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.

Stuff the news papers, with the www who needs it.
Who's the first person on the seen of a newsworthy story.
It has got to be a member of the public,
If it's an eye witness thats even better.
They can rite it up and there's ya news.
You can only believe half of what you read in the papers so whats the diff

*It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.*

You are quite correct there Pericles!

It seems to me that the Murdochs are frustrated right now.
Newspapers used to be a license to print money, mainly due to the
classifieds advertising.

Now the majority of them are losing money, due to the internet,
Craigslist etc. Murdoch bought MySpace for alot of money,
but that is now losing popularity. His only great win right
now is FoxTV, as more rednecks tune in, since Obama became
prez.

Google is his real frustration, as his online advertising
model as not worked out, meantime Google are making the real
money.

I guess the public will decide. People will pay for business
news, as they stand to make or lose lots, if they are not
well informed. Not so for your everyday news.

So I will sit back and watch it all unfold with interest!

Pericles,Yabby I wonder why he hasn't spent more effort in buying into Bing etc. It seems to me there are marked synergies. Ban Google and flood the media with his brand.

The other problem he has are the likes open source products like Firefox and Open Office they have apps that block the ads.

Realistically speaking I think that his model can only work in a controlled environment like PRC hence his overtures in this direction.

The moral aspect of this move is somewhat cynical on one level since much of his audience base in the US are as Yabby depicted them Redneck and staunchly anti communist.

It has been argued that he will become an active arm of The PRCCP's "control" repression. Arguably News's active mouthpiece participation is some steps forward of Google and Yahoo's (passive participation if you like)blocking. Mind you conservative politics love dictators they control dissension.

not just news it seems

http://1828.mshaffer.com

In my view,..the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children,..under a free government..ought to be instructed.. .

No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.
- Preface

active links
at link

http://1828.mshaffer.com/

In celebration..of Noah Webster's Birthday..(October 16, 2009),..we have prepared an updated website.

Please update your bookmarks:
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/

WordDefinition

1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language

Noah Webster,..the Father of American Christian education,
wrote the first American dictionary..and established a system of rules to govern spelling,..grammar,..and reading.

This master linguist understood the power of words.. their definitions,..and the need for precise word usage..in communication to maintain independence.

Webster used the Bible as the foundation..for his definitions.

This standard reference tool..will greatly assist students of all ages in their studies.

No other dictionary compares..with the Webster's 1828 dictionary.

The English language..has changed again and again..and in many instances has become corrupt.....but then who's supprised

Comparison of the word...forgiveness
1828 Webster
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/forgiveness
1913 Webster
http://1913.mshaffer.com/d/word/forgiveness

UOG.

Published on 15 April 1755 and written by Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, sometimes published as Johnson's Dictionary, is among the most influential dictionaries in the history of the English language.

Websters is US (yanklish) spelling is simplified, pronunciations are different as are many word meanings.

MACQUARIE is Australian

Oxford is regarded as The most authoritative.
I have all 4.

Not that writing in English in any flavour bothers you.

BTW It has nothing to do with the topic.

I'm pleased you find it all so comforting, I DON'T. After 1 year in a seminary college I doubt that you could tell me anything that could interest me about Christianity in its major forms

you cetainly are gat egsaminator...[in the traditional sense]...not the new speak...as words are currently abused...wow a drop out priest..you definitivly know..as much as any first year apprentice

as news uses words...and as words dont mean what people often...think...they mean...its perfectly relitive to the topic

put your religious apprentice-ship...into a topic and have a go you bragart...first year apprentice...lol...you very fanny man...gay even

talk is cheap...as if im posting for your..lol...intrest..

ya still wear the frock?

sorry if im a bit harsh

but you post...so little of intrest to me...in that negative post...only to be revealed...at the end..a braggert..a drop out ..who..couldnt hack it as a priestess...

you poor dainty little thing..head to head anytime..you put a starting position...open...and i will close it...i now shall do my braggeting...i debated with many religionists...of many divergent beliefd..for 14 years...what do words proove...

nuthing...mr gee-suss...claims 30 years..[or 15 years...and he's an athiest...lol...do you still have any belief...or just empty critiqing..from the athiest mindset...

funmny how so many unbelievers..claim such extensive knowledghe..about the religios texts..they decry in igno-rants..

but one year..in semen-ary coll-age...mate dont that..just beat the meat...all mushy...stank stank...off to the sperm bank..

gee-how suss..frame the debate mate./.
one to one...no soggy bisket..
i refuse to debate the mass's..[no mass debate]
but to you..that would be a nice snack

Before returning to the topic, may I suggest that North America and South America are two of this World's continents, often defined as New World as opposed to Old World, and that the national language of San Paulo is named Brazilian Portuguese, and not American Portuguese. I consider this nomenclature to be respectful of the "Spherical Earth Society" mentality.

Luckily for my childhood, Australia managed to remain a Commonwealth country and spoke the Queen's English when I went to school, so the first I knew of the post-1776 US Eng. was from watching Sesame Street on b&w television. It has its merits as a concise version, and not so many undersights and flaws in the spoken usage as it does in print, but lucky, multi-lingual me to consider myself a native English speaker with US Eng. as a second language. That is all Webster's is.

The natural ontopic example might be Lima. Peruvians are American citizens. Lucky for them as for other less Wi-Fi savvy population groups and those of us from rich nations who cannot afford the ADSL charges, we only have to spend a few hours looking over the latest breaking Yahoo! bulletins to realise that it is nothing more than herd-syndrome entertainment for the masses, like after-school television.

If that's the 'news' that is only available to the rich and famous, then thank your lucky stars that most of the population of the planet cannot even afford Internet at all.

I use Linux myself, and that is a blessing, but the Australian government still see fit to let the commercial carpet-baggers take their dues on the ISP fees. Maybe it's time they woke up to the Third Millenium and helped the media onslaught of our collective senses?