PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft/Bing plan to buy rights to... the news



RabbitWho
November 23rd, 2009, 02:56 PM
I apologise if there had been a thread about this before, give me a link and then close it.

But if not: Microsoft and Murdoch: Teaming up to bash Google?

Rory Cellan-Jones (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/rory_cellanjones/) | 11:24 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009


There's a fascinating story in this morning's edition of the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0.html), which could signal a big shift in the balance of power between parts of the web and other parts of the media. The piece says that Microsoft has been in talks with the media giant News Corporation over a plan which could see the firm behind papers from the Wall Street Journal (http://europe.wsj.com/home-page) to the Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/) being paid to stop Google searching its news websites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/murdoch226.jpg
The implication is that Microsoft's search engine Bing would be the place to go for news - and that Google would have to start paying if it wanted to retain that kind of content.
The FT's story comes a week or so after the Techcrunch UK blog (http://eu.techcrunch.com/2009/11/13/badda-bing-microsoft-woos-newspapers-by-funding-their-stick-to-beat-google/) reported that Microsoft had held talks with European publishers about what sounds like a similar plan to get them onside as part of a battle to make Bing a more attractive and lucrative place than Google for their content.
So is there any truth in either report? Well, a couple of days after the Techcrunch post, I was due to interview a senior executive from Bing, and Microsoft called to ask whether I would be asking about that story. When I said yes I would, they said he could not talk about it - and we therefore pulled out of the interview. Make of that what you will.
All of this comes against the background of Rupert Murdoch's campaign to start getting people to pay for the online content of his newspapers, a move fleshed out last week in a speech by the editor of the Times, James Harding (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=44656&c=1).
But Mr Murdoch has also made it clear that Google - and indeed the BBC - are two major obstacles to this campaign, because they are both major ways to get free news. Meanwhile, Microsoft is anxious to do two things - to give Bing a big push, and to get in on Google's profit margins.
So it's understandable that News Corp and Microsoft might want to unite against the idea that news content on the internet should be free. But there are also plenty of reasons why Microsoft in particular would want to keep these negotiations as quiet as possible.
After all, if internet users get it into their heads that Bing's results are not as unbiased as Google's appear to be, because of an alliance with news providers, then they may well be less keen to switch to Microsoft's search engine.
Ah, but what if Bing were the only place to get quality news because such content had been shut out of Google? Well, that would be an interesting test of just how important news is to the mass of internet users. For we professional journalists, that could be a worrying moment - one where we find out the true market value of our content.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/microsoft_and_murdoch_teaming.html

Does this scare the shite out of anyone else?

cascade9
November 23rd, 2009, 03:00 PM
Its been on the cards for years. IMO, Murdoch and lots of others want the whole 'free' thing removed from the web, making it business only. This is just the 1st salvo.

RabbitWho
November 23rd, 2009, 03:04 PM
Someone commented thus: "So under this plan, Google would be the perfect filter against all of Murdoch's rotten content? Sounds brilliant!"

But Google should be free and include everything. If it only included unbuyable papers/news teams it would inevitably lean in one political direction. It should not do that. It should be free.
I hate to think that people would avoid Google because of some kind of crazy "commie" stigma. I like the "serindipidy" that allows users of a fair search engine to see both sides of every argument.

And of course there is the age old fear that if someone is holding the purse strings they'll have some control ove the content, the more papers Microsoft would buy exclusive search rights to less free Media would be.

Not to mention it's an attempt at monopoly.

Psumi
November 23rd, 2009, 03:06 PM
Google is fine, until you use their Chrome browser.

So, this comes as an annoyance to me.

Xbehave
November 23rd, 2009, 03:11 PM
^see title^

the sun/fox/etc can take their "news", i for one will welcome the improved results. The hardcore American right may switch to bing but the rest of the wold is not only more liberal but the bing we get also sucks.

LinuxFanBoi
November 23rd, 2009, 03:48 PM
Sounds like a plan, get Fox news to tout the virtues of Microsoft and Bing, bad mouth Google and all things free and denounce open source as un-american, anti-capitalist, socialism. This is all that is required to get all the right wing O'Reily worshiping sheep on a bandwagon.

Rupert Murdock is a media terrorist who preys on the fears of the intellectually week to thrust big business agenda in their face disguised as the best interests of the american people.

samh785
November 23rd, 2009, 03:51 PM
sounds like a plan, get fox news to tout the virtues of microsoft and bing, bad mouth google and all things free and denounce open source as un-american, anti-capitalist, socialism. This is all that is required to get all the right wing o'reily worshiping sheep on a bandwagon.

Rupert murdock is a media terrorist who preys on the fears of the intellectually week to thrust big business agenda in their face disguised as the best interests of the american people.
+1

samh785
November 23rd, 2009, 03:54 PM
I believe that google has the right to use the samples of news articles it presents under fair use laws, but I could be wrong. I find it amusing that Murdoch wants google to stop LINKING to the websites of his media empire. All it's doing is giving his sites more traffic :P

ddarsow
November 23rd, 2009, 03:56 PM
I have a law degree and have specifically studied intellectual property rights in depth. The whole concept really makes no sense from a legal perspective. No one can copyright or "own" the news. They may have first rights of distribution, but once published (in any medium) it goes to the public domain.

Because of this, I fail to see how they could charge Google to access that which they already have a legal right to. Perhaps I am missing something and certainly there is more to the story.

RabbitWho
November 23rd, 2009, 03:58 PM
I have a law degree and have specifically studied intellectual property rights in depth. The whole concept really makes no sense from a legal perspective. No one can copyright or "own" the news. They may have first rights of distribution, but once published (in any medium) it goes to the public domain.

Because of this, I fail to see how they could charge Google to access that which they already have a legal right to. Perhaps I am missing something and certainly there is more to the story.

Well if you remember there's a precident here.. when google first came out some fella with a little website saw that their spiders were downloading his pages and storing them and sued them. Did he win? If he won then it's possible.

LowSky
November 23rd, 2009, 04:12 PM
Murdoch doesn't want to give news away for free. He wants people to pay for it, and not from advertisement revenue like the rest of the world does. He wants people to go to his website, get a subscription, and collect the moeny from their online viewing. Murdoch believes with newspapers disappearing that many will still pay to read the news in some way.

Unfortunately the world is kinda set already on free online news. Maybe Murdoch thinks he can use his media empire to change that. I doubt it.

Grenage
November 23rd, 2009, 04:23 PM
While the plan will probably fail, let's not forget that Google isn't some poor orphan boy with nothing but love in his heart. Google is a very big, very wealthy company; I'm sure they could afford to pay for news if they needed/wanted to.

In the U.K, I can't see it having much impact. As far as many of us are concerned, BBC is king. After all, we do have to pay ridiculous licence fees...

samh785
November 23rd, 2009, 04:41 PM
Unfortunately the world is kinda set already on free online news. Maybe Murdoch thinks he can use his media empire to change that. I doubt it.
The old subscription method that physical newspapers use is on life support. Eventually it's going to go away, or at least be reduced very significantly.

Good riddance.

mivo
November 23rd, 2009, 04:52 PM
No one can copyright or "own" the news. They may have first rights of distribution, but once published (in any medium) it goes to the public domain.

The articles do not become "public domain" and you cannot reprint them without permission (fair use excluded, but this doesn't apply to taking the news from one site and putting all of it on your own site). The event itself is not ever copyrighted, Participants may sell exclusivity rights to specific news companies, but if another news agency gets wind of the event, they can of course report about it in their own media. They would not be the ones breaching any agreements.

chris200x9
November 23rd, 2009, 04:58 PM
reality has become a commodity

dca
November 23rd, 2009, 05:09 PM
A lot has to stem from Google versus the Associated Press... This is a last ditch effort to remove the possibility of printed news publications going by the wayside. Even though the news is free, who gets ahold of it first or where you go to get your news is what's up for grabs...


http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/associated-press-google-business-media-apee.html

Grant A.
November 23rd, 2009, 05:12 PM
IANAL, but wouldn't paying companies to not use a competitor be a fragrant violation of anti-trust laws?

ticopelp
November 23rd, 2009, 05:18 PM
If Murdoch wants to complete his slide into insanity and irrelevance by removing Faux News from Google, he's welcome to do so. Good riddance.

If he thinks users are going to start paying for news content he's kidding himself. Even in the boom of the 90s when people would throw money at nearly anything, every single "pay for news" venture failed utterly. Not to mention that blogging and other venues for non-mainstream journalism have exploded.

They can try to cram that genie back into the bottle as hard as they want, it's not going to happen.

alphaniner
November 23rd, 2009, 05:21 PM
IANAL, but wouldn't paying companies to not use a competitor be a fragrant violation of anti-trust laws?

