Slashdot Mirror


Rupert Murdoch Pushes Facebook To Pay For News To Guarantee Quality (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Rupert Murdoch, the media billionaire who controls the Wall Street Journal, called on Facebook to begin paying publishers fees to carry the news that its users post and share online in a sign of the print industry's growing frustration with social media. "If Facebook wants to recognize 'trusted' publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies," Murdoch, the executive chairman of News Corp. said Monday in a statement. "The publishers are obviously enhancing the value and integrity of Facebook through their news and content but are not being adequately rewarded for those services." "Facebook and Google have popularized scurrilous news sources through algorithms that are profitable for these platforms but inherently unreliable," Murdoch said. "Recognition of a problem is one step on the pathway to cure, but the remedial measures that both companies have so far proposed are inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically." Murdoch, who also leads 21st Century Fox, called for a system similar to that in cable television, where large distributors like Comcast and AT&T pay fees to the TV network owners that attract their viewers.

104 comments

  1. Come on by mrclmn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do the world a favour Rupert and just die already.

    1. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt the evil he currently stands for will stop with him. His organizations will continue as usual as long as they bring in the money.

      But the headline does raise a question.
      Have Murdoch ever indicated that he is capable of providing quality news? He seems to only push tabloid "news" that are more lies and gossip than not.

    2. Re:Come on by lucm · · Score: 0

      At this point most news organizations have lost credibility. They're all biased and dishonest. CNN, NYT, WaPo, FoxNews, it's all the same problem; the things they report and the way they report them, it's always driven by politics.

      And it goes beyond just the actual news; the moderators on their comment threads are also biased, the op ed they promote are biased, and as we saw with Keurig even the ad selection is biased.

      These news providers should package their crap and sell it on build-your-echo-chamber.com or something similar. Which is essentially what Facebook is so maybe Murdoch has a point.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re: Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very difficult to get humans to read / watch actual information, at least relative to melodramatic bullshit. See The Learning Channel, former informational TV, current home of dwarfs and hicks doing idiotic crap.

    4. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that an "op ed" is already technically biased by default. You actually brought it up in a way to make it seem like they only started doing this. "Opposite the editorial page" is what an "op-ed" stands for, and the means that it expresses the opinion of author. Editorials are "opinions" by default and their very nature, and so are op-eds, which means that will always be a bias by default.

      Perhaps your issue is that it isn't the "bias" that you agree with. Henceforth your statements. Perhaps you want Scholarly/Peer reviewed articles, those are far more neutral (then again, I'd always recommend that just want the facts and information that backs that up).

    5. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The problem isn't the news organization, it's the fact that they are driven by profit and thus have no incentive to not be 24/7 news. I'm not even sure Fox News airs news, it's all editorial shit all the time.

      There are numerous ways of solving the problem, but the problem at it's core is that Live news sources fills time with editorial nonsense. Please take a look at how CBC (Canada), BBC(UK) (both government owned, but not official mouth pieces of their countries) does 24/7 news. During normal morning, noon, evening and late (basically 5-9am, noon, 5-6pm, and 11pm) only news is aired, no editorialized news. In Canada, CBC is considered more honest than the competing CTV or GlobalTV 24 hour news channels, but that comes with a large BUT. CTV is centralized in Toronto, the same way CBC is, so they often appear to poach each others Toronto-centric news stories. GlobalTV however is centralized in Vancouver, and it's largest complaint is it's vancouver-centricness. In the UK I imagine this problem doesn't exist because the entire country is in the same time zone. GlobalTV rarely shows editorial content (one might say "The west block" is editorial content, but that's one program that isn't identified as news, though it shows on a news channel.) CBC has the same kind of program. Each news network also airs their own 60-minutes style program (CBC is especially fond of them.)

      In the US, the only 24/7 live news source is CNN, and even then not regular CNN, but CNN Headline news. Weather channels tend to be the only 24/7 news sources, and they are only weather and the occasional amber alert.

