In an on line mag in a recent article highlighted the News Corps attempts to hobble The BBC and attack on news accumulators like Google etc.
Their speeches also attack on Bloggers trying to have them excluded from news conferences.

Now they'er trying to roll back free net access to their news. One worrying point that was raised what happens when they start forcing others to do likewise by their sheer size/power.

While I rarely read newspapers because of the perceived bias I do worry about any commercial organization asserting the role of gate keeper.

If one considers the complaints from the 'courier mail' over the proposal from the Govt to publish the results of FOI within a week.
The NEWS CORP said they were protecting their investment in the FOI. I suspect their real objection was that it might blunt their 'SCOOP' and therefore their less draw on the readers therefore less revenue.
Either way it could be argued that the NEWS Corp view is clear, their profits come before the public interest.

Clearly they have the right to restrict their activities but aren't the other practices raising the headline question.

Xammy, I think we just have to accept that a big business like Newscorp is going to try all sorts of tactics to improve its profit line, outcompete competitors, nobble potential competitors etc.

In amongst all this, the news certainly does become distorted, no moreso than with the worship of continuous growth in an era when the end to rampant expansionism is of the most paramount importance.

So we've got to accept a distortion of the news, and unfortunately a huge distortion in some areas.

Of course we'd like our governments to pull companies like this into line and make them present a less biased perspective. But all governments....and this is one of the great failings of 'democracy'...are totally complicit in promulgating the bias, especially in the most significant area of continuous growth.

This not only affects the poor, it affects everyone.

As for access to the news...or the pseudonews if you like....again I don't think it affects the poor more significantly than the rich. Newspapers are cheap. Radio and TV news are essentially free. The poor (or the unrich) still have wide access to the news, in countires like Australia.

Of course if you are talking about the Third World, it is a totally different story.

To an extent, I agree with Newscorp. You say news is a 'right' for all.

Great. The problem is however, that good news actually costs money. Newscorp's haemorrhaging money and they need to find a way to recoup those costs, or give up decent journalism.

The fact is, the best newsrooms invest in good reporting.

You're right insofar as it becomes an issue when newscorp bullies others into making people pay for their news.

However, in relation to Newscorp charging and encouraging others to do the same so a decent standard of journalism is maintained, I'd agree.

It all depends on the extent of 'encouraging' and while I agree with your 'news for all' sentiment in theory, in practice, I object totally, because as much as bloggers and posters love to extoll the virtues of independent citizen media, I on the other hand, find it far less reliable and far more biased than mainstream media.

It is a product, one that made the father of our once Australian owner of news limited a millionaire.
And todays family members Billionaires.
And as in your other thread turned reporting [in only some outlets] into a manufacturing factory.
It will fail, others will not charge, and do well.
But many like me read many online news papers for free, how do they make money?
We can block adds , so that may not be the answer, but I do think as this evolves we will pay in some way.
ABC has an online news it may be free forever but I would miss news limited papers, they often make me laugh and at times are the true quality they claim to be.

I think the the reality is clear.
Most of the media, including this web site are set up to to push a specific philosophy. Which is fair enough on the surface but the question was:

Is information (news) a right or a privileged for the rich?
In essence is it morally right or in the interests of everyone that the media be dominated by one or two sources?

Much of the population have never been taught how to research and therefore don't know the questions to ask let alone how to assess the answers. Consequently they are often led (manipulated) by the media.

Tactics like 'star' endorsements, frequency and most ominously 'puffing' the product.(presenting the product so selectively it gives the wrong impression although doesn't lie per se).
The breakfast cereals that rave about a need for a healthy breakfast. They advertise low in fat ...thereby implying it's good for the children. They assiduously avoid mentioning the outrageous sugar content. They show the cereal as yummy etc...the nag factor. What is the correct “artificial sweetening “level?

As an intelligent informed person how many of the ingredients do you know/understand let alone know of their dietary effects? In truth the data is there but what an effort.
It is unreasonable to expect the average mum to understand the all the dietary levels and implications. A choice isn't a free choice unless it's informed

Likewise politics and social issues are presented the same way.
i.e. presented to emotionally appeal rather than strict adherence to the truth and objectivity.

One doesn't need a PHD and cluster to then extrapolate the problems with amoral/biased
commercially motivated gatekeepers .

It is a fact that control information and you control power. Allowing the public to decide from a position of knowledge. e.g. The asylum/refugee debate. NB I didn't say 'illegals' (sic) or 'boat people'

NO decision is fair or free without reasonable access to all and objective information.
Contextually NEWS Corp is attempting to deny freedom of speech yet we all let it slip by.
Whose rights take precedence ? (not the people's!)

It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.

Murdoch, as befits the chief executive of a major organization, is determined to explore every revenue opportunity. He has a certain amount of bullying power in his search, but I think he has chosen entirely the wrong battleield here.

He is trying to label the information aggregators - most notably Google - as thieves.

What he has failed to take into consideration is that Google is totally blind in the manner in which it finds information on the internet. All he has to do, in order to protect the fruits of his journalists' labour, is to put in a line of code on the web page that renders it "invisible" to Google.

Therein lies his dilemma.

If he has parked his valuable product behind a pay-wall, and hidden it from the search engines... how will people find it, in order to buy it?

It's all bluff and bluster at the moment. If he actually has a plan, I can't spot it.

Meanwhile, we already pay the ABC to collect news on our behalf. If he pushes the fight to its limits - "why should the ABC's news be taxpayer funded?" - he will find that many people would rather trust those devious commies in Ultimo than his own organization's opinion-peddlers.

Can't think why, but.