Slashdot Mirror
Rupert Murdoch Plans a Digital Newspaper For the US
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that Rupert Murdoch plans to launch a digital newspaper in the US geared specifically to younger readers and to digital outlets such as the iPad and mobile phones. The paper, as yet unnamed, will pool the huge editorial muscle of Murdoch's combined holdings within News Corporation, which include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the financial wire service Dow Jones, as well as his newspapers in the UK and Australia. Earlier this month, Murdoch said of the iPad: 'It's a real game-changer in the presentation of news,' adding 'We'll have young people reading newspapers.'"
Rupert Murdoch: Dragging us into the 20th century.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
"We'll have young people reading newspapers."
Not till you tear down that Pay wall, Mr. Murdoch.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Check out the youthful demographics Fox News attracts...
And he's sure to only increase the popularity of his empire with our generation as he attempts to sue Skype for having the same three letters in it as his other news organization that nobody under 25 has heard of.
raise your hand. What, no one can hear me? IF YOU THINK THIS WILL WORK, RAISE YOUR HAND! Is this thing on?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Good idea:
For the people who can read newspapers, there's the full story loaded with factual detail.
For the rest, there's a blog-style two-paragraph campy tongue-in-cheek story that's easy to read.
He can charge money for the real content, then have his editorial staff of college hipsters convert it into a blog for $8/hour.
Smart, this guy -- he's good at spotting markets and catering to them. I doubt he holds any of the opinions featured in his newspapers.
Futurist Traditionalism
Professional journalism costs money. News at 11.
Does Fox News, BTW, ever cover the fact that Murdoch is married to a former member of the Chinese Communist Party?
Probably not. When you grow up you'll discover two things: First, it's not a good idea to crumb on the boss's wife. Second, you don't have to agree with someone's political stances in order to love/marry them. It's even easier when you attach "former" to those political stances.
He actually bought the word "digital"! It seems you've used it without permission...lawyers with lasers on their heads are on their way, please do not resist.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Murdoch said of the iPad: 'It's a real game-changer in the presentation of news,'
Hmm, sure, yes, the thing has something like a screen. Actually it is a screen. That would allow us to add those new thingies the PR guys talked about all the time. I think they call it "animations". And we could change those news during the day, not like this old printed stuff, with only one print a day. Sure, people would have to pay for it a little bit more, since they get more news. But those kids a surely used to pay for services they get from the internet...
Murdoch is in a tough spot. The internet has given us access to nearly every piece of content that has ever been created, or is currently being created, in near real-time. In addition, automated editing tools are improving by leaps and bounds every year, with recent apps like Flipboard (and others), obviating the need for professional human editors.
So it's difficult to see how this slight re-working of an old model is going to work in a world where the game has changed in such fundamental ways.
The paywall pretty much guarantees failure. Young people generally have a long list of things above "news" on which they choose to spend their small amount of disposable income. I applaud his astounding failure in advance.
Can someone persuade Murdoch to buy FaceBook? I can't think of a better way of killing it...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Granted, professional journalism does cost money, but what does this have to do with Rupert Murdoch?
According to the LA Times, it will publish customised content that will be tailored both to the digital medium and the tastes of the target readership. Stories will be short and snappy, the Times's source said.
As a young person (does 26 still count as young?), I find the whole premise insulting to my intelligence. The internet is full of short, snappy, and FREE content. Why would I want to pay for more crap? For me to consider paying for an online publication, it would have to be informative, and probably confined to a niche in which I have a strong personal or professional interest.
I predict failure of epic proportions.
Young people don't read newspapers. Not in the way Murdoch's thinking, at least. They don't start on page 1 and read through to the end. And they don't compile a list of subjects and read consistently on those subjects for months at a time. They get a sudden interest in a particular subject, search for stories about that specific subject right now, skim them and maybe read a few of the most interesting ones, then go on to other things until another subject piques their interest. This is why Google's so popular: it makes it easy to do exactly that. If Murdoch doesn't accept that, he's simply going to be passed over yet again.
I think you're missing the point - that's exactly the kind of sensationalizing the far right has been so good at doing in recent years. Has everyone already forgotten the fuss about Obama's schooling in Indonesia?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
professional journalism, in the mainstream, died decades ago.
what we now have is packaged spin, nothing more.
