Dear oh dear what a mendacious lather that old dog Rupert Murdoch is trying to whip up.
Over the weekend the Sun King used the nastiest language at the so-called World Media Summit in Beijing to slag off the likes of Google and Yahoo, describing them as content kleptomaniacs because they aggregate News Corporation’s content.
What self-serving moralistic tosh.
I have written previously about this claim that Google is a thief on my blog, but given that this high and mighty line is likely to become popular as the mainstream media seeks to change its business model to seek payment for content, it is worth restating the facts.
Google and Yahoo are not thieves. Newspaper companies have for years invited the search engines in, and indeed laid out the welcome mat and the “help yourself” signs. Mainstream media did this because, rightly or wrongly, they believed it suited their interests.
Until very recently, news organisation embraced Google and the like because of the belief that the search engines and aggregators helped build their brands and drive traffic to their sites. Now they are changing their minds. Fair enough, and they are quite within their rights to do so. But please drop the moral posturing.
Likewise, would those who think it is in some way sinful to try and charge for content online would also do well to drop the moral posturing.
News publishers, like everyone else online, are in control of what content they make available on the web, who can access it and at what price. There are many confidential sites, such as university databases and subscription sites. Even Crikey is a mix of free and paid for content.
Those who choose to lock up their content and prevent Google crawling simply add a line of code to deny permission. It is simple stuff. Read more here. If media organisations have chosen to let Google in, then that was their choice, made out of self interest, not charity. They may have made a mistake (though I don’t think so) but they are hardly victims of crime.
The disadvantage of locking up content is that people can’t find you unless they already know you are there. You shut yourself out of conversations. Bloggers and others can’t link to you. You make yourself into a members’ only club. Lucrative, perhaps, but small.
The stick in the spokes for all mainstream content providers who think that general news content can be put behind a pay wall is public “broadcasters”, such as the ABC. Indeed, the battle between commercial media and public broadcasters is likely to be the most keenly fought of the new century, with all kinds of implications for shifting tides of media power.
After all, every taxpayer has already paid for the content carried by the ABC and the BBC.
The next salvo in the ongoing battle is likely to come this Wednesday night, with ABC managing director Mark Scott’s speech at the University of Melbourne. Watch this space, and my blog.
There is however a positive side to Rupert’s desires. If columnists like Piers Akerman were locked behind a pay wall. Would his coterie of sycophants pay to agree with his opinions ? Would the general public actually subscribe to the Daily Telegraph? Imagine an internet where the main free news was on the ABC site. I think that it could be wonderfully ironical. As long as the ABC doesn’t get tempted.
Margaret Simons article makes sense to me; maybe the news media would be more appreciative of Google and Yahoo if they were to share in the advertising revenue generated on Google’s and others web pages.
Margaret isn’t the point that the public are already paying for the ABC on-line, there’s no outcry about that? Journalists need to be paid, media companies need to make money and bloggers aren’t news
@STEPHEN MARTIN, Google/Yahoo/etc do a lot more for news sites than the news sites do for them. If the news sites didn’t have search engines driving traffic towards them then they would receive far less traffic and as a result far less revenue from ads on the news sites.
That is the primary reason why news sites don’t block search engines from indexing their content.
@KEN BENSON, yes, journalists and media companies need to make money but what Murdoch is doing at the moment is phony posturing. He is saying on the one hand that the search engines and news aggregator’s are stealing his content and on the other hand he’s being passed a solution that will prevent this stealing, but he’s ignoring it.
Why is he ignoring the solution that would literally take ONE person TWO minutes to implement?
If he added a robots.txt file to his site his phony problems would be fixed.
I sincerely hope that Murdoch does block search engines from indexing his sites and that he puts a pay wall between millions of Internet users and his content. Rest assured that not all media companies will be so foolish as to cut their own legs off and that the millions of users who are deprived of Rupert’s content will flock to the remaining news sites with free content.
…and guess where the advertiser’s will flock?
Not behind a pay wall, that’s for sure.
My thoughts are a bit long for a comment so I’ve written a blog post but I think what Rupert’s hoping to do is (a) shock all the news publishers into a ‘coalition-of-the-willing-to-charge-for-news’; and (b) hoping to pressure the search giants into sharing with him some of the ad revenue they make from the search result pages his news stories appear on.
I don’t see either happening. News needs search more than search needs news, and even if the commercial news publishers stopped hating each other for long enough to cartel-ize, the search engines would do just as well by limiting their search results to publicly-owned news publishers.