A pleasant smelling violation? I think you meant flagrant. No offense intended, it's just kind of amusing in this context. And what is IANAL?

ticopelp
November 23rd, 2009, 05:30 PM
And what is IANAL?

I Am Not a Lawyer.

ade234uk
November 23rd, 2009, 05:45 PM
Microsoft and SKY will never effect because I avoid them with the following:

Ubuntu
(Yes there really is other operating systems and they are better and free)

Freesat+ with HD
(Yes you really can record programmes and watch them in HD for free)

Sky are so far up M$ **** its a joke and vice versa. Thats why you cant watch Sky Player without using Silverlight, and anyone with an xbox360 gets SKY Player.
I keep nagging my girlfriend to get rid of SKY, but she keeps it like many other customers simply because of one or two programmes.

I don't care what people say about the BBC and how much some of these people / presenters are being paid, but their iplayer knocks the crap out of anything SKY Player as regards compatability.

HermanAB
November 23rd, 2009, 06:02 PM
It's only American news. So who cares?

ticopelp
November 23rd, 2009, 06:03 PM
It's only American news. So who cares?

Easy there killer.

Exodist
November 23rd, 2009, 07:28 PM
Google is fine, until you use their Chrome browser.

So, this comes as an annoyance to me.
Ce habla no titles?

Exodist
November 23rd, 2009, 07:30 PM
It's only American news. So who cares?
If they block American news what else you gonna have to laugh at.. :)

samh785
November 23rd, 2009, 08:58 PM
It's only American news. So who cares?

If you're saying that Rupert Murdoch's media empire is only in america, then that's news to me. :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Building_the_Empire

Pasdar
November 23rd, 2009, 09:23 PM
Getting rid of murdoch propaganda... sounds like an improvement to Google search

RabbitWho
November 23rd, 2009, 09:40 PM
Google is a very big, very wealthy company; .

With nothing but love in their hearts!






Let's not forget that the BBC found out about the tSunami from Twitter, people seeing it, and reporting it on twitter. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_ma ke_history.html
The news belongs to us. We just need someone to organize it into one place for us.

LinuxFanBoi
November 23rd, 2009, 09:48 PM
Getting rid of murdoch propaganda... sounds like an improvement to Google search

+1

Fair and balanced as long as it's in the best interests of the filthy rich WASP business owners. And who the hell pays subscription fees for that garbage anyway?

RabbitWho
November 23rd, 2009, 09:52 PM
Personally I think we should forget about the political leanings of whichever news source we're talking about. I think that's irrelevant. The point is people should have all the facts, all the viewpoints, all the information, available to them at any time.

This is the typical hypocrisy of the left "We're all about freedom and liberalism... DON'T LOOK AT FOX NEWS IT'S LIES IT'S ******** DON'T LOOK AT IT!" And then you "+1" something like this, which will be taking so much knowledge and information away from the general population.
You're just as bad as they are. The media should be free, not controlled or bias and not only right or left. People should be given everything and make the decision themselves what to trust and who to believe.

alphaniner
November 23rd, 2009, 09:54 PM
@Fox bashing: Seriously? If it weren't for Fox there would be little to no criticism of the left, and little to no support of the right, in the MSM. Why is it so terrible that conservatives have a voice?

Ms_Angel_D
November 23rd, 2009, 10:00 PM
@Fox bashing: Seriously? If it weren't for Fox there would be little to no criticism of the left, and little to no support of the right, in the MSM. Why is it so terrible that conservatives have a voice?

I think the point they were trying to make is that with fox all you hear is government propaganda, not anybodys voice, just people who follow the herd.

I'm not saying this is my stance, but it is my interpretation of the post.

ticopelp
November 23rd, 2009, 10:02 PM
This is the typical hypocrisy of the left "We're all about freedom and liberalism... DON'T LOOK AT FOX NEWS IT'S LIES IT'S ******** DON'T LOOK AT IT!" And then you "+1" something like this, which will be taking so much knowledge and information away from the general population.

Advising someone to avoid something != forcing them to avoid something. I think Fox News is so biased as to be factually useless, and I have no quarrel with them digging their own grave, but either way, that's Murdoch's choice, not mine -- just like any viewer of Fox News is making their own choice. No one is making it for them. If Murdoch wants to build a fence around his internet "territory" and cordon his little empire off the rest of the world, that's the free market at work.