      People just do not know how to tell editorial content from news content because news channels only air about 20 minutes of news 4 times a day, and the rest of the day it's editorial nonsense.

      The US basically needs a version of "PBS 24 hour news", where the channel is funded by the government, but has no say in what is aired, and is not funded to do editorial content, and airs no commercials. That is the minimum the US needs to wrangle back the editorial shitshow that foxnews and regular cnn "obsession with finding lost airplanes"

      Like when MH370 was lost, CNN was 24/7 looking for it, for a goddamn month. It's a shame that it was lost, but they essentially abandoned all other news for a month in the hope that they would be the ones to break the news the plane was found.

    6. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the insight on Canada and CBC.

      Meanwhile, in US we have NPR, which interestingly you didn't mention.

      NPR is probably the most unbiased and go-to radio news source to get a handle on what's going on, but only if you A) are politically liberal, moderate, or well read (diverse and open minded) conservative, andor read diverse news sources despite your politics, B) can tune out the constant begging (er fund drives) and self congratulation, andor C) can ignore the terribly liberally biased editorial and entertainment shows (wait wait don't tell me is ... ... terrible ... period. but also extremely liberal. As someone whose politics are fiscally moderate but socially very left of center, it should be telling that i hate the smugness and editorializing that some of the NPR hosts do on otherwise objective pieces, and even on some story or entertainment shows. The content and programming vary depending on the local station, buti can only imagine how someone in midwest farm country would hate every thing npr stands for, including the journalistic standards, if they tuned in 10 random times during the week.

      When i had siriusxm, i pretty much only used bbc, npr, and cbc, in that order. the quality and depth of programming on bbc and cbc was admirable.. they also run entertainment and/or music though (similar to npr).. but there is a dedicated News channel.

    7. Re:Come on by lucm · · Score: 1

      NPR is probably the most unbiased and go-to radio news source

      I guess in the process of being an unbiased news source NPR forgot to report that the former NPR CEO confessed that NPR has a liberal agenda. And the guy doesn't talk about a conspiracy, but simply of NPR being a liberal echo chamber. See:

      When you are liberal, and everyone else around you is as well, it is easy to fall into groupthink on what stories are important, what sources are legitimate and what the narrative of the day will be.

      https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/...

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    8. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At this point most news organizations have lost credibility.

      A lot of them are bad, but it appears to be mostly because of laziness.
      Sometimes you see other newspapers print something that was reported by RT without doing any form of verification if the info was correct.
      That is how lies and propaganda finds its way into most newspapers.

      When it comes to Murdoch he directly instructs his "journalists" to not do research and instead pushes information he knows is incorrect.

      Anything Murdoch touches really takes a dive to the bottom.
      You can pick anything that he doesn't have his hands on and it will likely be a better alternative.

      If you can't see the difference you should probably not vote, but I guess you do, consistently for the same party while claiming that "they are the same"

    9. Re: Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you whooshed on their point about the op ed.

    10. Re:Come on by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Cunt should've died fucking years ago. I love that he think he knows 'quality' news. You won't find a paper he owns that contradicts his wankerish views on anything, ever.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    11. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was great of Jerry Hall to take one for the team but I do wish she'd get on with fucking him to death.

      The Murdoch family are like anal warts: unsightly, uncomfortable, of no feasible benefit and difficult to get rid of.

      The Murdochs did just get their wish to buy the remainder of the Sky network in the UK kicked into touch, too. It would be a great thing for the country if he and his assorted tabloid rag brethren disappeared into history without further poisoning the well.

    12. Re:Come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you for the link, i hadn't seen this before and it was a good read. (despite being from nypost.. or the nyc equivalent of the dailymail with less ads and boob-click-baits)

      did you miss my qualifications to that statement? an over arching agenda (regardless of who or what is directing it?) is a far cry from my assertion that there are some good programs, hosts, journalists, and information. i also admit and lament that NPR is so liberally biased, especially in it's entertainment programming (which can turn some people off wholesale... ), but also sometimes even in otherwise news segments.

