.e., not Fox News.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X