I fail to see how being in favor of "freedom" somehow implies responsibility to champion the causes of organizations whose views you disagree with. As far as I can tell neither side of the political spectrum has ever done so, save when it served their own ends.


@Fox bashing: Seriously? If it weren't for Fox there would be little to no criticism of the left, and little to no support of the right, in the MSM. Why is it so terrible that conservatives have a voice?

It isn't Fox's conservatism that bothers me, it's the emotional-appeal model of journalism that bothers me. Also I think the notion that conservative voices are in danger of being silenced in America so unlikely as to border on comedy.

Anyway, bowing out of this discussion now, as it's becoming political and will probably get the thread killed by the mods.

alphaniner
November 23rd, 2009, 10:13 PM
It isn't Fox's conservatism that bothers me, it's the emotional-appeal model of journalism that bothers me.

I don't think there's such a big divide between Fox and MSNBC in this regard. The majority of the leading 'news' programs that are successful are personality-driven. The only network that is really trying to avoid this model is CNN, and their ratings are in the toilet.

ticopelp
November 23rd, 2009, 10:18 PM
I don't think there's such a big divide between Fox and MSNBC in this regard. The majority of the leading 'news' programs that are successful are personality-driven. The only network that is really trying to avoid this model is CNN, and their ratings are in the toilet.

I agree with you on that point. I don't watch MSNBC either.

American mainstream news in general is indistinguishable from tabloid dross much of the time.

alphaniner
November 23rd, 2009, 10:24 PM
American mainstream news in general is indistinguishable from tabloid dross much of the time.

No argument here. The only things from Fox I really care for are Freedom Watch and the half hour Fox News Radio breaks on talk radio.

kevin11951
November 23rd, 2009, 10:49 PM
Personally I get all my news (well, maybe not "all") from TYT (http://www.theyoungturks.com/)... They also record their "News" segment and place it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks).

seeker5528
November 24th, 2009, 12:11 AM
I have a law degree and have specifically studied intellectual property rights in depth. The whole concept really makes no sense from a legal perspective. No one can copyright or "own" the news. They may have first rights of distribution, but once published (in any medium) it goes to the public domain.

I don't know how you could study IP rights without grokking this. I'm not a lawyer and the concept seems relatively simple to me.

The facts within a story (the actual news) are not covered by copywrite, the news coverage supplied by media outlets in written, audio, or video form is covered by copywrite.

You can use the facts from an article elsewhere without permission. You can't copy an article for use elsewhere without permission.

I don't go to google news, bing news, ask.com news, etc... very often, but I do go to a couple of news aggregation sites, which could be viewed in a similar light.

http://www.dailyrotation.com/
http://www.freshnews.org/

What confuses me is this claim about google providing news content and there being some legal avenue to stopping them from providing that content.

If they don't want their stuff linked to by google, there is a mechanism to stop the google spiders from search their site for content, I believe that would also stop the stories from showing up on google news.

But google news and friends do not provide content, they only provide a summary of the content and if you are interested in said content, then you click on the provided link and are taken to the original article at the original site. I don't see how providing a summary of an article could be considered illegal even if it is automatically generated using actual text from the original article.

There is that Google cache thing which might be able to show you something when you can't get to the original page, but that is a different matter.

Later, Seeker

RabbitWho
November 24th, 2009, 10:12 AM
something. I think Fox News is so biased as to be factually useless,



They say the same thing about CNN, and they have the right to; something that most people here don't seem to get. There needs to be "both" sides, or in the case of countries other than America - all sides!

This action would mean that the "left" are seeing less "right" and the "right" are seeing less "left"

(I'm putting these in inverted commas because in the Czech Republic The right are like the American left and the left are like the chineese government.)

Also it means that someone else is deciding and categorising news sites for you. Say you're a teenager and you're not quite sure what the difference between left and right is except that your parents watch FOX, say you're interested in finding out about some earthquake that's happened or some new thing that's been invented, so you type it in in a search engine, you see bbc, euronews, fox, cnn, you can read all of these and get everyones view on it, the website isn't going to say WE ARE LIBERAL or WE ARE CONSERVATIVE on it. You'll get a more balanced view and become a more balanced person, when you turn 18 you'll be better able to make your own decisions about things, it won't matter as much that your parents never had CNN on the TV, you'll still have a better idea about different things and be able to decide for yourself what you beleive.
Filtering news and viewpoints is dangerous dangerous dangerous. If you expose your children only to your own political views they will either become fanatical and unbending or really really impressionable and suseptable to brainwashing.