      I think the echo chamber effect is very real and very informative in regards to how polarized we have become as a society (US centric view only...I have no idea how these media issues are playing out in europe, central asia, se asia, etc.).

      Its really hard, but i think its helpful individually and societally to try and bridge the gap with the old friend / coworker / neighbor / close family / ext. family, to acknowledge the difference in our ideas yet have an informed and meaningful discussion. not derision, not conversion, but discussion / dialogue / conversation / or even debate (if you have the energy and patience). I would say 90% of my ext fam are on the trump train, and as much as i want to scream at them "he's an asshole" or whatever.. they are also generally good people who have families, businesses, dreams, etc,.. and i have to try to keep some respect and peace (they probably think the same but flipside) ...

      "None of this justifies the attacks from President Trump, which are terribly inappropriate coming from the head of government. At the same time, the media should acknowledge its own failings in reflecting only their part of America. You can’t cover America from the Acela corridor, and the media need to get out and be part of the conversations that take place in churches and community centers and town halls."

      hear hear.
      again, NPR depends on the local stations and contributors
      as a CPR (CO) subscriber, yes the content and programming, local and national (WBEZ, WHYY, WNYC esp.), can be liberal biased.. but the brradth and depth of coverage is usually worth the price of admission (zero).

  2. Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Fox "News" is the original fake news, and only uneducated racists and right wing snowflakes take their obvious pandering and misinformation seriously.

    1. Re:Fox "News" by desdinova+216 · · Score: 0

      careful, you might trigger someone.

    2. Re:Fox "News" by lucm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re: Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know you are, but what am I?" - lucm

    4. Re:Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? We saw several hundred in Charlottesville, about 200-300 in the Shelbyville/Murfreesboro TN protest, and a handful more at other rallies. You can't see the snowflakes because they are white and blend in with the natural snowflakes. Try harder, n00b.

    5. Re:Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump is a right wing snowflake who whines and threatens to sue when he is triggered by good journalism.

    6. Re:Fox "News" by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.

      Here you go: On Campus, Trump Fans Say They Need ‘Safe Spaces’

      Lots of dimes and dozens on both sides.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War on Christmas? War On Religion? Will and Grace? Starbucks? Happy Holidays? The list goes on ...

      That was quite easy; especially if you want to play the "snowflake" narrative. Never seen so many people lose their marbles over Starbucks coffee cups ....

    8. Re:Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.

      Or maybe you just have a preferential bias that blinds you to those people.

      Then again, the whole "snowflakes" thing was nothing more than a construct for discrediting others, and justifying dismissing their statements out-of-hand to begin with.....

      Although, a right-wing "snowflake" as most people would put it does exist. (Someone who's insecure about others opinions and lashes out if they disagree.) As of this post he runs the white house. Maybe you've heard of him?

    9. Re: Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Kelly ?

    10. Re:Fox "News" by lucm · · Score: 0

      In the same post you manage to say:

      the whole "snowflakes" thing was nothing more than a construct for discrediting others, and justifying dismissing their statements out-of-hand to begin with

      and:

      a right-wing "snowflake" as most people would put it does exist. [...] As of this post he runs the white house.

      You can't have it both ways. Next time only pick one of two conflicting statements if you want people to take you seriously.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    11. Re:Fox "News" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      So what's wrong with that? Leftists needed safe spaces. It seems like you're arguing against your own side. How's it OK when you do it, but suddenly wrong when others do it. I really do not understand.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck the snowflakes and their safe spaces, liberal or conservative. Life's rough. Get over it.

    13. Re:Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the part where he said "a right-wing "snowflake" as most people would put" . Clearly meaning he was using someone else's definition of it. I'm not sure he was implying that HE felt that way.

      Either way, Trump IS a motherfucking snowflake. I have no problems with discrediting someone who has no values or morals at all. I say this as a lifelong Republican as well, that asshat is destroying the party of Eisenhower.

    14. Re:Fox "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. We have yet to see right-wing snowflakes in real life; meanwhile they're a dime a dozen on the liberal side.

