Murdoch suggests removing Fox news from Googles index
Mikey 7 comments
In what might be considered online suicide by many, Fox news boss that he plans to have the Fox news web site removed from search engine indexes.
Murdoch's grand idea is the paid subscription model, and he's banking on people willing to pay to read Fox news. I know a lot of you are probably laughing at such an idea, and maybe rightfully so.
But assuming Murdoch is serious about this, what would the removal of Fox news results from Google mean? Me personally - nothing. I think Murdoch is a dinosaur trying to maintain archaic practices in modern times, and that he may have forgotten one of the primary beauties of the internet, which is: if you find a web site that asks for your money, you leave it in search of a site that offers the same (often better) service for free. And there's no shortage of those.
So what does he hope to achieve by being invisible to search engines? I'm hard pushed to think of any real advantage. But I can think of a few disadvantages.
For starters, assuming a significantly lower number of users would be visiting the site (because most people won’t spend money for news from any source), it will be exceedingly difficult to convince advertisers to keep paying for those premium spots on the Fox web site.
Secondly, while there are other popular sites that offer paid subscriptions (The Wall Street Journal comes to mind), exactly none of them went to the extreme of getting de-indexed on search engines. You should at least let your articles be found in a search, and then advise the user the site is a paid subscription service when they arrive and let them make the choice. How else are people going to know about Fox news online? Word of mouth?
I like to think Murdoch surrounds himself with some smart people so they've probably already thought of those reasons and many more, so assuming he is serious about this idea, it will be interesting to see how it turns out and if other online media outlets see any benefit in following.
Phil H
Tuesday 10th November 2009 | 08:24 AMIt's not just Fox News of course. In the UK it will be The Times and The Sun, and possibly Sky. His media empire is vast, but he offers nothing that you can't find for free elsewhere. Specialist websites can get away with charging - the Financial Times for example give you a little teaser - they let you read so much for free, and then after the first few articles you have to start paying. I'm sure Sky Sports will do okay for subscriptions, as they own the rights to the Premier League football.
His normal news outlets, though, surely no one is going to pay for that? Although, it might entice some of his loyal readers to go on buying paper copies for a while longer.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 10th November 2009 | 10:24 AMIn all reality, when you're searching for news in google, you will NEVER get anything from Fox News. With that said, Fox's unique brand of sensationalism is not really something that should ever be backed up on the internet, mainly because this gives readers/subscribers the opportunity to access check facts and as we all know, contrary information are the arch-enemy of Fox News.
I regularly watch Fox News while I'm exercising and yesterday happened to catch an interesting segment on the speculation of the meaning behind speculation of speculative journalism with respect to the greater meaning behind governorial elections in Texas and New York. The panel of plastic journalists impressed me more than the convoluted rhetoric of the pope's last address in Africa about the scourge of condoms.
Personally, I would think that any intentional move to further remove Fox News from credibility by mixing it with all other news sources is potentially good. Afterall, the less we all hear of Bill O'Reilly, the better. If that didn't make sense, as I said, I watched Fox News yesterday, so it is possible, nay, likely, that I am not as comprehensible as I was yesterday.
Too bad Rupert just dosn't have Fox News removed from all media all together. Murdoch seems as removed from not only from his network, but real news media all together...If there is such a thing as "real news media."
How anyone on the planet can take Fox News seriously is beyond me. They must have their head stuck so far into the sand that they will never get it out. We know that these people exist, but the real question is why.
I guess with over six billion people on the planet, there are a few who will believe anything. It reminds me of the old saying: "Put a monkey at a typewriter, and sooner or later, he's bound to type a word." Tens of millions watch Fox, the chances of some buying into it...well it's pretty high.
F-
Marvin the Martian
Tuesday 10th November 2009 | 02:43 PMWho uses a search engine to find a news site?
You can find articles on google, but if you want a specific publication, most, if not all people know what the websites are for their respective newpapers.
Besides, after buying myspace, you would think Rupert would understand the idea of an open internet. Seems like he made a total about-face on this one.
Total Fail.
...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. I don't think anybody uses search engines for a news site, but for specific topics. If I wanted to find a news article related to the serial killer in Cleveland I'd use google if I wasn't from Cleveland. Hell, I'm from Cleveland and I barely remember half of the local news web addresses. Is it fox8.com, fox8cleveland.com, or something else?
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 11th November 2009 | 08:10 AM...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. Hi Marv, I do it all the time when looking for sources for articles.
Ben Thomas
Tuesday 10th November 2009 | 08:08 AMMaybe he's trying to kill off Fox News. That wouldn't be a bad thing.