If a kids parents make their default search engine Bing and if Bing vs Google becomes somehow a Republican vs. Democrat thing it will be a disaster. Google (itself) HAS to be neutral. It's job is to make lists of what is on the internet, it has to be fair.

Wouldn't you be angry at Bing if they intentionally gave right wing websites first place in their listings? Shouldn't you be also angry at Google if they did the same for left wing websites? Can you see why this would be ridiculous?


sniped
It's not just google news we're talking about, it means that if you type in "derailed tram" (number one headline in Czech news right now) you'll get the reports by all the different news sites, not just the ones that haven't been bought by bing.

tom66
November 24th, 2009, 10:35 AM
I'm going to keep using Google until I see something better. Bing isn't it.

But, I seriously hope Google holds on to its market share. It's a really great search engine (and a pretty good company as well). Microsoft taking over? I hope not. We don't need another monopoly for Microsoft.

mivo
November 24th, 2009, 05:10 PM
I think it's interesting how Google maintains their reputation as a "good company" even though they collect and store more information about users than Microsoft ever did. :) (Even when you visit this site here, since Canonical uses Google Analytics (http://www.google.de/search?q=google+analytics+privacy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)).

RabbitWho
November 24th, 2009, 05:54 PM
I think it's interesting how Google maintains their reputation as a "good company" even though they collect and store more information about users than Microsoft ever did. :) (Even when you visit this site here, since Canonical uses Google Analytics (http://www.google.de/search?q=google+analytics+privacy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)).


They collect and store information with, and only with, our permission. They've always been quite transparent in this respect. It's all in the terms and conditions you tick "I have read and agree to..." if you're too lazy to read it that's your fault, don't go following idiotic conspiracy theories about Big Brothers.

Microsoft on the other-hand are constantly in and out of court for illegal practices, mostly attempts to destroy other companies (which goes against the very nature of capitalism - competition - encouraging companies to produce as much as possible as cheaply as possible for as many as possible)


@Fox bashing: Seriously? If it weren't for Fox there would be little to no criticism of the left, and little to no support of the right, in the MSM. Why is it so terrible that conservatives have a voice?

horray!

Grant A.
November 24th, 2009, 06:00 PM
It's only American news. So who cares?

3.3 million faux news zombies in the U.S.


I will be very glad when it's gone. Let's hope Murdoch tries to move it to a pay per view channel, too.

I do think this is quite odd for Microsoft, though. Doesn't Microsoft already own 20% of a liberally-biased news organization? (MSNBC)

mivo
November 24th, 2009, 06:02 PM
They collect and store information with, and only with, our permission. They've always been quite transparent in this respect. It's all in the terms and conditions you tick "I have read and agree to..." if you're too lazy to read it that's your fault, don't go following idiotic conspiracy theories about Big Brothers.

So, show me, where have you given permission for the collecting and storing of information that is accumulated by Google Analytics? It is used on these forums here, by example, so don't be lazy and show me where you were given accurate, complete information about what private data, and the extent, is collected and were asked to give permission.

And does it make a difference if someone is collecting a LOT of information about you after you "agreed" to a long, hard to read legal document with the relevant parts hidden deep in it as fine print? Details are usually not even included.

I have the feeling that you don't even know what Google Analytics is. Why don't you click on the provided link and read some of the hits listed on the second half of the very first page? It may do you some good.

RabbitWho
November 24th, 2009, 06:07 PM
So, show me, where have you given permission for the collecting and storing of information that is accumulated by Google Analytics? It is used on these forums here, by example, so don't be lazy and show me where you were given accurate, complete information about what private data, and the extent, is collected and were asked to give permission.

And does it make a difference if someone is collecting a LOT of information about you after you "agreed" to a long, hard to read legal document with the relevant parts hidden deep in it as fine print? Details are usually not even included.

I have the feeling that you don't even know what Google Analytics is. Why don't you click on the provided link and read some of the hits listed on the second half of the very first page? It may do you some good.

I have read it, yes, you're a lunatic.

mivo
November 24th, 2009, 06:11 PM
Microsoft on the other-hand are constantly in and out of court for illegal practices [...]

If that is the qualifier, then read this article about Google Analytics possibly being illegal in Germany (http://eu.techcrunch.com/2009/11/24/google-analytics-illegal-germany/). And if that goes through, it will likely apply to other EU countries, as well.