      Ah, so you elected the only existing right-wing snowflake President? And being that unique makes him a really special snowflake. He is the best snowflake ever, and he has the tests to prove it. Don't anyone disagree with that!

    15. Re:Fox "News" by lucm · · Score: 1

      Either way, Trump IS a motherfucking snowflake.

      He's not. You're corrupting the meaning of words in your quest for insults. Donald Trump is a liar, a ruthless businessman, and tacky as they come. But he's not a snowflake, or a nazi, or a dictator.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    16. Re:Fox "News" by lucm · · Score: 1

      snowflake

      Idiots like you who use "snowflake" as a generic insult are like fat girls who start wearing yoga pants; just ruining a good thing for everyone.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    17. Re:Fox "News" by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      So what's wrong with that? Leftists needed safe spaces. It seems like you're arguing against your own side. How's it OK when you do it, but suddenly wrong when others do it. I really do not understand.

      He didn't say there's anything wrong with it; he said they're snowflakes, which the parent asserted do not exist on the right. If you need a "safe space," you're a snowflake.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
  3. You Get What You Pay For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Social media gives you shit; if you expected more from it, then you're an idiot.

    1. Re:You Get What You Pay For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News gives you shit; if you expected more from it, then you're an idiot.

    2. Re:You Get What You Pay For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting on this forum gives you shit.
      Identifying as a liberal or conservative gives you shit.
      Taco bell gives you the shits.

  4. Fair is only fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right wing forums ought to pay up for posting news summaries, too, or will they receive a "discount" due to their political ideology?

  5. Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the same sentence?

    Is that supposed to be a joke?

    There's a reason we call it Faux News.

    1. Re:Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? by youngone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rupert also owns The Sun. Rupert also spends more time and effort influencing governments than the Russians.

    2. Re:Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Both Russia and Rupert have similar motivations: break up large western countries into fractions. For Russia, it's to prevent opposition to their reforming the USSR (well, in size). For Rupert, it's to better manipulate the populace and make money.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re: Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Rupert also owns The Sun.

      He should go live there.

    4. Re:Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His ex-wife is dating Putin.

      Don't know if he still is on good terms with his ex-wife.

    5. Re:Rupert Murdoch and Quality News? by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Rupert also owns The Sun. Rupert also spends more time and effort influencing governments than the Russians.

      This is what I was saying about Brexit. It was propaganda from the leave side... but the Propagandists weren't Russian. We know damn well who they were and that they weren't Johnny Foreigner.

      Murdoch hates the EU, he was once said (I'm probably paraphrasing a little):
      "When I go to Washington, they listen. When I go to Whitehall, they listen. When I go to Brussels, they ignore me".

      Murdoch is quickly losing his position as kingmaker... and it's about damn time.

      However the consequences of the likes of Fox News and the Sun disappearing from Facebook are? And nothing of value was lost, some racist Rednecks may actually be forced to read some credible news for once and if I really get the desire to see some page 3 girls... there's no shortage of unprotected profiles of Peta, 23 from Essex... hashtag selfie.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. Slow to post by Pop69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, I was laughing so much at the idea of Murdoch and quality news being in the same sentence that I passed out...

    1. Re:Slow to post by epine · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was laughing so much at the idea of Murdoch and quality news being in the same sentence that I passed out...

      I was too busy picturing the Australian supervillain Cyberswine swinging into battle on a long rope, emitting a leather-lunged battle cry of "scuuuuurilouusss".

    2. Re:Slow to post by i286NiNJA · · Score: 3

      What's his point? In 2018 nobody would read shitty news sites and see their crap ads or promote murdoch's political agendas without social media.

    3. Re:Slow to post by lucm · · Score: 1, Funny

      What's his point? In 2018 nobody would read shitty news sites and see their crap ads or promote murdoch's political agendas without social media.

      Correct, except it's not just murdoch's political agenda, it's also the clinton agenda which currently dictates headlines in mainstream media (case in point, russiagate).

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:Slow to post by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      Unmod

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Slow to post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary lost, GET OVER IT.

