Rupert Murdoch may be on to something

In a rare aligning of the stars this week, liberals and conservatives have seemed to come to agreement on one thing: media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has lost his marbles.
It’s all over the headlines.
 
The 78-year-old founder and chairman of News Corp, which owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and The Sun, among others, has been called an “old fool,” an “aging idiot,” and as exhibiting, “early signs of dementia.”
 
The name-calling is in reference to Murdoch’s threats to block his news sites from being indexed by Google, which have been increasing in volume in recent weeks. The media giant has called the search engine executives “thieves,” claiming they shouldn’t get his content for free. He has begun recruiting other news agencies to hop on board.
 
Yet with Google driving billions of customers to Murdoch’s Web sites every day, it seems to run contrary to business principles to block them out. After all, isn’t Google really offering free advertising?
 
Many theories exist as to what might be behind Murdoch’s apparent madness.
 
Some say he wants to eliminate masses of free-seeking Web surfers in favor of a smaller, paying group; other more extreme views say his goal is to kill online news entirely, in an effort to return to print.
 
Most, however, argue he is simply nuts— a megalomaniac who has become overly confident and out of touch with the digital age.
 
Yet I have to pause.
 
Murdoch didn’t acquire a net worth of $4 billion through chance. He built his empire brick by brick, through careful negotiations. Say what you want about his ethics, the man understands business.
 
He is not hurling public threats at Google without an ulterior motive in mind. Whether he is bluffing to get them to pay for content, or laying groundwork for a deal with its competitor, Microsoft Bing, (as reported this week), Murdoch has a long-term plan in mind.
 
And while many are calling his quest the nail in the coffin, I believe it could actually be the first shovel to begin digging journalists out — from a grave that’s nearly buried us.
 
Who else in media has the power or the weight to pull it off? Murdoch alone has the scope and the muscle to be able to rein in various media outlets and strong-arm competing industries. If he succeeds, I can only say, “it’s about time.”
 
I have a hard time with this idea in recent years that everything in existence can be copied, posted and shared via the Internet.
 
People complain about small businesses folding to corporate takeovers and the “fall of the local record store,” then get online and download free music.
 
They express outrage at huge multi-mergers of media outlets, asking “how can we trust news if it all comes from the same source?” then refuse to buy a 50 cent newspaper or pay $18 a year for an online subscription. They’d rather poach the information from a free Web site.
 
I’ve been guilty myself. But how can we expect any artistic, intellectual, or creative enterprise to succeed, if none of us are willing to pay for it? In a climate like that, it’s only the larger-than-God conglomerates that have a chance.
 
It’s ironic then, to even consider that in the era of the Coca Cola Incs. of the world, a media super-deity like News Corp might emerge as the “champion of the people.”
 
Yet if we are to save our craft, it is evident we need a leader.
 
And as hesitant as I am to offer kudos to a man who employs commentators like Sean Hannity, I have to give him credit for trying new things, in an era in which many have given up.
 
People are not going to pay for print newspapers anymore.
 
Online ad sales have repeatedly proven unprofitable. If journalism is to survive, a new business model must be found.
 
If Rupert Murdoch thinks he can find one, I say more power to him.

Share   |   Email


Comments

We welcome comments from registered users. Comments are solely the responsibility of those who post them; their viewpoints are not endorsed by the Woodburn Independent and WoodburnIndependent.com. (read more)
Highlight
ship name
 
Mokey from Seattle, Washington
11/26/2009 12:25:46 AM

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Google News experience might improve when it's not plastered with FoxNews? Also, ads don't perform well on online news. it's unlikely that Microsoft will be able break even with this kind of deal. It's effectively a publicity stunt for them. What happens when Microsoft decides to stop paying?




(last 7 days)