Murdoch: papers must embrace the internet!

Fascinating line of argument coming from none other than Mr Rupert Murdoch. What’s extraordinary is that he’s beginning to sing from the blogger’s hymnbook. Think that’s just more hype? Here’s the man himself:

The threat of losing print advertising dollars to online media is very real,” Mr Murdoch told the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington. He said his newspapers, which include the New York Post in the US and The Times and The Sun in the UK, had to find a way of bringing news to young people, who access news in an entirely different way.

They don’t want to rely on a God-like figure from above to tell them what’s important, [my italics]” Mr Murdoch said. Not making these changes would mean the newspaper industry would “be relegated to the status of also-rans”.

He said that, although most newspapers had websites, most of these were “a bland repurposing” of print content. Instead, they had to become destinations, much as internet portals and search groups such as Yahoo and Google were today. As well as finding ways to incorporate blogs into news coverage, Mr Murdoch said it was important to link text with video.

You heard it here (or the FT) first!

  • NewYorker

    Dear Mick,

    Thank you for posting this article. I think the key statement is “The threat of losing print advertising dollars to online media is very real,”. It is so real that online advertising is growing at a stupendous rate and advertisers have taken movey from the print budget and moved them to the online category. Here in the US generally the ad sales managers at the major papers did/do not understand the digital world and tried to ignore it. Many of them are the type of people who say “Computer? Yeah, my secretary uses one on them.” Rupert is dreaming if he thinks newspaper websites will ever catch up to Google and Yahoo in a generation. The newspapers have a “mentality” problem which does not fit with the digital world.

  • kitty

    Mick,
    I am addressing this to you on this thread and hope you will respond. This is for all to read.
    Will I be permitted to substantiate my accusations against Davros on this forum.I have verification of everything I have accused Davros of at hand and I am willing to put them here. Will you take the statements off, and yellow or red card me for putting them here.
    Thanks

  • Gonzo

    kitty

    You are starting to get very, very irritating.

    Frankly, no-one cares what Davros said elsewhere, and since you insist on reminding us anyway, why bother reprinting them again and again ad nauseum?

    Try and stick to the topic in the blog entry in future.

  • kitty

    “kitty

    You are starting to get very, very irritating.

    Frankly, no-one cares what Davros said elsewhere, and since you insist on reminding us anyway, why bother reprinting them again and again ad nauseum?”

    To the contrary it seems there are many of your bloggers who are very interested. Yes it is a bit of an irritation, yet quite the irritation also when one finds a blogger on here posing as a neutral- engaging people in conversations both on this site and off- gleaming all that he can from them. All the while he is a bigoted sectarian poser.
    So ban me- I suppose that is in the interests of your bloggers and in fair and free speech?

  • Ringo

    kitty –

    no really – we’re not interested.

  • Mick

    Kitty,

    I’m afraid that I agree with Gonzo. You’re posts aren’t personally irritating to me, but it does breach the ball not man rule.

    Why is that important?

    Well, this forum sits in the middle of a lot of contending political views. Most of these are passionately held and in many cases were not lightly arrived at.

    The aim here has always been to allow as much hetrogeneity of view as is humanly bearable. That often means have to read/listen to people you think should not be allowed to speak because of what may have been done the name of the political cause for which they speak.

    This is exacerbated by the fact that outside these virtual walls there is no common forum for discussion outside the formality of television and radio studios.

    Yes, but what’s that got to do with ball not man?

    The point is that people here should be able to have their spake regardless of whether others think they are (by their actions or words elsewhere) inside or outside their own particular Pale.

    Once the man is played, the man becomes the subject, the terms of reference close down, and any chance of useful discussion of universal topics goes out the window. Now, there is nothing wrong with that kind of forum. It may well perform a lot of good functions for people.

    I’m just not interested in sustaining it here.

    So what about the freedom of speech?

    There is a difference between freedom and licence.

    In purely political terms, there is freedom to explore any idea. If Hitler himself was re-incarnated and arrived up at Slugger, he’d stand every chance of having his views heard, so long as he didn’t indulge in ad hominem attacks on others inside or outside of the forum.

    At the same time, individuals don’t have the licence to say whatever they like. This is not the case anywhere in society either. You can certainly slander people in the pub and not expect consequences, so long as they don’t get to hear about it. If you libel someone, you get taken to court.

    One reason why people find this forum compelling (well, at certain times anyway), is that this kind of discussion is not happening elsewhere. That’s because the admission bar is low and the quality bar (is often, but not aways) high. I’d like to keep that way!

    Finally, playing the man is the golden offence here. If you only want to play the man, then you just won’t last. You play ball, and the ref will not take any further interest in your play.

  • spirit-level

    Kitty
    One solution, following on from Mick’s “firm but fair” ruling, would be to create your own web-blog and submit what you have on that site.
    That way bloggers would be free to visit your site, and you could still come here and play ball. The following is a good example:

    United Irelander

  • kitty

    Mick, thank you for the fair response. it is appreciated.
    Kitty,

    “I’m afraid that I agree with Gonzo. You’re posts aren’t personally irritating to me, but it does breach the ball not man rule.”

    yes it does I am afraid, but the only way to point out a certain reality.

