|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:55 am Post subject: Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch - Perfect bed partners! |
 |
|
How fitting it is, really, that it was Rupert Murdoch and Microsoft who dreamed up the idea of depriving the general public of access to information for fun and profit.
How else can money be made by controlling previously free and unfettered information?...no, wait...Rupert Murdoch doesn't try to control information...that was a thoughtcrime...I take that back.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/nov/23/would-bing-switch-really-dent-google |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's a tough industry now. How can papers compete with free? There has to be some source of revenue. Though I wouldn't be upset if the whole industry was reset. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Search engines bring in billions of dollars of revenues for providing access to information. Why shouldn't the providers of major portions of that information be paid. So, Microsoft pays some, Google pays some, competition sets in, a market price is established and, as a result, there is more money going to newspapers, news services, news wires, and news reporters etc. This will mean that more such information will be generated and the total amount of good, competing news providers will increase.
Google will have to compete.
This development is good news. Murdoch and Microsoft are helping the world, and they will make money doing it. Everyone wins - maybe even Google, if they use this as an opportunity to compete and get better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
This development is good news. Murdoch and Microsoft are helping the world, and they will make money doing it. Everyone wins - maybe even Google, if they use this as an opportunity to compete and get better. |
Murdoch is helping the world? Oh yes, thank you Mr. Murdock for fox news, the sun newspaper, helping to Bush to power, supporting America's war of terror in Iraq and insuring all of your news papers also do so.
Yes, what a great help he has been to the world  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
This development is good news. Murdoch and Microsoft are helping the world, and they will make money doing it. Everyone wins - maybe even Google, if they use this as an opportunity to compete and get better. |
Murdoch is helping the world? Oh yes, thank you Mr. Murdock for fox news, the sun newspaper, helping to Bush to power, supporting America's war of terror in Iraq and insuring all of your news papers also do so.
Yes, what a great help he has been to the world |
Think about it. If Murdoch didn't exist, you would have to find something else to gripe about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yea, poor Rupert needs a break. It's tough on a fella who controls 40% of the media. Lets help him out with a little spare change when we want to look up a previously free news story.
Let's let him control the internet as well as the airwaves and dictate to us how we get our news, where we get it, and how much it costs. All for the sake of healthy competition -- you know Microsoft? Healthy competition is what they are all about, after all. Let's get them flags out and start waving them for the American way. 
| ontheway wrote: |
Search engines bring in billions of dollars of revenues for providing access to information. Why shouldn't the providers of major portions of that information be paid. So, Microsoft pays some, Google pays some, competition sets in, a market price is established and, as a result, there is more money going to newspapers, news services, news wires, and news reporters etc. This will mean that more such information will be generated and the total amount of good, competing news providers will increase.
Google will have to compete.
This development is good news. Murdoch and Microsoft are helping the world, and they will make money doing it. Everyone wins - maybe even Google, if they use this as an opportunity to compete and get better. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trevor wrote: |
| Yea, poor Rupert needs a break. It's tough on a fella who controls 40% of the media. Lets help him out with a little spare change when we want to look up a previously free news story. |
He owns the news story. He can do what ever the hell he pleases with it. When you put up the capital for gathering and writing news, then you can decide to give it away if you want to.
| Quote: |
Let's let him control the internet as well as the airwaves and dictate to us how we get our news, where we get it, and how much it costs. All for the sake of healthy competition -- you know Microsoft? Healthy competition is what they are all about, after all. Let's get them flags out and start waving them for the American way. |
Who is talking about letting anyone control the internet? The only people who are trying to get control of the internet are govts.
What do you have against MS? Buy an Apple if you don't like them.
| ontheway wrote: |
Search engines bring in billions of dollars of revenues for providing access to information. Why shouldn't the providers of major portions of that information be paid. So, Microsoft pays some, Google pays some, competition sets in, a market price is established and, as a result, there is more money going to newspapers, news services, news wires, and news reporters etc. This will mean that more such information will be generated and the total amount of good, competing news providers will increase.
