11.20.09
Gemini version available ♊︎What Makes Mr. Murdoch Tick
Summary: Rupert Murdoch wants Google to feed him despite being a blood-sucking tycoon who does not pay people whom his publications cover
ONE of our readers insists that Microsoft is connected to Rupert Murdoch, who is busy calling Google “illegal” these days. This reader has just sent us this pointer to show that Murdoch gives a bad name to Google, especially in the public arena where publications are involved directly*. He poisons people’s minds against Google for no valid, defensible reason.
Rupert Murdoch is simply looking for publicity when he says he ‘may’ want to block Google search. We all know he do not want to. This is because unless he has an extremely incompetent IT department (which he don’t), they will tell him inserting a simple robot.txt will do the trick. Google (and Microsoft and Yahoo and other reputable search engine had been honouring robot.txt file for ages.
In addition to the Gates|Murdoch parody, we have some serious posts on the subject, such as:
- Microsoft Colludes Against Google
- Microsoft’s Search Endeavours: Resorting to Bribery, Deception, and Intimidation
- Microsoft’s Use of Bribes for Search, Only 4% of Microsoft/Razorfish Clients Used Microsoft Search
- Mainstream Media Finally Discovers Microsoft’s Anti-Google AstroTurf
- Microsoft’s Anti-Google Whisper Campaign
Now comes this analysis from TechDirt: “Would Top Sites Really Opt-Out Of Google Based On A Microsoft Bribe?”
Every so often, internet pontificators try to come up with ways to “kill Google.” It’s a silly game, but in an oddly timed move, three people (who have all put forth “how to kill Google” ideas in the past) all suddenly published similar ideas, yet again. Jason Calacanis, Mark Cuban and Tom Foremski all posted similar ideas about how certain sites (such as the top sites in the top search results) could all choose to opt-out of Google and, say, join another search engine like Bing. It’s one of those ideas that sounds good for about 5 seconds. And then you actually think about it. First, the numbers being tossed around concerning how much it would cost, say, Microsoft, to convince most of these sites to opt-out of their number one driver of traffic is significantly higher than what’s being mentioned in these articles. Many of these sites rely on Google traffic to make a ton of money, and they’re not going to throw that away easily.
As TechDirt used to point out very shrewdly, those who exploit are not the bloggers who merely read and search engines that borrow phrases from newspapers; the exploiters are actually newspapers and authors who are exploiting people and events, on whom they report without ‘compensating’ those who get covered (and truly “break” the stories). It is difficult to justify “owning” a story, just as it should be impossible to “own” thoughts and ideas, even prose and mathematics (or algorithms). It complicates things too much.
Murdoch is of course wrong and those predatory hounds who give Microsoft and Murdoch ideas are looking for personal gain (just look up their professional history). As the BBC put it today, “Twitter urges Murdoch to be open”
Newspapers should become “radically open” if they want to make money in the online world, the co-founder of social networking site Twitter has said.
Biz Stone said that he would “love to see what happens” if newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch went ahead with plans to block Google from his websites.
Stone is right in this case. As The Guardian showed a few days ago, even the London Evening Standard had found out that wide distribution comes before per-unit revenue. It’s about spreading ideas, giving readers what they want.
London Evening Standard slashes distribution costs by going free
The London Evening Standard has slashed its distribution costs from 30p a copy to just 4p since going free, its editor, Geordie Greig, revealed today.
Greig said the paper – which axed a 50p cover price to become free last month, more than doubling its circulation to 600,000 – had been spending 12p a copy on newsagents.
Professor Jay Rosen, who is highly regarded among journalists, is now sharing this long list of subsidy sources for news outlets. And as a side note, at Boycott Novell we have no subsidy; maybe we will appeal to readers for help one day. █
____
* The Register too spends an obscene amount of time slamming Google these days. Several people have already noticed and reported this.
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Needs Sunlight said,
November 21, 2009 at 4:28 am
It’s obvious that Murdock is out to smear Google and only Google.
Otherwise, if it were a matter of having the material not indexed, he would have had his staff properly configure the robots.txt file for his site.
But since there is no mention of robot exclusion rules, which Google follows correctly by the way, and because Murdock’s bile is directed at Google and only Google, one conclusion is that he’s part of somebody’s agenda or media campaign.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
November 21st, 2009 at 5:15 am
Maybe he’s ‘pulling a Beck’ on Google? You know, that guy whom he employs in Fox to serve the political crusades…
uberVU - social comments said,
November 21, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by OnlineSalesMngr: Murdoch vs Google (or is Murdoch secretly doing a deal with Microsoft?) http://bit.ly/5pS2QZ…