I never understood why Canonical uses it on the forums here. Thankfully, it can easily enough be blocked.

mivo
November 24th, 2009, 06:12 PM
I have read it, yes, you're a lunatic.

Heh, in other words, you did not read it, know you lost this argument and have no counter-arguments, and thus fall back on insults. Thanks for playing. No cigar for you.

Swagman
November 24th, 2009, 06:16 PM
I'm happy to let Microsoft haemorrhage money.

As far as news goes.... huh ?

I use Google to search for anything BUT news.

My News RSS feed is from the BBC and is on Firefox's toolbar Latest Headlines. Not that I'd give a damn anyway.. It's practically all bad news anyway.

ticopelp
November 24th, 2009, 06:19 PM
I agree that Google's been pretty up front about their activities. I don't care for stuff like Google's "Web History" which caches everything you search and makes it visible, but at least they give you the option to turn that off.

I don't think storing user information is evil by itself, it's what's done with that information that has the potential to be privacy-invading or detrimental. That to me is the primary difference between Google and Microsoft -- MS has always wanted to control every aspect of the user experience, including things like shutting down people's computers if they change their hardware too many times without MS approval.

RabbitWho
November 24th, 2009, 06:24 PM
Heh, in other words, you did not read it, know you lost this argument and have no counter-arguments, and thus fall back on insults. Thanks for playing. No cigar for you.

I'm a teacher, I have to talk to idiots with stupid theories all day long. This is where I come to relax.
I got up at 6 o clock in the morning (a few breaks in the meantime spent in school) and I finished at five in the evening. You think I want to talk to you about your whacky ideas?
Why should I outline how you're wrong to you, you'll never understand or believe me, and if you do; i won't care!

mivo
November 24th, 2009, 06:34 PM
I'm a teacher, I have to talk to idiots with stupid theories all day long.

More name-calling. I doubt you are a teacher. Lack of manners, lack of logic, lack of discussion culture, a wave of insults when running out of factual arguments ... all of these are pretty good indicators of what someone is and is not.

You made a claim about privacy, and I asked you to back it up with facts. I did back up my statements and provided links, you failed to do the same and instead resorted to name-calling and crude behaviour.

alexfish
November 24th, 2009, 06:42 PM
hope its just a dream or am I dreaming

ticopelp
November 24th, 2009, 06:44 PM
P.S. A very fitting note about this on Seth Godin's blog this morning:

"If you can't make money from attention, you should do something else for a living. Charging money for attention gets you neither money nor attention."

alexfish
November 24th, 2009, 06:48 PM
sorry folks got to bail out here

the other half is back from work

she worse than """"""


thats saying something

ps dont tell her I aint done house work

RabbitWho
November 24th, 2009, 07:11 PM
edit: better to take this to PM and not destroy my own thread which was supposed to be for intelligent discussion

andras artois
November 25th, 2009, 01:11 AM
Because people will want to read totally unbiased news that just so happens to have been bought out :rolleyes:

This is ridiculous.

Fenris_rising
November 25th, 2009, 02:50 AM
I haven't read a news paper in years. I grew weary of the &$%^& that they were filled with and the infamous The Suns 'Hillsborough' headline really capped it for me. It'll be a sad day when news becomes available only if you can pay.

Here's a youtube link to a cracking song about 'Dear Mr Murdoch' I despise the cretin and all his works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gfMFerUP8

regards

Fenris

Ric_NYC
November 25th, 2009, 04:44 AM
Murdoch is evil.

MasterNetra
November 25th, 2009, 05:10 AM
lol this is no skin off my back I never go to Murdoch for news. And seems like I never will I guess, oh well Murdoch goes this route I'd imagine user base will probably drop at least some.

mdshann
November 25th, 2009, 05:58 AM
Heh, in other words, you did not read it, know you lost this argument and have no counter-arguments, and thus fall back on insults. Thanks for playing. No cigar for you.

Your only link was to a bunch of search results so it may be possible that RabbitWho did not read the same thing that you read. In that case here is the Privacy section of the Google Analytics EULA. This is what various companies / web sites agree to when using analytics.