Google will have to compete.
This development is good news. Murdoch and Microsoft are helping the world, and they will make money doing it. Everyone wins - maybe even Google, if they use this as an opportunity to compete and get better. |
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Here's the issue: consolidated, and increasingly tighter control over the dissemination of information. Any one that doesn't think that is a problem needs to seriously re-read the history of fascism to see how this works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trevor wrote: |
| Here's the issue: consolidated, and increasingly tighter control over the dissemination of information. Any one that doesn't think that is a problem needs to seriously re-read the history of fascism to see how this works. |
What does Rupert have to do with Fascism? He is a private business man. Fascism is a governmental thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Trevor wrote: |
| Here's the issue: consolidated, and increasingly tighter control over the dissemination of information. Any one that doesn't think that is a problem needs to seriously re-read the history of fascism to see how this works. |
What does Rupert have to do with Fascism? He is a private business man. Fascism is a governmental thing. |
Quite right:
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:XR0I6v32AmAJ:wikiality.wikia.com/Rupert_Murdoch+murdoch+politics+congress+percent+special+inteest&cd=2&hl=ko&ct=clnk
The Media Empire
For more than 70 years, the federal government has regulated media ownership to protect against any entity gaining too much power over the dissemination of information. And for much of the last two decades, Mr. Murdoch has chafed against those restrictions, winning exceptions and easing regulations.
Again and again, Mr. Murdoch won crucial skirmishes with the Federal Communications Commission. In this he was helped most by his Republican allies, including former Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Bush administration, which has promoted measures to allow more consolidation.
During the Clinton administration, Mr. Murdoch was able to draw upon Republican support when the F.C.C. chairman at the time, Reed E. Hundt, opened an investigation into whether the News Corporation had violated commission rules in acquiring television stations to form the Fox Network.
According to two former F.C.C. officials, Mr. Murdoch�s chief in-house lobbyist at the time, Preston Padden, confronted Mr. Hundt�s chief of staff at a meeting at a coffee shop near the agency�s headquarters. Mr. Hundt would not be able to �get a job as dog-catcher� if the F.C.C. took away a single News Corporation television license, Mr. Padden warned, they said.
The warning, one of the officials said, �was designed to send a harsh signal that if we continued, they would do everything in the world to make our life miserable.� As Mr. Hundt later recalled in a memoir, Mr. Murdoch assailed him in an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, and Congressional Republicans rose up against him.
In the end, the F.C.C. found that the deal had violated the rules. But Mr. Hundt declined to strip Mr. Murdoch of his licenses, reasoning that the fault lay with the Reagan-era F.C.C. for approving the acquisitions in the first place. Mr. Padden, who has left the News Corporation, refused requests for an interview.
It was the first of many victories for Mr. Murdoch in the new political climate that swept into Washington in 1994 when the Republicans won control of Congress. It was a fortunate time for Mr. Murdoch, whose business interests and political ideology were in ascendancy.
The new Congress overhauled telecommunications laws for the first time in decades, allowing media companies like Mr. Murdoch�s to expand by increasing the share of the national audience they could reach. So long as a company did not reach more than 35 percent of American households, it could buy as many stations as it wanted.
Mr. Murdoch�s lobbyists were also able to get a provision in the bill requiring the F.C.C. to review the cap periodically. It was just such a review that led the Bush administration to increase the cap again in 2003. By then, Mr. Murdoch had bought additional stations that put him over the 35 percent limit, as had another company, Viacom.
The F.C.C. chairman at that time, Michael K. Powell, proposed a broad loosening of media ownership rules, including raising the cap to 45 percent. (Two of Mr. Powell�s top advisers, Susan Eid and Paul Jackson, now work for Mr. Murdoch.)
Ultimately, a federal appeals court threw out the new rules. But by then, Congress and the White House had intervened, passing into law the 39 percent compromise.