    6. Re:Slow to post by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Horse shit, Trumpster.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    7. Re:Slow to post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife was surprised that Murdoch would be encouraging Facebook to look elsewhere for their news sources. He did specify 'quality' news.

    8. Re:Slow to post by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Over a year after Clinton lost and with her being largely an irrelevance now, and you are still blaming them for the media's interest in POTUS's possible links to Russia? This is a pretty lame conspiracy theory.

      I know she was an warmongering crook, literally hitler and all that, but it's a bit much blaming her for Trump's problems in 2018.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Slow to post by zlives · · Score: 1

      i quote
      "." "Facebook and Google have popularized scurrilous news sources through algorithms that are profitable for these platforms but inherently unreliable," Murdoch said. "Recognition of a problem is one step on the pathway to cure, but the remedial measures that both companies have so far proposed are inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically.""

      all this is valid criticism of Facebook and google.
      it of course does not take away from the hypocrisy of "fair and balanced". If these statements were made by Times, or Guardian or washington Post... they would be just as valid.

    10. Re:Slow to post by lucm · · Score: 1

      Over a year after Clinton lost and with her being largely an irrelevance now, and you are still blaming them for the media's interest in POTUS's possible links to Russia?

      Yes.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    11. Re:Slow to post by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should blame Muller. When he interviews Trump it's going to be a media circus, 24/7 non-stop.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Slow to post by lucm · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should blame Muller. When he interviews Trump it's going to be a media circus, 24/7 non-stop.

      Clinton launched this idea as a hail mary to bury the embarrassing contents of the leaked DNC emails. I don't think they expected this to snowball that much, but for all intents and purposes I suspect Trump himself isn't too angry about this. Think of it; it's a bullshit story - after a year if there had been anything there it would have rocked the white house already - and it keeps the haters busy who otherwise would have been looking for something else to freak out about.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  7. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll get the best news money can buy?

    1. Re:So... by gravewax · · Score: 2

      with Rupert you already get the best news money buys. To be fair though I can't think of any news source that is independent of financial or political influence, just Rupert's organisations bias is so blatantly obvious it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Most of the media long ago sold out.

    2. Re:So... by lucm · · Score: 0

      What about infowars? They provide factual, unbiased news. Such as this:

      When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, the U.S. middle class would be destroyed. The U.S. population (what was left of it) would be reduced to a status of enslavement, starvation, death, and disease.
      When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, the U.S. would have no borders, the Constitution would be revised to remove the Bill of Rights and all fundamental U.S. freedoms, and the population would be disarmed by the repeal of the Second Amendment.
      When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, there would be no electoral college.
      Future presidents would be elected by a majority of the popular vote, giving control to large states like California, New York, and New Jersey that can easily be overrun with illegal immigrants voting for the traitors and their anti-American conspiracy.
      If illegal votes were not enough to make sure the Democratic Party traitors dominated all elections, George Soros would be allowed to install voting machines to make Democratic Party voter fraud easy to achieve electronically.
      When the Obama/Hillary 16 years in the presidency were completed, the U.S. military would comprise a very small percentage of the U.S. budget, with transfer payments making sure excessive taxation redistributed income to minorities and illegals sure to vote for the Democratic Party traitors.
      U.S. military bases would be closed worldwide, beginning in Germany. Russia, China, and rogue states including Iran and North Korea would no longer need fear U.S. military reprisals for their evil expansion.
      Only “Project Mockingbird” PRAVDA-like mainstream media willing to be controlled by the CIA to disseminate the Obama/Hillary traitors’ anti-American ideology would be allowed to survive.
      All other news would be censored, with Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet giants unleashed to eliminate from “Social Media” even the most private or coded communications patriots might attempt.

      https://www.infowars.com/treas...

      Interestingly I've heard the other extreme in some mainstream media, like Donald Trump being a puppet of Russia, which is obviously impossible since even his own party can't control him.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't tell if troll or disabled.