THIS is why people go outside (of the mainstream) to fetch real news and viewpoints. we're pretty tired of the crap that passes for 'news' from the establishment, these days.
indie is the only hope we have left; certainly NOT big-news machines!
the smaller the site, the more likely it is that they're NOT on someone's payroll, spouting out their masters' views for a fee.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
That's kind of like claiming that a desert and an ocean both have some amount of water in them.
While technically accurate, it does nothing to advance the discussion.
Some sites (such as Fox) are 100% bias. But if you are watching Fox for "news" then you are probably not interested in sites that provide only 50% bias.
CNN will provide a low level of bias ... when they get around to covering the NEWS instead of the "freak of the week". Seriously, was the airplane steward guy the MOST IMPORTANT THING HAPPENING? It was if you go by total coverage time.
Instead of complaining about bias (and doing so in a non-productive fashion) how about complaining about having to go digging for NEWS? And offering suggestions as to how to find NEWS stories instead of "biased opinion" or "freak of the week"?
Because you get people who KNOW the material that they are covering.
They may be over estimating the importance of what they cover, but they KNOW what they're covering.
Compare that to the "news readers" on the other news shows. Could they even find the countries they're talking about on a map? Or in the USofA, can they find the state they're talking about on a map? There are some good ones but the majority were hired because they're "photogenic" rather than informed.
I'll take informed over photogenic any day.
Marxism-Leninism and its offshot Maoism may be dead as a political force, but Communism is still very visible as a critique of contemporary culture. Slavoj Zizek, for example, seems to be everywhere I turn these days in aesthetics, economics and social phenomena, and I'm amazed at how many young people in Europe are not only reading his books, but downright enjoying them (rare among contemporary philosophers).
Murdoch's product is best suited for housebreaking puppies or wrapping fish. Neither of which work well with an iPad.
Have gnu, will travel.
professional journalism, in the mainstream, died decades ago.
And if your definition of professional journalism is "unbiased writing", then it never existed in the first place.
Too many people believe in this mythical golden age of journalism, when all reporters were unbiased and pure of heart.
Which is bunk, because it never existed. Pulitzer prize winning reporters for the NY Times were nothing but flacks for Joseph Stalin (especially Walter Duranty). Walter Cronkite reported that America couldn't win in Vietnam on the eve was what was the biggest military victory for the US in the war. Had Dan Rather not gotten caught, he'd still be anchor at CBS today.
Reporters have had bias as long as there have been reporters.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Except us "younger" readers know two things. 1) "Reading" on the internet makes our heads hurt. 2) Us "younger" readers know Rupert is a "douche".
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Here's a brief rundown of what I think he's been trying to achieve with all the noise over the past three years. He's pushing hard to have government run media sites (eg. BBC) cut back (with some success) and pushing hard to have index sites like google tied up in court after weird new IP laws are drafted. That will leave nothing but blogs and his paywall sites. He can play this game since he doesn't really have anything to lose with his newspapers - they already bleed money.
I suppose the business model is:
talk to governments about IP laws and brang google as pirates, then take the money google would normally get.
The Murdoch press and media already had a HUGE beatup over google collecting wifi information and had some success in changing public and government opinions about google. He's also been speaking everywhere he can get anyone to listen about how the net is a denizen of theives and we should all be restricted to paid content or jobs will be lost - or something along those lines, check your local Murdoch paper for details. He has more influence than anyone here would like, understands the net more than many here (he had an ISP in 1993 FFS and has always listened to experts) but doesn't care if he breaks it so long as he can get money from the pieces.
There is only really one existing "free market" and that is the "black" market..in anything. Very successful, despite a lot of effort to try and eliminate it. Pick a goods or service demand which has to be met in the "black" market because it is "illegal" otherwise..and it is over all successful, and there is usually a lot of competition, and even if some of the "marketeers" try to eliminate their competition, that usually fails in general terms.
All other markets are regulated in some form or another and can't be classified as free markets.
Just an observation, not making a judgment call on anyone's business.
I suppose "younger readers" can go on the list with "military intelligence", "plastic silverware" and "Microsoft Works".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."