March 15, 2010 8:39 AM

Murdoch: Readers Need To Pay For Online

Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chairman and CEO, May 9, 2007.

Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chairman and CEO, May 9, 2007. (AP)

(AP)  Media companies wishing to thrive in the digital age need to persuade consumers to pay for news online by providing compelling information in any form they want, News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said Tuesday.

Speaking at a two-day workshop on the state of journalism hosted by the Federal Trade Commission, Murdoch said the future is promising for publishers that can adapt to the ongoing migration of audiences and advertisers to the Web.

The key to survival, he said, lies in giving consumers content that they want in the form that they want it whether that be on a computer screen, mobile device or e-reader and then charging for it.

"We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free," Murdoch said.

"Good journalism is an expensive commodity."

News Corp. already charges for online access to The Wall Street Journal and it plans to expand that to other publications. Other publishers are also considering such fees as the growth of online advertising revenue has failed to keep pace with declines in its print counterpart.

Murdoch's comments were part of a wide-ranging discussion on the profound challenges facing media companies and ways the government can help them survive.

Media executives taking part are looking for a new business model, while government officials want to protect a critical pillar of democracy a free press.

"News is a public good," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. "We should be willing to take action if necessary to preserve the news that is vital to democracy."

Also See: Google News Sets New Limits On "First Click Free" Policy

The workshop has drawn speakers from across the traditional and new media landscapes, including Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Web site; Paul Steiger, former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal; and Len Downie, former executive editor of The Washington Post.

Also participating Tuesday and Wednesday were executives from Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. and Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Among the options being discussed: tax law changes that would allow media companies to earn tax credits or become tax-exempt entities, and copyright law changes that would force search engines and other online aggregrators to compensate media companies for the content they produce.

Also on the table is a proposed change in antitrust rules to allow newspapers to jointly negotiate payments from Web sites that use their content.

The fundamental problem facing the media industry, Murdoch said, is that "technology makes it cheap and easy to distribute news for anyone with Internet access, but producing journalism is expensive.''

"Right now there is a huge gap in costs," he said, adding that the solution is for media companies to charge for content and stop aggregators from "feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others."

The FTC is planning more workshops in the spring to discuss in greater depth the ideas that emerge this week.

Congress has also tried to tackle questions about the future of the media business, particularly print journalism. Last spring, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., held a hearing on the financial troubles facing the newspaper industry. And Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., has introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to restructure as non-profits.

Murdoch called on the government to rewrite "outdated'' regulations that limit the number and type of media outlets that one company can own, including rules that prohibit the same company
such as his own from owning a newspaper and television station in the same market.

These restrictions, Murdoch said, were put in place years ago long before the Internet exploded on the scene, bringing all sorts of new media voices and platforms.

"Too many of the mechanisms government uses to regulate the news and information business in this new century are based on 20th century assumptions and business models," he said.


© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 12 Comments
by KentVideoMarketing December 3, 2009 7:03 PM EST
Pay for online news content? Why Rupert Murdoch is a Desperate Man (or will the real news ?aggregators? please stand up)
Rupert Murdoch is no fool and surely realises that the internet is rapidly destroying the traditional journalistic function of newspapers, radio and TV (i.e. to break news stories and tell us what?s going on).
But his speech to the Federal Trade Commission?s Workshop seemed reluctant to admit it.
This is what psychiatrists call ?cognitive dissonance?. Cognitive dissonance is when you refuse to accept the impact of new information because it?s too overwhelming.
Murdoch makes a curious distinction between good journalists (his own ?expensive and distinguished journalists who invest days, weeks, or even months in their stories?) and evil ?aggregators? (an ill defined, shadowy world of online content thieves, ?feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others?.
But it?s an argument born of desperation because no such distinction exists.

Feel free to check out my blog for more! http://www.centreforjournalism.co.uk/blogs/kersh-media
Reply to this comment
by KentVideoMarketing December 3, 2009 7:02 PM EST
Pay for online news content? Why Rupert Murdoch is a Desperate Man (or will the real news ?aggregators? please stand up.)

Rupert Murdoch is no fool and surely realises that the internet is rapidly destroying the traditional journalistic function of newspapers, radio and TV (i.e. to break news stories and tell us what?s going on).
But his speech to the Federal Trade Commission?s Workshop seemed reluctant to admit it.
This is what psychiatrists call ?cognitive dissonance?. Cognitive dissonance is when you refuse to accept the impact of new information because it?s too overwhelming.
Murdoch makes a curious distinction between good journalists (his own ?expensive and distinguished journalists who invest days, weeks, or even months in their stories?) and evil ?aggregators? (an ill defined, shadowy world of online content thieves, ?feeding off the hard-earned efforts and investments of others?.
But it?s an argument born of desperation because no such distinction exists.

Feel free to check out my blog for more! http://www.centreforjournalism.co.uk/blogs/kersh-media
Reply to this comment
by barbaram99 December 2, 2009 5:37 PM EST
We have a free press. I am not for this gent as he wants to be greedy. I am tired of the greedy asres. We need to boycott that man.
I use bing,google and yahoo.
Reply to this comment
by Keith Geddes December 2, 2009 12:38 PM EST
We`ve already had this in Britain.. Murdochs son did a speech to the BBC.. which we pay for anyway..by law.. he was `snubbed` to a degree.Just polite applause..
Murdoch says people MUST.. fact is no one will. He can tell us till hes blue in the face.. WHO wants to pay when we pay for services already.
Reply to this comment
by jjjc3 December 2, 2009 8:38 AM EST
Until the 1980s, an Australian could not have owned one stich of US media! Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act ending strict rules limiting ownership of media outlets. He gifted us this guy who thinks he can control internet content. It's time to re-regulate the media and regulate his ability to control FREE speech.
Reply to this comment
by debinok1 December 1, 2009 11:49 PM EST
If the "news" was actually "News" and not the garbage being reported this idea might fly. As long as the daily "news" is something that would be found on the cover of the enquirer, forget it.
Reply to this comment
by P0STING_AWAY December 1, 2009 6:53 PM EST
No Rupert.
I will not pay for your content.
Put it on Bing???
GREAT! I will never see it.
Reply to this comment
by mecury69 December 1, 2009 5:15 PM EST
Terrible idea! We need to do the exact opposite! We need to get money OUT of the news industry/system.

What a weak reason to justify a power grab. Like the idea of some news outlets non-profits.

Money is the root of all evil and it has to get out of our news. That is why we have to watch Anna Nicole Smith 24/7 for weeks at a time on every channel...RATINGS!

Don't listen to this windbag.
Reply to this comment
by babooph December 1, 2009 4:39 PM EST
What fool would pay for his lies?
Reply to this comment
by hologram5 December 1, 2009 3:44 PM EST
I think that we should make the old gasbag pay for the air he breathes. It could be used by a child. The old fart is pathetic.
Reply to this comment
See all 12 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook