News Corp Rivals Threaten to De-list from Google

[skine]

[citation][nom]precariousgray[/nom]If Google's web crawler is somehow bypassing authentication and retrieving pay-for content, then it sounds like someone needs to work on their site's security.(Hint: the someone is not Google.)[/citation]
Google is not bypassing authentication. News Corp specifically allows Google searches in their robot.txt file.

User-agent: *
Disallow: /printer_friendly_story
Disallow: /projects/livestream
#
User-agent: gsa-crawler
Allow: /printer_friendly_story
Allow: /google_search_index.xml
Allow: /google_news_index.xml
Allow: /*.xml.gz
#

 

[joebob2000]

This is really sad. Rupert and an increasingly large number of other news orgs are getting their panties in a bunch because as subscription revenues decline, Google revenues (partly thanks to Google news) keep going up. This amounts to, in their completely un-humble opinion, Google 'stealing' revenue by copying their news information.

The problem is that they are ignoring the entire premise of print media: *people want all their information in the same place!*

Just because someone is giving Google ad revenue by reading stories at news.google.com does NOT mean that the same person would have ventured into wsj.com in search of a story that they didn't know they would find there. Google is making money because it has ALL the news in one place, not because it specifically has WSJ news or Foxnews.com news (if you can call it that) or whatever. So, Rupert is on a fool's errand to redirect the revenue Google is getting, into his own pocket. He will soon learn that if the news orgs do not hang together, they will certainly hang separately, and his revenues will almost certainly go down as a result of this move (unless he secures an especially sweet deal from Microsoft). Personally, I am delighted to think that Google will no longer be bothered by the unabashedly right-wing propaganda coming from Foxnews.com, but the implications for news media at large are far more depressing.

 

[o0RaidR0o]

[citation][nom]thirdshop[/nom]Traffic ads don't create enough revenue to run a decent newspaper, i.e. having actual reporters on the ground to cover events.[/citation]
That me be very well true. But I would think there are ads behind the pay curtain that may never be seen if they block the search engine, which in turn will not bode well for the advertisers if circulation drops. What I don't understand is why charge at all? If I had a failing newspaper whose advertisers where threatening to jump ship, I would make my paper free to the public. Since it's the ads revenue that pay for it all!

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]bin1127[/nom]If i had to pay extra for channel Fox I would cancel and never miss it. Google probably is thinking the same.[/citation]
So give your soul to CNN...

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]As opposed to all the other "news" organizations who lean so far left they arent even on the grid?[/citation]
+1 lmfao!

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]To be fair, only MSNBC/Air America are truly biased. CNN is generally down the middle (Dobbs was the only exception), and the big 4 networks have long avoided taking sides. Of course, anyone with half a brain knows the right is wrong most of the time, so the news appears slanted to them[/citation]
You seem to have figured it all out! Congrats! ...

 

[rockstone1]

[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom]Doesn't really matter. F.A.R.K.com has the good stuff.[/citation]
GO FARK!

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]+1 lmfao![/citation]
I even have a chart that displays how balanced Fox News is compared to all those crazy left wing outlets! Well, it was produced by Fox News so you have to take that with a grain of salt but I digress...

Seriously, your high horse is dead and rotting, and quite frankly stinks. Anyone using the excuse "well I watch Fox because there are all those leftist channels out there" really has their head in the sand. The "Fox News: Fair and balanced" badge is slapped on so much pathetically partisan stuff that it really makes it hard to tell which way is up. I defy you to name a major news outlet that even compares to their level of hubris, aside from MSNBC who at least has the decency to save their overtly political stuff for late at night.

 

[kbarber29]

Funny thing is... Comedy Central and Toms Hardware are more credible in news than CNN or FOX or MSN.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]kbarber29[/nom]Funny thing is... Comedy Central and Toms Hardware are more credible in news than CNN or FOX or MSN.[/citation]
You can't read the pro-Irish, anti-pants slant baked into each and every article? Open your eyes!!!

