Clueless Murdoch says papers should charge on Web.

[MattSh]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

Rupert Murdoch, whose media company News Corp owns one of the few U.S. newspapers that makes people pay to read its news on the Web, said more papers will have to start doing the same to survive.

Murdoch, who bought The Wall Street Journal and its parent company Dow Jones & Co in 2007, said online advertising, which most U.S. publishers hope will offset ad revenue declines at their print divisions, will not cover their costs.

"People reading news for free on the Web, that's got to change," said Murdoch speaking at The Cable Show, an annual cable television industry event, in Washington, D.C.

Murdoch pointed to the Journal's main rival in the United States, The New York Times, as an example. The Times has one of the most popular U.S. newspaper websites, but still cannot cover its costs with online ads, he said.

Murdoch's newspaper empire includes the New York Post, the Times of London and other papers in Britain and Australia, which are available online for free. The Journal had been charging for access for years before News Corp bought it.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090403/tc_nm/us_cableshow_murdoch_2

So much free news, often more accurate. And people should pay for a lesser quality product?

[Lasher]

1. OK then I'll read something else.

Just like I don't pay to read the WSJ online now. And I don't read the New York Post even for free. Asshole Murdoch is trying to get an oligopoly going.

[canetoad]

2. Pay for Murdoch's right wing crap?

I don't read it even when its free.

[tsuki]

3. He shouldn't worry. He can get more money from the Saudis. nt

[annabanana]

4. Oh my yes, Rupert.. By all means. . . You go right ahead and

charge for ALL your media. Maybe you can get FoxNoise moved onto a premium tier on cable TV, like HBO. I'm sure DROVES of people would pay TOP DOLLAR for the fine content available ONLY from O'Lielly, Beck & Hannity!!

[tkmorris]

5. He's an idiot. People won't do it

[DFW]

6. Don't listen to them, Rupert. You go right ahead. I suggest $100 a day to view your papers

Or for those really dedicated, $2500 for a full year's subscription. Fox "News" should charge similar rates for people to view it: $100 a day, or $2500 for a year.

That should get circulation down to where it ought to be, based on how much actual reporting you offer.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. If American papers started charging online, I'd stop them and continue my international fare.

[Berry Cool]

8. Um, Rupe, you can't force people to pay to read trash.

And if you haven't figured that out yet, you really ought to see how many copies of the Post go unread each day because your news sellers in the streets of New York can't even give them away.

They are, on the other hand, highly popular with fishmongers and owners of caged birds, cats, and puppies. Seems like those folks grab stacks and stacks of unsold Posts wherever available. But something tells me they are not being read. And the online version is of no use for their purposes.

[ixion]

9. Yeah, that worked out swimmingly for the NYTimes

:rofl:

Do it, Rupert. Charge for the garbage you peddle as 'news'.

Which brings up an interesting point: if they charge for news and it's faux news, can you sue them for false advertising?

[blogslut]

10. Mr. Murdoch must have a short memory

The NYT tried a paid online subscription model and as a result, their readership plummeted.

The fact is, web ad rates are going to have to rise and web advertising is going to have to get more aggressive and creative. If readers wish to turn off ads and receive enhanced content, then there will be plenty of subscribers willing to pay a fee.

I think the subscription model with the most promise for online newspapers would be e-readers bundled with content.

[sendero]

11. Kinda shows..

.. that however savvy this guy once was, he's lost it.

The "pay for useless news" business model died in 1999, and it is not coming back.

[geckosfeet]

12. I think he raise his prices - good objective journalism requires effort.

:puke: