News Corp Rivals Threaten to De-list from Google

[JMcEntegart]

A couple of weeks back News Corp's Rupert Murdoch said he was considering blocking Google from indexing his news sites as part of the company's plans to push a pay-for-content business model. Now other publishing companies are threatening to do the same.

News Corp Rivals Threaten to De-list from Google : Read more

 

[sunflier]

Doesn't really matter. F.A.R.K.com has the good stuff.

 

[invlem]

Should be interesting to see if this lasts... I'd bet they'll be surprised to see how much traffic their news sites are getting as a result of google news searches.

 

[Jerky_san]

Oh well.. most news these days is totally slanted.. hence why all the big name stars of the news are leaving since they were actually in it for "real" news not what they were told to say..

 

[thirdshop]

Traffic ads don't create enough revenue to run a decent newspaper, i.e. having actual reporters on the ground to cover events.

 

[bk420]

if the news was credible people will buy it. too bad for news corp.

 

[Guest]

“The things that go behind pay walls, we will not let Google search to, but the things that are outside the pay wall we probably will, because we want the traffic”

As in they want you to pay for the content but still get ad revenue from non-paying customers.

I'm all for paid news sites really, it's unreasonable to expect serious journalism to survive on ad revenue alone and the business model has pretty much proven that at this point.

That said I don't see how de-registering from Google would matter, assuming you have a paid subscription you'd have to log in with a username and password and even if you could get the link from Google you'd still be denied the actual content.

Or are they expecting to set up a "secret" URL that only paid subscribers would know of? Yeah, that'd work great - no risk of circulation there. /sarcasm

 

[r0x0r]

I'd rather get my news from The Onion than from Newscorp.

 

[buwish]

Murdoch is a cheap old man. Plus, his little "news" organizations tend to be biased beyond belief, i.e. they lean so far right they about fall over.

 

[bin1127]

If i had to pay extra for channel Fox I would cancel and never miss it. Google probably is thinking the same.

 

[danish_2828]

Crap I'm going to have to pay to read and watch made up news. I guess I'm just stuck Colbert and the Daily Show for funny news

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]buwish[/nom]Murdoch is a cheap old man. Plus, his little "news" organizations tend to be biased beyond belief, i.e. they lean so far right they about fall over.[/citation]
As opposed to all the other "news" organizations who lean so far left they arent even on the grid?

 

[ready4dis]

It's not like google shows you the entire article. They show a very short one liner for the search, I don't see how everyone confuses this for giving you the contect for free. It's like an author telling barns and nobles to remove the front cover and title of all his books because he wants people to pay for the content. I want them to stop talking about pulling their content and just do it, then they will find out how stupid they really are. At least the one had it right, block paid content but still allow free content for advertising purposes.

 

[precariousgray]

...and nothing of value was lost.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]r0x0r[/nom]I'd rather get my news from The Onion than from Newscorp.[/citation]

Indeed.

But seriously this is good news, getting rid of those low level piece of s**t ''news''paper articles in my research is another reason to stay with google.

 

[precariousgray]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]You are all missing the point, mark me down -999 if you wishThis isn't about NewsCorp, it's about Google circumventing pay-for content via search. I suppose all the pay-for content of the Wall Street Journal is just phoney tabloid jouralism?Don't let your anti-NewsCorp stance railroad you into siding with what essentially is Google doing something wrong.[/citation]

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.)

 

[godnodog]

(Just thinking) So in theory here in the EU ... if they succeed in blocking Google frim indexing them, and later Google finds a way to index them back, can Google be considered a pirate protected copyright material and therefor be banned from using the Web??? Mmmmmm!!!!

 

[gamerk316]

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

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.

Back on target: currently 99% of what google returns is open content right from the news websites. If they go to a pay for content model, google has no choice but to not show anything. The issue then becomes what happens if they index some other site that references that material? There will be headaches.

 

[victomofreality]

“The things that go behind pay walls, we will not let Google search to, but the things that are outside the pay wall we probably will, because we want the traffic,”

I don't quite understand how this is different from any other pay site, link to the free content on google then pay for other content just like porn... news is trying to become the new internet porn, that would be a much more interesting title imho

 

[kbarber29]

That's okay. I'll continue to get my news from the Daily Show. At least it's funny that way.