8. PRIVACY

8.1 You will not associate (or permit any third party to associate) any data gathered from Your Website(s) (or such third parties' website(s)) with any personally identifying information from any source as part of Your use (or such third parties' use) of the Service. You will comply with all applicable data protection and privacy laws relating to Your use of the Service and the collection of information from visitors to Your websites. You will have in place in a prominent position on your Website (and will comply with) an appropriate privacy policy. You will also use reasonable endeavours to bring to the attention of website users a statement which in all material respects is as follows:

“This website uses Google Analytics, a web analytics service provided by Google, Inc. (“Google”). Google Analytics uses “cookies”, which are text files placed on your computer, to help the website analyze how users use the site. The information generated by the cookie about your use of the website (including your IP address) will be transmitted to and stored by Google on servers in the United States . Google will use this information for the purpose of evaluating your use of the website, compiling reports on website activity for website operators and providing other services relating to website activity and internet usage. Google may also transfer this information to third parties where required to do so by law, or where such third parties process the information on Google's behalf. Google will not associate your IP address with any other data held by Google. You may refuse the use of cookies by selecting the appropriate settings on your browser, however please note that if you do this you may not be able to use the full functionality of this website. By using this website, you consent to the processing of data about you by Google in the manner and for the purposes set out above.”

8.2 You agree that Google may review your website at any time to verify that you have included an appropriate statement as specified above. You further agree to make such changes to the content or positioning of the statement as Google (acting reasonably) considers necessary in order to ensure compliance with this Section 8.

8.3 You agree that Google and its wholly owned subsidiaries may retain and use, subject to the terms of its Privacy Policy (located at http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html , or such other URL as Google may nominate for this use from time to time), information collected in Your use of the Service (including without limitation Customer Data) for the purpose of providing web analytics and tracking services to You. Google will not share such information with any third parties unless Google (i) has Your consent; (ii) concludes that it is required by law or has a good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public; or (iii) provides such information in certain limited circumstances to third parties to carry out tasks on Google's behalf (e.g., billing or data storage) with strict restrictions that prevent the data from being used or shared except as directed by Google. When this is done, it is subject to agreements that oblige those parties to process such information only on Google's instructions and in compliance with this Agreement and appropriate confidentiality and security measures.

So in other words, google can share the info they gather with canonical and any companies that google has analyze the data collected and only for analyzing the data collected. You IP address is not shared with anyone. You can turn off cookies to keep this from happening.

This to me seems pretty standard for a privacy policy. Nothing scary here at all so I don't understand what your issue is with analytics. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with RabbitWho. There just isn't anything here to be paranoid about.

Oh, and providing links means providing links, not LINK. To be honest, I would be interested in seeing links to the articles/pages you are refering to instead of just search results.

SirBismuth
November 25th, 2009, 06:55 AM
I never have and never will pay for news online. I have a news site that I visit 2-3 times a day, if they decided to make me pay to access the news, I would simply stop visiting them.

People have gotten too used to the concept of free news online, to try to make them pay now will fail dismally, as it did in the 90s. Even at that time, the odds should have been better of people accepting it, but they didn't. Now ten years or so on, there is even less chance of it working.

I do sometimes visit Fox News, and another right-leaning news site, to get a different perspective on a story, but not often. I prefer a site that shows both sides of the story, with a minimum amount of subjectivity.

B

NCLI
November 26th, 2009, 02:18 PM
They say the same thing about CNN, and they have the right to; something that most people here don't seem to get. There needs to be "both" sides, or in the case of countries other than America - all sides!

This action would mean that the "left" are seeing less "right" and the "right" are seeing less "left"

(I'm putting these in inverted commas because in the Czech Republic The right are like the American left and the left are like the chineese government.)

Also it means that someone else is deciding and categorising news sites for you. Say you're a teenager and you're not quite sure what the difference between left and right is except that your parents watch FOX, say you're interested in finding out about some earthquake that's happened or some new thing that's been invented, so you type it in in a search engine, you see bbc, euronews, fox, cnn, you can read all of these and get everyones view on it, the website isn't going to say WE ARE LIBERAL or WE ARE CONSERVATIVE on it. You'll get a more balanced view and become a more balanced person, when you turn 18 you'll be better able to make your own decisions about things, it won't matter as much that your parents never had CNN on the TV, you'll still have a better idea about different things and be able to decide for yourself what you beleive.
Filtering news and viewpoints is dangerous dangerous dangerous. If you expose your children only to your own political views they will either become fanatical and unbending or really really impressionable and suseptable to brainwashing.