  8. Build a Wall by jblues · · Score: 4, Funny

    Brilliant. It will be like building a wall between the consumers and a fair and balanced view, and making the consumers pay for it.

    --
    If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    1. Re:Build a Wall by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Brilliant. It will be like building a wall between the consumers and a fair and balanced view, and making the consumers pay for it.

      So... why not take this idea then? That way we can tell facebook to shove it and not pay him, thus blocking his news articles from showing up.

      To me, it seems like a great idea, Murdoch requires payment, facebook doesn't pay, Murdoch blocks facebook, everyone benefits.

  9. Rupert Murcoch is the definition... by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... of fake news. I love this bullshit that mainstream media has been pushing. The reality is the elites have lost control of the public mind and don't like it.

    1. Re:Rupert Murcoch is the definition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry by have you seriously watched all cable news, or read anything online that poses as news (Newsweek - cough - is terrible and trading on the old magazine's name).

      I mean holy fuck it's about as terrible, partisan, and one sided as you can be. Faux News may have set the tone, but it went to 11.

      I don't think you can blame all of this on Rupert Murdoch anymore. You should look at yourself and what you read and support. In reality you only read what you like and discard the rest.

      In the past, you had a couple of local channels, national news, your town's newspaper, and maybe one or two from the east coast. You had to read things you liked and hated. Now you don't.

    2. Re:Rupert Murcoch is the definition... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      If only the public mind translated to the publics votes, it might be worth something. (R) or (D) the country is still controlled by the elites, and they even elected the worse of the two for house, senate, and presidency, because trickle down will surely work this time if we just give the ultra-rich a little more and get rid of the brown people interfering with that. Nope, the elites are still firmly in control and people continually vote against their own interests, thanks to the little 'us versus them' side show the media is doing.

    3. Re: Rupert Murcoch is the definition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but I wish people wouldn't use the word "elite" to mean silver spoon kids. "Elite" means "best in class", and what we absolutely need are elites in government. What's killing us is filling the top positions with laymen and the loudest attention whores.

  10. We don't negotiate with Australian Terrorists by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    And I actually buy a print copy of the WSJ once or twice each week.

    Just say NO!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:We don't negotiate with Australian Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a US citizen. You guys are stuck with him now, sorry. :)

    2. Re:We don't negotiate with Australian Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know he owns that too, right?

  11. Fox News is a beacon of journalistic integrity?? by riley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?

  12. Fakebook "JUDEN mechanics" 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?... just like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

    "Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

    Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

    Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

    Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

    George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

    What World-famous Men have said About the Jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYPzKNQUE0/

    Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions)

    1. Re:Fakebook "JUDEN mechanics" 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this some kind of Russian bullshit or something?

    2. Re: Fakebook "JUDEN mechanics" 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, seek help.

  13. Murdoch sucks and his audience are morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Elites, mainstream media, ...

    Fox News IS the mainstream media. They are the #1 Cable news network.

    Elites? WTF are the elites?

    Fox News makes people uninformed; NPR informs them. I know, I know, Forbes is a Liberal rag.

    Or how Fox News makes folks less informed than those that don't even watch the news! Again, NPR for the best informed.

    And I don't know about you, but I consider Rupert Murdoch to be an elite himself - you know, a billionaire who has huge amounts of political power.

  14. sounds like sour grapes by nimbius · · Score: 2

    from a guy who bet the world on traditional media, paywalled all his assets, and cant seem to figure out why he cant monetize news the same way he did 40 years ago.

    buying your news doesnt guarantee its quality, only that there will be money to produce more of the news youve chosen to consume. Independent editors, journalists, and newsrooms all ensure quality news but Murdoch wouldnt know anything about that as hes spent his life famously buying these outlets up and transforming them into nothing more than neoconservative political bullhorns.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re: sounds like sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you subscribe to news, news has an incentive to be high quality to keep you around. If your income relies on millions of idiots to share your stories, you get only things that inspire anger, because anger gets shared.

  15. You're a disgrace to trolls. by i286NiNJA · · Score: 0

    How exactly is he in the US? He's an australian. The best news in the US is probably the Strategic Forecast.