(my apologies, Jane)

 

[cyberkuberiah]

i believe that in some way or the other , free news is like an essential right of every citizen in a democratic society . at least current affairs and similar content .

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]cyberkuberiah[/nom]i believe that in some way or the other , free news is like an essential right of every citizen in a democratic society . at least current affairs and similar content .[/citation]

Free (as in beer) news isn't the same as Free (as in speech) news. The latter is guaranteed by most developed nations. The former is certainly a point of contention, since it's hard to argue that its the State's job to provide said news coverage (or that this would even be desirable.) And, well, if you don't work for the government you have to earn your living somehow.

 

[iccaros]

I find the whole things interesting.. Rupert Murdoch is running a dying form of journalism called a news paper. Its nostalgic but out of place in this world of 24 hr news. It is being taken over by new technologies like internet and cable. other news papers are failing for the same reasons. Instead of seeing the truth they are like the AM radio stations claiming FM was bad for you because it took money from them. It took time for them to relies they need to move to FM.. It will take time, and loss of people with no imagination, before news papers will see that they can make money with subscriptions on the internet and with ads.. maybe not as much, but no one is making as much money these days.. they can still have Google and any other search engine index the pages, and when you go to the page with will have a blurb and a chance to sign in. Give away enough news (like in the old news stands) so that people can see the kind of journalism you do.
but this whole talk of blocking or de-indexing as more to do with Rupert Murdoch's hate for Google.. Most of the rest are talking out of ignorance, and the news sites are pushing this on us to get us to go to their sites so they can make ad money.

anyone can de-index by changing the robots.txt file.. not hard.. so why make a big stink? so that you will read the stories and they make money.. News corp made 11 billion dollars.. that is profit..(after all expenses are paid) so we should not cry about them.. we should feel bad that Rupert Murdoch will just fire employees because he is not making as much money.. and acting like he is going broke.. maybe he should have invested in his son's scams.

 

[gorehound]

FOX Sucks !!! Simply put in two words.I do not like their BS news nor do i support most of what they do for tv/movies.

I am sure their will always be a way to read news online without paying a subscription.I am not worried at all.let the greedbags try and do the subscription you have to pay for and it will not work in the end for them.

 

[kingnoobe]

I wondered how long it would take before it was suddenly the customers fault. Nice attitude. Next time a burglar breaks into your house, let's hope the Police have the same attitude and say it was your own fault for not having a bank vault for a front door.

Apples and oranges. It's not even close to being the same thing.. Read the article again! And yes if a burglar walked up to you and said hey i'm taking this unless you lock your door which if you do I'll just look at the house and walk away. And you leave your door unlocked. YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

 

[skine]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So what you are saying is that Google is fully within it's rights to list the content for sites that would normally require payment on the basis that they are better at circumventing security?Bad form dude, bad form...[/citation]
The argument is a bit more:

A person is standing on the street, looking at your house.

If you don't want them to see what you're doing or what is inside, then you draw the curtains shut.

What News Corp has decided to do is to give the person a key to the house (see robot.txt file I posted above), then complain that he's telling other people what he has seen inside the house.

 

[p05esto]

Funny thing is... Comedy Central and Toms Hardware are more credible in news than CNN or FOX or MSN.

idiot

 

[AtuBrian]

[citation][nom]skine[/nom]Google is not bypassing authentication. News Corp specifically allows Google searches in their robot.txt file.[/citation]
where did u find that?

 

[skine]

[citation][nom]AtuBrian[/nom]where did u find that?[/citation]

The original link was provided in the thread in Slashdot, but I think the file has been altered since then.

http/news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/10/2234213/Rupert-Murdoch-Says-Google-Is-Stealing-His-Content

 

[davidows]

Speaking of The Daily Show, have you seen the cartoon that appeared shortly after Walter Cronkite died?

As the message is delivered by a news anchor on the TV, "and today the most trusted man in American has died", the viewer jumps out of his chair, yelling at the screen, "Oh NO!, not Jon Stewart; he was so young and healthy!"