Mr. Lott, an outspoken critic of media consolidation, agreed to the increase because it was still lower than what Mr. Powell had proposed, said his spokesman, Nick Simpson. Mr. Simpson added that Mr. Lott did not want to force companies to sell stations and that his book deal did not affect his view of Mr. Murdoch�s legislative agenda.
Many companies publish books by public officials. But because of Mr. Murdoch�s wide business interests, HarperCollins�s book deals have at times drawn scrutiny. Its decision to cancel a book critical of Chinese Communist leaders by Hong Kong�s last British governor was assailed as a move by Mr. Murdoch to protect his Chinese business interests, a charge he denied.
HarperCollins also provoked a firestorm when it gave Mr. Gingrich a $4.5 million book contract as Congress was preparing to redraw the media ownership rules.
Mr. Ginsberg pointed out that Mr. Murdoch later fired the Gingrich book�s editor for making what he regarded as an �uneconomical and unseemly� deal. He said that in general Mr. Murdoch did not involve himself in decisions about book contracts, and added, �If these books aren�t viable, they aren�t published.�
Mr. Lott�s book sold 12,000 copies, according to Nielsen Bookscan, which tracks about 70 percent of all domestic retail and Internet sales. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, received $24,506 from HarperCollins for his modest-selling book �Passion for Truth,� according to financial disclosure forms. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, got $141,666 for her book �American Heroines,� which has sold better. All sit on either the Commerce or Judiciary Committees that most closely oversee the media business.
HarperCollins has also given book deals to Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and a $1 million advance to Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, both of whose books are due out next year.
A former HarperCollins executive, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the company, said Mr. Murdoch was less hands-on than people assumed. �It�s not done in a direct way where he issues instructions,� the executive said. �It�s a bunch of people running around trying to please him.�
Ms. Binzel, the former chief government strategist for the News Corporation, said Mr. Murdoch got the breaks he did in the United States based on the merits, not his political connections. He took on the major networks and created more competition in the media marketplace, something regulators had long desired, she said.
�Rupert has always been a visionary, and when you bring in a visionary, they are frequently going up against the establishment,� she said. �So much of what Rupert has faced in Washington has been getting rid of rules that protect incumbents. The reason he convinced people to do that was that he was going to be providing something new.� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeonmunka
Joined: 05 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
"Man, I am sick of all this praying, this beauty, this clean sweet smell. I wish we could have something dirty now and then. I wish that we could 'be provided with something new.' And most people agree."
At this, The Devil jumped at his chance, and very quickly infiltrated himself into the population.
No one suspected.
..............
Anyway, why is Murdoch still chasing business. He's going to be dead soon. Why doesn't he just retire to a tropical paradise and enjoy relaxing. Why bother with the suit-wearing, tight neckties and stiff collars????
Beats me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trevor wrote: |
Yea, poor Rupert needs a break. It's tough on a fella who controls 40% of the media. Lets help him out with a little spare change when we want to look up a previously free news story.
Let's let him control the internet as well as the airwaves and dictate to us how we get our news, where we get it, and how much it costs. All for the sake of healthy competition -- you know Microsoft? Healthy competition is what they are all about, after all. Let's get them flags out and start waving them for the American way.
| ontheway wrote: |
Search engines bring in billions of dollars of revenues for providing access to information. Why shouldn't the providers of major portions of that information be paid. So, Microsoft pays some, Google pays some, competition sets in, a market price is established and, as a result, there is more money going to newspapers, news services, news wires, and news reporters etc. This will mean that more such information will be generated and the total amount of good, competing news providers will increase.
Google will have to compete.
This development is good news. Murdoch and Microsoft are helping the world, and they will make money doing it. Everyone wins - maybe even Google, if they use this as an opportunity to compete and get better. |
|
Trevor, before posting it would help if you at least learned to read and to analyze facts.
The fact is that by paying people for providing content, the internet providers will greatly increase the number of content providers. This will mean that Murdoch will provide eventually provide a much smaller share of the content.