    I mean I know it's your job to post this shit but at least put in effort. You're by far the least believable shill I've ever seen and that's saying a lot. You should't post on slashdot because we're a nation of trolls from well before 4chan or in your case dvachan and we see right through you, I'm getting 2nd hand troll embarrassment from you.

    1. Re:You're a disgrace to trolls. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

      How exactly is he in the US? He's an australian.

      Murdoch became an American citizen in 1985.

  16. If anyone did journalism, I'd probably pay for it by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Right now it seems like we've got 2 real camps for news. The mainstream media, which 99% of the time their extent of "journalism" is to read the press releases/talking points of the corporations, politicians, political parties etc... that help fund them, and expend zero resources finding out whether any of it is actually true or not. Then we have the wild west of free media. A world where they take the same press releases, then pull out of their ass whatever interpretation and guesses they can make from that fit the bias's of the target audience. Neither type is worth the pixels on the screen they are written on

  17. Go ahead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...make Facebook do that. Have fun trying...

  18. Babbys first troll by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

    Sasha's first day on trolling job, please go easy on him.

    1. Re: Babbys first troll by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

      Ah ah epic

  19. Because Rupert Murdoch epitomzes quality! by GerryGilmore · · Score: 2

    Seriously, that is some 100% Pure, Organic, Dolphin-Free QUALITY Bullshit he peddles. You gotta hand him that.

    1. Re:Because Rupert Murdoch epitomzes quality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to hand shit to people then be my guest. Just don't tell me where they feed dolphins to bulls.

  20. Re:Fox News is a beacon of journalistic integrity? by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

    And we are supposed to believe that the owner of Fox News is the guardian of quality information presented in an unbiased format? Really?

    During the election, I actually had no trouble finding Fox's coverage of the same stories Trump supporters refused to read because it came from the "biased liberal media". Of course, once I posted a link to Fox, they still wouldn't read it, because that's cognitive dissonance for you.

    Heck, it wasn't even that hard to find an article on Breitbart where they're not exactly singing the praises of Trump's tax plan. But I'm sure those drinking the kool aid just see it as an acceptable casualty of making sure the country isn't ruined by those damned snowflake liberals, or something like that.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  21. He doesn't get it by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Rupert doesn't get it. The news companies that he owns are some of the perpetrators of the fake news. Facebook paying him when facebook's users post a link to something isn't going to improve the quality.

    It would make him some extra cash, but it wouldn't improve anything other than his bottom line.

    1. Re:He doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rupert doesn't get it." "It would make him some extra cash"

      Oh, he does.

  22. Re:If anyone did journalism, I'd probably pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a way, that's the Facebook solution. Start your own news service. If Musk can start his own space program, you can do at least that, Zuckerberg!

    And no, not just buying a paper like Bezos. Start from the ground up. Hire beat reporters. Hire an editor (and a few fact-checkers and proofreaders). Bug around for press passes (and publicize what they made you promise to get one). Et cetera.

    If the news you keep promoting keeps turning out to be fake, find out and write about your own news.

    AC

  23. Re: If anyone did journalism, I'd probably pay for by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

    BBC does real journalism, as you describe it.

    They have a huge network of reporters around the world, embedded in the local cultures for years at a time, picking up the kind of fascinating news stories that I don't see elsewhere.

    Listen to the programme 'From Our Own Correspondent' for a taste. US listeners don't need to worry. Most of what's covered hasn't reached the US level of attention needed to give it partisan spin yet...

    True there are other bits of the BBC that don't do real journalism as you describe. But anyone who decides to attack that side of it as a means to attack the real journalism is being pointless.

  24. Satire is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all.

  25. I'm confused... by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    I mean, the people publishing news under the Murdoch empire are getting paid, and yet, there's no precedence for quality there.

  26. But does he have a point? by sabbede · · Score: 1
    I see a lot of knee-jerk flaming, so let's forget who said it and just ask if maybe he's on to something.

