Murdoch could block Google searches entirely – The Guardian — The interview with Sky is long but fairly interesting. Clearly Rupert is getting desperate. How’s MySpace working out for you, mate?

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google’s search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of “kleptomania” and acting as a “parasite” for including in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google’s search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

“I think we will, but that’s when we start charging,” he said. “We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it’s not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story – but if you’re not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form.”




  1. TooManyPuppies says:

    It’ll be a great momentous day for the human race if all of Rupert Fucktard’s sites were blocked. I already do it locally, so by all means, please do it.

    To the stillborn retard that wrote this drivel at The Guardian, the phrase is “It’s IN the cards” you jackass!

  2. Athon says:

    I only read one paper religiously, but Google (and other search engines) allow me to pick the most relevant stories to whatever shiny object has my interest.

    Google exposes your business to me, something that I would never see if your subscription only…and frankly irrelevant to my point of view.

    You have me in your publication’s website reading an article, possibly clicking through a relevant ad…and you owe that to the search engine.

    It’s not their fault your business model is broken and you are having problems monetizing what no longer works.

    Watch your Murdoch’s Internet traffic shrivel and die…just think of the money he could save on servers and bandwidth!

  3. Two to the Head says:

    Good Riddance! See Ya.

  4. Luc says:

    I love these comedians who say “your product/service/business is only relevant to me if you let me have it for free.” Ha! If you adamantly refuse to pay, then YOU are the irrelevant one. I am self-employed and have to deal with a lot of dipshits who think that I should render my services for a pitance or for free. Those people might as well die today for all I care. Why would I EVER cater to people who have determined they are not going to pay? What’s in it for me?

    And DU just won’t get over the moral issue: criticizes the company that wants to charge for the content it generates (at a cost), but will pass the hat around asking for donations. Oh, sure! That’s the noble thing to do in 2009! Don’t charge for your services. Instead, be a bum and beg for money from the passers by who sympathize with you and drop a quarter into your hat, and idolize Google for undermining thousands of businesses. Who needs businesses and jobs anyway? Just let Google rule and have them all. Then blame Maddoch for being too smart or whichever Dem or Repub is in charge for not “creating” enough jobs.

    Unfuckingbelievable.

  5. lofa says:

    Good. Let him block his propaganda garbage from Google. Who cares about Murd(er)och. He’s just another greedy money monster.

    As the old saying goes, a fool and his money soon part.

  6. reader1 says:

    Here , I even get some newspapers for free handed out to me in the Subway.

    No one pays for newspapers anymore, they are ad supported , I will definitely not going to pay for a newspaper or a news website.

    And I agree with # 35, who cares.

    This guy is really out of touch with current trends.