Comments on: Does Rupert Murdoch have an Internet strategy?

By: Trouble in Murdochland redux | Scholars and Rogues

Trouble in Murdochland redux | Scholars and Rogues — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:34:46 +0000

[...] details tomorrow, I’m sure. Oh, and by the way, remember when we wondered whether Murdoch had an Internet strategy? Apparently the answer is [...]

By: wufnik

wufnik — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:15:45 +0000

I think Doctorow is right–this is all bluff, and designed to get some sucker to offset some of Murdoch’s costs. And he seems to have found one with Microsoft.

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:43:02 +0000

Oh, yes, of course he DOES have an internet strategy. Nobody really disputes that. It’s just that it will take some time for him to acknoledge it’s a failed one.

By: Lalit

Lalit — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:43:16 +0000

How will media giant establish a billing relationship with millions of broadband customers. The lies in establishing relationship with Telecom Carriers and ISP’s, inline with what Apple and Kindle have done. Attacking Google is meaningless

By: wufnik

wufnik — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:10:02 +0000

It’s hard to think of two people who have been as consistently wrong about the world as Friedman and Brooks. Friedman, who has still never properly given an accounting of his support for the Iraq invasion, and apparently feels no need to, is now watching his World is Flat vision disappear down the drain–but remains in denial about it. And Brooks? What Sam said.

By: Dr. Slammy

Dr. Slammy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:52:54 +0000

(Sam will disagree – vehemently)

Yes, Sam will. Brooks is as intellectually dishonest as they come. Either that or he actually believes the bullshytt he spews – which is arguably even worse.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:59:19 +0000

I think I’m the only blogger here who reads either of them, actually.

I got hooked on Brooks after hearing him and EJ Dionne debate/discuss on NPR for years, and I find him one of the more reasonable conservatives (Sam will disagree – vehemently) with whom I can actually agree on a number of things. I’ve found I like reading Katherine Parker more (her writing style is fun to read), but I still read Brooks.

I’ve read Friedman for years, starting in 1991 (IIRC) and I missed his whole Iraq runup thing that turned of most of the left (it was behind the pay wall), so he never turned me off the same way. After reading “The Earth is Flat,” and after the pay wall fell, I started reading him again. Not as much, but some.

By: wufnik

wufnik — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:27:53 +0000

why would anyone still read Friedman or Brooks?

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:51:02 +0000

I stopped reading Krugman, Friedman, and Brooks and migrated to the WaPo commentators as a result of the stupid NYT fee structure. I’m back to reading Krugman regularly, but now still read Friedman and Brooks only infrequently.

By: wufnik

wufnik — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:23:07 +0000

That wasn’t the NYT’s experience–once they started charging for access to columnists, readership dropped. And the rates that the Times could then charge get hit as well, due to the lower readership. This is one of the reasons the NYT dropped the fee-based access idea. Maybe Murdoch will have better luck–it won’t be columnists, it will be everything, presumably. We’ll see.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:45:12 +0000

The one upside advertisers is that there will be more value for an audience that actually pays for content. Advertisers are already competitive for the news audience, couple that with people who are willing to pay for content and you have a juicy audience. These sites will have to most likely switch from any CPM deals to a CPC because their traffic will diminish, but they should make up for it with a higher CPC rate and subscription fees. I believe that this is their theory, but I’m not holding my breath.