    If money was changing hands, would it help the "fake news" problem on facebook?

    1. Re:But does he have a point? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      You can buy fake news as well as real news... but I'd say that if you've chosen to pay, at least you're going to choose what you're paying for.

      So if Facebook had paid news feeds, you'd have some confidence that they were feeds Facebook had approved. What that is worth depends on your assessment of Facebook.

    2. Re:But does he have a point? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I'd argue it'd make the problem worse (although as an ex-FBer, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about).

      If the only 'reliable' news sources (as marked by FB) were actually paid for, then FB would probably avoid chosing the more expensive ones if they could. Thus, the only 'reliable' sources of news will be the cheap ones. "Cheap" and "reliable" aren't usually synonymous.

      For example, let's say both the BBC and Fox News have coverage of (say) Trump's 30% tariff on solar panels. The BBC generally do a pretty good job of being as unbiased as possible (although sometimes don't go very deep into a story), whereas it's generally thought that Fox are rather biased and partisan (and some say unreliable, erroneous etc).

      Now, one of my friends posts a link to the BBC and another to the Fox coverage of the same story. Of all the people that view those two posts, exactly 50% click on one but not the other, and so both get the same number of clicks. However, the BBC costs FB $0.01/click more than Fox, and that news is starting to go crazy-viral and it looks like it's spreading throughout FB rapidly. FB would (obviously) realise that if 50% of their users click the BBC link, it'll cost them hundreds of thousands more than if people clicked the Fox links. As such, the Fox one gets surfaced more than the BBC.

      Now, if you're the owner of a crappy news outlet like Fox, then you're doing very well - even though you're cheaper than the BBC, you're making more money than them. You've also managed to get your skewed view of the world in front of more eyeballs, and maybe had a few secondary clicks and whatnot too (all at the expense of the BBC).

      As the outside observer, does this sound like a good outcome? Is it better than what we have now?

    3. Re:But does he have a point? by sabbede · · Score: 1
      If they were paying for certain sources, it's likely they would also mark them, distinguishing them from literal fake news (ads/BS that look like news reports).

      Though I also assume that more than anything, Murdoch wants to get paid. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point, but it is certainly worth noting.

  27. Quality? He really means.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... restricting what people know to authorised propaganda channels.

  28. Nut balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With cash. It was better when even politicians would call each other out for a duel.

  29. Why would this be of interest to Murdoch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's asking facebook to pay "trusted news sources" for content. None of Murdoch's outlets even remotely qualify as that.

  30. Wallstreet content should be free then to users by lightningstorm53 · · Score: 1

    If facebook ends up paying for Wall Street Journal content, then the full content should be available to all facebook users. Not just a couple sentences like it is today.

  31. Re:Fox News is a beacon of journalistic integrity? by coofercat · · Score: 1

    Fox News - as watched (and regularly praised) by the US President!

    Tells you all you need to know ;-)

  32. Re:If anyone did journalism, I'd probably pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mainstream media, which 99% of the time their extent of "journalism" is . . . a world where they take the same press releases, then pull out of their ass whatever interpretation and guesses they can make . . . that fit their bias's . . .

    FIFY

    Traditional, mainstream media created a market for facts not tainted by the bias of the left, which is why Fox News and other alternative outlets were able to rise to power and success. It's also why fake news became possible. You simply can't trust traditional media outlets to be honest.

    If you want the facts, the best policy is to get both sides of the story from diverse outlets.

  33. Re: If anyone did journalism, I'd probably pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Baloney. Shill piece for UK elites.

  34. congratulations by lucm · · Score: 1

    If you can't see the difference you should probably not vote

    There we go.

    Step 1: only allow people who think like you to vote
    Step 2: force people who don't think like you to wear a visible mark on their clothes
    Step 3: start sterilizing them

    You lovely tolerant liberals have started your journey to pure evil, and to the bitter end you'll keep thinking that you were right. What a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites.

    Used to tell people like you to go to hell, but lately I've started to wonder if we're not there already.

    --
    lucm, indeed.