Slashdot Mirror


Will MySpace Disrupt Television?

newsblaze writes "In the Media space, the internet has been threatening to be a highly disruptive technology for some time now. So far it has done quite a number on newspapers, who still don't understand the internet. There are a lot of people who like to have the paper in their hands, though, so newspapers are holding on. Television has no such ties to a physical medium. When Murdoch bought Myspace, I wondered how long it would be before he either found something to do with it — or gave up. Now it seems Murdoch has found a way to leverage his position, and put a massive squeeze on television. How far can he take this — and what will be the result?"

3 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. My Space by proadventurer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The more people who use myspace or watch TV, the less people in my space - the outdoors. Thanks Murdoch, I hope you make some money!

    --
    I hate slashdot
  2. Re:TV is dead by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The biggest hurdle in "internet tv" is that ubiquitous "Black Box" that consumer electronics manufacturers have been searching for decades to decades to find. The 360 and the PS3 are the first iteration in what will be the future. The 360 is offering essentially basic cable to 360 owners this fall and I am certain that the PS3 will have something similar, especially since Sony owns a huge catalogue of films. Which is probably why all the gamers are keeping store shelves clear of Wii boxes and allowing those consoles to gather some dust before a sports fan feels the need to kill time between seasons with electronic reenactments of his adored teams and buys the necessary hardware for that purpose. They aren't actually game consoles, they're media hubs that happen to play games.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  3. Murdoch Disrupts Everything by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about the impact of MySpace, but the biggest disruption of established media has been with the news. People are no longer confined to just a few news channels and papers owned by just a handful of people. Things that were possible before, such as D-Notices (where the UK media are blocked from reporting something by the government) are now quite ineffective. However, Murdoch and the big outlets do have a big web presence and we should avoid them like the plague.

    Using the UK Freedom of Information act, it has recently emerged that Tony Blair had 3 telephone conversations with Rupert Murdoch in the 10 days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. No doubt he wanted to know how much support he would get. War sells papers and increases viewing figures, so it would not have been a good business decision for Murdoch to oppose the war. Do you really want to sit there passively consuming Rupert Murdoch's political views, channelled though different newsreaders and outlets? We should be avoiding Murdoch's empire as much as possible. It's not healthy for so much of the media to be owned by so few people. Fortunately the net makes it easy to hunt around and find more independent outlets.

    If anyone is interested, the FOI request was made by Lord Avebury and it took him a long time to get the information released.