    “Why is that important?

    Well, this forum sits in the middle of a lot of contending political views. Most of these are passionately held and in many cases were not lightly arrived at.”

    Mick, that is understandable. All our views are arrived at through hard experience, particularly here in Northern Ireland. I am not in dispute with that.

    “The aim here has always been to allow as much hetrogeneity of view as is humanly bearable. That often means have to read/listen to people you think should not be allowed to speak because of what may have been done the name of the political cause for which they speak.”

    I have never in all my life thought a person should not be allowed to speak no matter what their political position. A forum that provides this service is a valuable one. No dispute there.

    “This is exacerbated by the fact that outside these virtual walls there is no common forum for discussion outside the formality of television and radio studios.”

    True.

    Yes, but what’s that got to do with ball not man?

    The point is that people here should be able to have their spake regardless of whether others think they are (by their actions or words elsewhere) inside or outside their own particular Pale.

    Agreed again, but it is in the atmosphere of Northern Ireland particularly, important to know just who you are really dealing with. I mean, is there any misunderstanding of where Stalford stands. Or David Vance. I have no issues with any of these people because they are what they say they are. Davros, on the other hand is not and bloggers here should know that.

    “Once the man is played, the man becomes the subject, the terms of reference close down, and any chance of useful discussion of universal topics goes out the window. Now, there is nothing wrong with that kind of forum. It may well perform a lot of good functions for people. “

    I understand this completely. But the fact is the man? here in question is not the man he presents himself to be. Bloggers should be aware of that- again especially in the circumstances that are Northern Ireland.

    “So what about the freedom of speech?

    There is a difference between freedom and licence.”

    Agreed again

    In purely political terms, there is freedom to explore any idea. If Hitler himself was re-incarnated and arrived up at Slugger, he’d stand every chance of having his views heard, so long as he didn’t indulge in ad hominem attacks on others inside or outside of the forum.”

    That’s fair enough. But then we would KNOW who Hitler was. If he came on posing as a Jewish immigrant, or a neutral viewer, that would be a different matter.

    “At the same time, individuals don’t have the licence to say whatever they like. This is not the case anywhere in society either. You can certainly slander people in the pub and not expect consequences, so long as they don’t get to hear about it. If you libel someone, you get taken to court. “

    I couldn’t agree with you more, which is exactly the reason why I raise these issues about what Davros has written in the past.

    “One reason why people find this forum compelling (well, at certain times anyway), is that this kind of discussion is not happening elsewhere. That’s because the admission bar is low and the quality bar (is often, but not aways) high. I’d like to keep that way!”

    Agreed again, I have been reading your site for a long time now, and find it very worthwhile. But again, it is about knowing who you are speaking to in the sense that we, most of us anyway, write as we believe, there is nowhere anyone coud go and find me espousing sectarian abuse against ‘the other side.’

    “Finally, playing the man is the golden offence here. If you only want to play the man, then you just won’t last. You play ball, and the ref will not take any further interest in your play.”

    Are you saying that the pieces I possess, as written by Davros, regarding the murdered civil rights lawyers shall not be permitted?
    In other circumstances, I agree about playing the ball/man. But these are other circumstances.
    Thank you for you response, Mick.

  • Davros

    Don’t feed Trolls 🙂

  • Young Irelander

    Murdoch a man many dislike has to be admired for his vision in this one. Unless the MSM embrace technology and new infoboffo’s like my own site they will be finished. Only last week I was emailed a opportunity to make some serious money through advertising on my blog. I turned this down as i will not change my style of writing or my opinion for anyone. I want to stay true to my own art and my own blog. Blogs like my own, written by people not fooled by Adams, aren’t afraid to say it out loud.

  • Mick

    Kitty, thanks for listening.

    Others have been in this territory long before we adopted it here:

    Ad hominem (ahd HAW-mih-nem) — From the Latin and liberally translated: against the man. More formally known as Argumentum ad hominem, or an argument against the person and not their (his) thoughts. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, in that the argument fails to address the issues presented or to support the point of the speaker uttering the Argumentum ad hominem. There is no doubt that an Argumentum ad hominem can be an effective rhetorical tactic on the part of the speaker because it often appeals to emotions or prejudices of the listener rather than intellect, or is directed against the character of the person rather than the subject under discussion.

    Now how does that effect what you are doing here? You are making the man, not the ball the subject. I can see you are capable and not entirely unreasoned in how you accept arguments. But on this matter you’ve clearly not been listening.

    I’m going to take out the comments above. If you persist in trying to make the comments of another poster the subject of discussion it will be followed by a yellow and if it continues after that, a red.

    A red card means out for a fortnight. And then back in. Then the process starts again.

    I’m certain you have other more interesting and engaging things to say on Northern Ireland politics and culture. But my hands are tied on this matter.

  • kitty

    “I’m certain you have other more interesting and engaging things to say on Northern Ireland politics and culture. But my hands are tied on this matter.”

    I appreciate our fairness on the issue Mick. The comments were seen and read and more people now know what they are dealing with, especially with the blogger in question.
    That was my objective- it has been achieved. Thank you.