Rupert Murdoch says internet will change and sites will get $ for their content - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

JFK · 05-07-2009, 06:51 PM

fitty BIG bucks

securedservers · 05-07-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatingGold

If they dont have money to pay people to produce the content then there won't be any content. So yes they will have to find a way to charge for the content to pay the content producers.

yes, and i think the model for how content is produced will change, similar in part to how its easier for independent artists to get exposure now than 15 years ago. you have an artist that can make an album in his bedroom with a macbook now, the big labels have less clout now versus before

whatif_3 · 05-08-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

It's the end of net neutrality...

net neutrality will never happen, sans govt regulation. there will always be an unfiltered option

webmasterchecks · 05-08-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-U-Jimmy

I stopped reading newspapers 10 years ago and I no longer watch the TV news. Channel-10 news, channel 8,7 etc just report sensationalized stories designed to make you watch so that they can maximize their advertising dollar. The more people watch their program the more they can charge for advertising.
Take this swine flu crap, so far about 400 world wide are suspected of having it and just two died in the USA mainly because they had other illnesses. It seems 54 thousand die of the flu each year but thats not news ?

By sensationalizing bird flu they get more viewers and more advertising $ and fuck what it does to the country and it does affect the country badly. One channel recently advised people to stay at home not mix with others and stay away from crowded places like bars restaurants, clubs , etc., that fucks all those businesses that are already going through hard times by losing them business.

Im not minimizing Bird Flu but it's no where near a pandemic and reporting should be more responsible and not based on $$$$$$$$

sensationalist news sells better than other stuff. you have to get peoples attentions somehow, and thats how their business works.

Rochard · 05-08-2009, 11:08 AM

The problem is twenty years ago it was impossible for anyone without millions of dollars of gear to broadcast anything to anyone. Now in 2009 my eight year old daughter can make a video on her computer and upload it to Youtube with two clicks of a mouse button.

My point is way too many people will make videos and run websites just for the joy of dong it. And it's getting easier and easier to do it, to the point where an eight year kid can make a blog without knowing how to spell.

cherrylula · 05-08-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

So many people stuck in the old school marketing ideas.

and they miss their old school profits

count of monte cristo · 05-08-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The problem is twenty years ago it was impossible for anyone without millions of dollars of gear to broadcast anything to anyone. Now in 2009 my eight year old daughter can make a video on her computer and upload it to Youtube with two clicks of a mouse button.

ironically, this is what opened the internet world to most program owners, the low barrier for producing porn

Odin · 05-08-2009, 03:46 PM

What is flawed is their bloated businesses. Real journalism? We hardly get that now days anyway. If news organizations start charging access, it may make more profit (I don't know), but the truth is the vast majority of users will move on and the void will be filled elsewhere. I find more "real" journalism on blogs these days, then I do in newspapers.

On the few blogs I follow about specific issues that interest me, whenever a major news site picks up a similar story it is almost hilarious to see how pathetically inaccurate the news site is and how void of any real details it is. Half the time it seems as though the editor (for the first time) has quickly read a few blogs and rehashed a bit of it without any real information.

We all know large blogs bring in large money, more then enough to justify writing PROPER, RESEARCHED articles. There are too many people willing to fill the void if papers start charging for access.

Juilan · 05-08-2009, 05:45 PM

video killed the radio star

Drake · 05-08-2009, 06:56 PM

The internet, the great equalizer

05-07-2009, 06:51 PM	#51
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,374	fitty BIG bucks __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

05-08-2009, 11:08 AM	#55
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,499	The problem is twenty years ago it was impossible for anyone without millions of dollars of gear to broadcast anything to anyone. Now in 2009 my eight year old daughter can make a video on her computer and upload it to Youtube with two clicks of a mouse button. My point is way too many people will make videos and run websites just for the joy of dong it. And it's getting easier and easier to do it, to the point where an eight year kid can make a blog without knowing how to spell. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

05-08-2009, 05:45 PM	#59
Juilan Sultan of Swing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: XXXodus Posts: 15,141	video killed the radio star __________________ My Best Converting VOD Sponsor \|

05-08-2009, 03:46 PM	#58
Odin Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: au Posts: 2,545	What is flawed is their bloated businesses. Real journalism? We hardly get that now days anyway. If news organizations start charging access, it may make more profit (I don't know), but the truth is the vast majority of users will move on and the void will be filled elsewhere. I find more "real" journalism on blogs these days, then I do in newspapers. On the few blogs I follow about specific issues that interest me, whenever a major news site picks up a similar story it is almost hilarious to see how pathetically inaccurate the news site is and how void of any real details it is. Half the time it seems as though the editor (for the first time) has quickly read a few blogs and rehashed a bit of it without any real information. We all know large blogs bring in large money, more then enough to justify writing PROPER, RESEARCHED articles. There are too many people willing to fill the void if papers start charging for access.

05-08-2009, 06:56 PM	#60
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	The internet, the great equalizer