Murdoch admits delays on paywall scheme
How's never? Is never good for you?
Rupert Murdoch has confirmed that his company is unlikely to hit its June deadline for putting up paywalls around its newspaper websites.
Murdoch also seemed to confirm that the move to charging for online content would not be made by News Corp alone but with several major publishers acting together (not as a cartel, of course, that wouldn't be legal).
A reporter for the Daily Telegraph asked Murdoch how the move to charging was going, Roy Greenslade reports in the Guardian.
"We are working very, very hard at this but I wouldn't promise that we're going to meet that date," Murdoch replied. "I'm not prepared to comment on that all. It's a work in progress. There's a huge amount of work going on, not just with our sites, but with other people like your company."
Murdoch said back in August that he would be charging for all his papers, from the Sun to The Times.
But of course it is difficult to treat Murdoch's comments with too much cynicism - he could be talking to wrongfoot his competitors, or just to shake up his own executives.
The company today posted revenues for the first quarter of $7.19bn and net income of $577m. Murdoch said he was pleased with the "exceptionally strong results" but still felt the recovery was fragile.
Murdoch also confirmed that moribund social networking site MySpace had missed targets agreed with Google and therefore would not be getting the full payments. The deal, signed in 2006, was meant to bring in $900m.
The UK newspaper group saw lower operating income in the first quarter thanks to a 15 per cent fall in ad revenues and a six per cent decline in revenues. ®
re: A fool's errand
But, you seem to forget... he has to keep the people working to put those stories where you find them...
and is not getting what might be called just compensation.
The thirst for real news is still our there...
As I said in my first post.
Unless it is real news, rather that the daydreams of so called news reporters and ersatz journalists...
...I would pay for it, and willingly.
But, with the sewage from the likes of the NY Times being passed off as jorunalism...
Narry wo' a sou.
But, there are many out there that think it is reporting... and for their tastes, they should be soak...
A fool's errand
Rupert wants the Internet to stop so can get off. It doesn't quite work that way, does it?
Replies to the old rang
1) Yellow cake has several uses. Amoung others, it can be used in minor reductions, to make 'dirty bombs'... those are bombs, where there is no nuclear reaction, but, much dispersal of radiation. That Sadam had the yellow cake is not a question of fact. Only those types still arguing about the moon landings, disbelieve (or readers of diverting efforts such as the New York times did, on NOT reporting other news, and reporting damaging information about how Al-Quaida and Taliban operatives are traced by bank transactions - or earlier cell communications. Nice of them to help the enemy and lose American lives)...
What he would do with the yellow cake is... But, why did the media not cover it??
2) RE: Mass destruction weapons. The definition, for your question, since you and so many are not aware, include Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons, If you check, two of the three types had been known and found, monitored for a time, and the media covered most tracks and definitions at will. Some were old. I do not dispute. Some were not. Media does not mention, for the most part. Iraq is big. Not all has been found, and Sadam made many efforts to hide. That is not in dispute either. The UN and other non allies of the United States, also transported much out of the country, before the war. That was known, but the media made sure most was not reported. It did not serve their objectives, and would have proven much of what they said to be false... Still you anti-Bushers will argue and squeal, but... You found and you saw. Even your 'Scopes' uses limited sources to say the yellow cake was not for nuclear weapons... not the yellow cake did not exist. 500 tonnes was only for getting Scooter Libby to be charged with something he was not originally investigated for, about a leak the investigator knew the source of, on day one. Yep that is the only reason Sadam had 500 tonnes of Yellow Cake. To nail Scooter Libby over bull charges for the left...
So, why did the media not cover it??
3) Lastly... You all seem to have found sources disputing some of the interpretations of what I stated... Not what I stated was not covered as much. But that leaves the other part...
YOU DID NOT KNOW ANY OF IT, BEFORE, SINCE YOU ONLY LISTEN TO WHAT YOU WANT, NOT LEARN WHAT THE MEDIA HIDES...
You are spoon fed the lies and refuse to understand what is hidden. Like much of Sadams actions that the media hides, and the over blowing of what we did, right or wrong. Sheep is what the media wants, and gets.
Noting also no one seemed to challenge the lies of the congressmen about the war laws they voted on... before Bush was president... Why not??
And the media does not expose them... Why not??
And why does the media lie about those lies themselves??
Because, the media's credibility will not stand on that either.
Bush could have gone to war, by the laws and UN agreements in place, from the Clinton era, on the day he took office. Why didn't he??
Simple. The Clinton administration had used up most of the needed criteria for waging the war (weapons) destroying aspirin factories, empty training camps and other things to distract from his Monica and other worries. Any chance to divert the very willing media, was at a cost to what we could do. The denigration of the CIA's abilities and stupid breaking of communications between the CIA and FBI further weakened our ability to gather intelligence for what was going one. It took time to rebuild what we could, and try to get more people in various departments, who cared. The hanger ons from Clinton era didn't.
The 9/11 attacks must not have happened. The media doesn't like having that in the news. They show alleged abuses daily about Abou-Grab, but people dying or burning towers are too tragic to remember... Which is why our children don't...
Like Obama doesn't want anyone to recognize the downing of the Berlin Wall... It doesn't make his news look good.
Why is the media overlooking that??
Look at facts, any way you wish. That is your choice and privilege.
Dispute them by the interpretation you find and enjoy..
But, you didn't ask why you didn't know them.... That is the reason the media so devoutly tells you otherwise.
Keep in mind the midas goat... I now name it the main stream meat head media. MHM
Follow as sheep... or question as free... that is your choice. I have known of the medias bent for 50 years. You obviously think I am wrong...
But you don't question the MHM... Is it just that you have been well trained? or sheared?
Last Question... Bet you don't know who was the first president of the United States....
(or who first declared Thanksgiving... and what really happened for the first one)...
Look those up too...