you never have to apologize to me lloyd ;)

It's the end of net neutrality...

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 $$$$$$$$:2 cents:

:2 cents::2 cents:

Fuck this freemason loving faggot and the fucking horse he rode in on! The fucking internet was built for free access. It has and always will be fucking neutral. I hope that faggot throws up his first bullshit website and gets a quick lesson from the ddosr's. Up yours cocksucker. Fuck cnn too

This bullshit is along same lines as dot xxx domain and we all know how well that went over with webmasters

Just wanted to bump this, for all those who get their news off GFY.

And not everything is gathered via associated press rss feeds, and news agencies buying that feed. There's real people out in the world trying to report. Regardless of how twisted their "report" gets bent by editors when it's delivered to your RSS feed of choice, it doesn't originate from a free source.

In some aspect, Murdoch might be making a case for content producers... or something.

I dunno.

if the content is worth money. not a news website.

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.

Silly old fool, what would he know about media! :winkwink:

fitty BIG bucks:2 cents:

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

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

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

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.

and they miss their old school profits :1orglaugh

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

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.

video killed the radio star

The internet, the great equalizer