Comments on: Google vs Murdoch, Twitter and Facebook

By: James

James — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:08:29 +0000

Sorry, I thought someone said something about the WSJ. Must have been a different article. See what Google has done to me: I don’t even know which site I am reading!

By: James

James — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:02:23 +0000

I SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I AM READING!! The Wall Street Journal – that tabloid from back in the 1900s – is still in business? Sure, right, and next you will try to tell me people still think those 30 random companies in the DJIA are an indicator of the economy.

By: EE

EE — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:19:10 +0000

“He has enough money to buy themâ¦”

LOL and according to wikipedia he is worth around 4 billion……

and google’s market capital is $ 179.8 billion. In order to get a controlling share he would have to purchase greater than 50% of that.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=google

By: EE

EE — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:28:05 +0000

“He has enough money to buy themâ¦”

I doubt he has enough to buy ALL of them, and if he does more will pop up.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:31:11 +0000

>Murdoc[h] cannot control Google, Twitter, or Facebook

He has enough money to buy them…

By: deadmanamerican

deadmanamerican — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:26:59 +0000

its only these rich greedy assholes like murdoch and cuban who complain that they cant make even more millions off of us. murdoch is one evil sonofabitch whos media empire is built on lying and duping the general public. the internet exposed this and now he wants to destroy the internet,or at least make us pay for his duplicity whether we like it or not.
go ahead and pull your content from the net…you will not be missed. the only people who follow murdoch and believe his lies are pro genocidal old conservatives who will be dead soon anyways as their all dinosaurs.
mark cuban is an obnoxious tool that no one respects.

By: jaynad

jaynad — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:49:12 +0000

Murdock cannot control Google, Twitter, or Facebook and therefore can’t manage what we receive as news nor can he generate revenue from it.

Somehow that very much pleases me.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:55:24 +0000

The Riper Murder problem is the following: Is “news” media such as Fixed Noise ar the New york post is not fair not balanced and not even true.

Obama is the first president to have an entire news media empire entirely against him.

The others real news media, even the conservative one, are making fun of this empire.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:42:41 +0000

When you owe fixed news who deliver only your opinion of old, almost senile fart,days and night, what do you expect?

Riper Murder is not doing well right now and once he pull all it’s online URLs from search engines the Murder empire will disappear from the net.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:37:17 +0000

I don’t buy this. Twitter is for blogger. If twiter can deliver news so does Google. However Twitter will not help you to find what you want on the net. Twiter is doing soemthing different than Google and will not replace Google nor Google will replace Twiter.

It remind me those comments we can find on internet from the years 1950s saying that TV will replace the radio, although Twitter and Google are way farther apart than TV and Radio.

By: EE

EE — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:47:41 +0000

Murdoch is rich enough to do risky and stupid things with his money.

Personally, I rarely find his news helpful or credible. Maybe it has something to do with the farce of a cable news network he runs.

I hope you do pull your stuff from the net Rupert, and if Mark Cuban thinks you’re right, he’s welcome to follow suit.

By: jaynad

jaynad — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:39:03 +0000

Referring to twitter or facebook as news sources is like calling every little puddle you find “drinking water”. 99.99% of both are just wet and not for consumption without significant investigation and analysis. The noise floor is so high that it’s pointless to even try sifting it for the few actual gems that do exist.

If you do find a decent, consistent, accurate, reliable twitter source – perfect, follow it. If it’s of any real value there will be other forms of it available as it becomes more widely known/trusted.

Murdoch can pull ALL his stuff off the net. I don’t think many people would miss it. I know I certainly won’t.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:55:37 +0000

” TWITTER POSSES NO THREAT to any destination news site. 140 characters does not a story make. Find it on twitter, link to a story on say, FoxNews and everyone is happy. The same concept applies to Facebook Links.”

Cuban forgets that the link does not have to go to Fox News when it can go directly to the blog that broke the news.

Links must work in a universal way, and paywalls break links.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:51:06 +0000

Is there life after Google?

Australian media billionaire Rupert Murdoch is betting there is.

Is there life after Murdoch?

Bloggers, twitter users and citizen journalists, together with contributors to WikiNews know for sure that there is.

By: Aaron Savage

Aaron Savage — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:13:10 +0000

“arguably the most popular search engine.”

What’s arguable about Google’s popularity as a search engine? It is undeniably and indisputably the biggest name in search. If Google were a heavyweight boxer it would hold all world titles at the same time and despatch all challengers in round one without breaking a sweat, and that’s the problem. It is a classic case of Old media posturing up and sounding off against new media in a world which is moving from a central publishing model to one which is distributed. Once upon a time if I wanted something known I would take out an ad or send a letter in the Times. These days I would publish it on my blog or use an adwords campaign. I would then promote it across the web with various tools at my disposal. Once upon a time journalists were the gatekeepers to the published word, these days anyone with a story to tell can publish it on their blog. If News International removes their content from Google, it won’t stop the story being written, it will only stop News International from having a point of view included in the conversation. How does the value of advertising space stand up to a model where the stories are not unique and the vast majority of people can read it eslewhere for free? You are right that it isn’t 1998 or 2008 or whatever and the bells are ringing for old media. With Citizen journalism on the one side and the BBC on the other side News International isn’t the champion anymore. In fact it is starting to look slow, tired and old.

Aaron Savage