If a kids parents make their default search engine Bing and if Bing vs Google becomes somehow a Republican vs. Democrat thing it will be a disaster. Google (itself) HAS to be neutral. It's job is to make lists of what is on the internet, it has to be fair.

Wouldn't you be angry at Bing if they intentionally gave right wing websites first place in their listings? Shouldn't you be also angry at Google if they did the same for left wing websites? Can you see why this would be ridiculous?


It's not just google news we're talking about, it means that if you type in "derailed tram" (number one headline in Czech news right now) you'll get the reports by all the different news sites, not just the ones that haven't been bought by bing.

What's great about Google is that they have their totally neutral search, and the option to arrange results depending on you web history, so that your favorite sites show up on top :D

pwnst*r
November 26th, 2009, 04:31 PM
Google is fine, until you use their Chrome browser.

So, this comes as an annoyance to me.

blah blah blah

PacSci
November 26th, 2009, 05:11 PM
Microsoft doing this is a really bad idea. Anyone has the right to block given search engines if they want to, and if Murdoch really doesn't like Google, that's his choice, but having a company pay them to block their competitors is underhanded. (Though underhanded is right up Microsoft's alley.)

By the way, I don't watch much TV news, or get my news off the Internet. (When I do, I tend to use CNN, just because.) Most of my news comes from my local newspaper, the Enterprise, or occasionally the local news stations - WFMY, WGHP, and WXII. I just like to read newspapers, because they cover a lot of local things that mainstream media won't get, you can actually write in and get your opinion published in the paper, there's not as much sensationalism in the headlines, and you can read it while you're sitting at the bus stop waiting for the bus to come.

Also, at the local-newspaper level you have less bias. Occasionally, people will write in to the Enterprise and complain about them being conservative or liberal, but that's always limited to what they write on the opinion pages (and the fact that they are accused of being both speaks for something). The actual news reporting is remarkably free of bias, more so than any of the national newspapers or news networks.

alexfish
November 26th, 2009, 08:06 PM
I apologise if there had been a thread about this before, give me a link and then close it.

But if not: Microsoft and Murdoch: Teaming up to bash Google?

Rory Cellan-Jones (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/rory_cellanjones/) | 11:24 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009


There's a fascinating story in this morning's edition of the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0.html), which could signal a big shift in the balance of power between parts of the web and other parts of the media. The piece says that Microsoft has been in talks with the media giant News Corporation over a plan which could see the firm behind papers from the Wall Street Journal (http://europe.wsj.com/home-page) to the Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/) being paid to stop Google searching its news websites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/murdoch226.jpg
The implication is that Microsoft's search engine Bing would be the place to go for news - and that Google would have to start paying if it wanted to retain that kind of content.
The FT's story comes a week or so after the Techcrunch UK blog (http://eu.techcrunch.com/2009/11/13/badda-bing-microsoft-woos-newspapers-by-funding-their-stick-to-beat-google/) reported that Microsoft had held talks with European publishers about what sounds like a similar plan to get them onside as part of a battle to make Bing a more attractive and lucrative place than Google for their content.
So is there any truth in either report? Well, a couple of days after the Techcrunch post, I was due to interview a senior executive from Bing, and Microsoft called to ask whether I would be asking about that story. When I said yes I would, they said he could not talk about it - and we therefore pulled out of the interview. Make of that what you will.
All of this comes against the background of Rupert Murdoch's campaign to start getting people to pay for the online content of his newspapers, a move fleshed out last week in a speech by the editor of the Times, James Harding (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=44656&c=1).
But Mr Murdoch has also made it clear that Google - and indeed the BBC - are two major obstacles to this campaign, because they are both major ways to get free news. Meanwhile, Microsoft is anxious to do two things - to give Bing a big push, and to get in on Google's profit margins.
So it's understandable that News Corp and Microsoft might want to unite against the idea that news content on the internet should be free. But there are also plenty of reasons why Microsoft in particular would want to keep these negotiations as quiet as possible.
After all, if internet users get it into their heads that Bing's results are not as unbiased as Google's appear to be, because of an alliance with news providers, then they may well be less keen to switch to Microsoft's search engine.
Ah, but what if Bing were the only place to get quality news because such content had been shut out of Google? Well, that would be an interesting test of just how important news is to the mass of internet users. For we professional journalists, that could be a worrying moment - one where we find out the true market value of our content.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/microsoft_and_murdoch_teaming.html

Does this scare the shite out of anyone else?

NO

this is what they had to say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOv2cUv4gcU