If Microsoft pays Murdoch, and Google no longer is able to carry his news feeds, do you really think they will just cry and die?
No. They will pay too. They have billions of dollars and they will pay other content providers. This will greatly expand the quantity of material available and it will increase the number and diversity of providers.
What we are witnessing, if this comes to pass, is a great increase in the level of competition in the news business. And, still, the end user will pay naught. Microsoft and Google will be paid by advertisers, but they will have to pay out a portion of the proceeds to the news providers. This is a good thing for the world.
So, Murdoch and Microsoft are doing a good thing for the world. They will open up the market, increase the amount of information available, increase the number of providers and allow struggling newspapers and other news providers a chance to bring in enough revenues to survive or expand, and to encourage the creation of other news service organizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevor
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You apparently need to go back and review the lessons learned from the dot com bubble: just because someone offers content doesn't mean that others will be clamoring to access it -- or pay for it. For instance look at the blogosphere. Anyone can post; few people read. Your argument that Murdoch and MS are the precursors of a more egalitarian internet is ridiculous. Look at the personalities involved and their respective histories.
| ontheway wrote: |
| Trevor wrote: |
Yea, poor Rupert needs a break. It's tough on a fella who controls 40% of the media. Lets help him out with a little spare change when we want to look up a previously free news story.
Let's let him control the internet as well as the airwaves and dictate to us how we get our news, where we get it, and how much it costs. All for the sake of healthy competition -- you know Microsoft? Healthy competition is what they are all about, after all. Let's get them flags out and start waving them for the American way.
| ontheway wrote: |
Search engines bring in billions of dollars of revenues for providing access to information. Why shouldn't the providers of major portions of that information be paid. So, Microsoft pays some, Google pays some, competition sets in, a market price is established and, as a result, there is more money going to newspapers, news services, news wires, and news reporters etc. This will mean that more such information will be generated and the total amount of good, competing news providers will increase.
Google will have to compete.
This development is good news. Murdoch and Microsoft are helping the world, and they will make money doing it. Everyone wins - maybe even Google, if they use this as an opportunity to compete and get better. |
|
Trevor, before posting it would help if you at least learned to read and to analyze facts.
The fact is that by paying people for providing content, the internet providers will greatly increase the number of content providers. This will mean that Murdoch will provide eventually provide a much smaller share of the content.
If Microsoft pays Murdoch, and Google no longer is able to carry his news feeds, do you really think they will just cry and die?
No. They will pay too. They have billions of dollars and they will pay other content providers. This will greatly expand the quantity of material available and it will increase the number and diversity of providers.
What we are witnessing, if this comes to pass, is a great increase in the level of competition in the news business. And, still, the end user will pay naught. Microsoft and Google will be paid by advertisers, but they will have to pay out a portion of the proceeds to the news providers. This is a good thing for the world.
So, Murdoch and Microsoft are doing a good thing for the world. They will open up the market, increase the amount of information available, increase the number of providers and allow struggling newspapers and other news providers a chance to bring in enough revenues to survive or expand, and to encourage the creation of other news service organizations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trevor wrote: |
| You apparently need to go back and review the lessons learned from the dot com bubble: just because someone offers content doesn't mean that others will be clamoring to access it -- or pay for it. For instance look at the blogosphere. Anyone can post; few people read. Your argument that Murdoch and MS are the precursors of a more egalitarian internet is ridiculous. Look at the personalities involved and their respective histories. |
What lessons would those be? That if you pump millions of gallons of cheap money into the economy, you get speculative bubbles?
Can you give some figures on how few people read blogs? Sure there are plenty of unread blogs, but some of the larger blogs rival the major news networks for readership. Added to this, blog and non traditional media readership is rising while traditional media is declining rapidly.
Can you elaborate on the personalities involved and their histories? I'm not sure what your point is. They are private business men who owe you nothing. If you don't like them then don't buy their product. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
