Results matching “rupert murdoch”

When NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch spoke in an interview with Fox Business Network on June 8, he said:

"I can see the day, maybe 20 years away, where you don't actually have paper and ink and printing presses. I think it will take a long time and I think it's a generational thing that is happening. But there's no doubt that younger people are not picking up the traditional newspapers."

Follow the Media's Philip Stone has written about the "Battle royal" going on between Italian prime minister and media mogul Silvio Berlusconi and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch. Berlusconi himself called attention to the rift recently while speaking on one of his TV channels, which he claims has led to News Corp criticism of his relationship with 18-year-old Noemi Letizia.

Stone explores the history of conflict between the two titans, starting in 1998 when Berlusconi rejected Murdoch's offer to buy his TV network Mediaset. Four years later Murdoch entered the market and formed Sky Italia, Italy's only satellite broadcaster, in fact with help from his Italian rival. Sky did well, not least because of its rights to the football matches played by the top Italian leagues, which Murdoch sold in monthly packages. Berlusconi "decided to fight back" and pushed a media law through parliament whereby the top three football teams could sell their home games on Mediaset's new terrestrial digital platform.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a proportion of general news content is going to be put behind some kind of a pay wall in upcoming months. Several publishers have expressed their intentions to start charging, and several third parties want to help them do it. Journalists don't seem to want it, it seems pretty unlikely that readers would want it, so how are publishers going to succeed? Can it restore value to good journalism which is increasingly becoming a commodity? The Editors Weblog takes a look at some of the different services on offer and strategies being considered.

Journalism Online

First, Journalism Online, a start-up founded in April by industry experts Steve Brill, Gordon Crovitz and Leo Hindery, has taken facilitating charging for online content as one of its core goals. Brill made a presentation at the NAA-organised newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28 at which Journalism Online's mission was stated as enabling "news organizations to restore the optimal mix of circulation and advertising revenue necessary to finance original reporting and editing" hence giving them the chance to "realize the revenue they deserve--and can command--from readers and distributors for their digital content."

Journalism Online is marketing its proposal as an e-commerce platform. The idea is that it would make premium content from multiple publishers easily accessible to readers and allow annual, monthly subscriptions, day passes or single articles. There will also be all-you-can-read bundling options. Publishers will decide what content they want to charge for, how much to charge (though it is unclear how all-you-can-read prices will be decided) and how to charge. In the presentation, Brill suggests $50-60 a year and $5-6 a month for small to large city papers, but he stressed that this was an arbitrary choice and clearly the price would depend on how much content the publisher put behind the pay wall. He had previously suggested $15 a month for an all-you-can-read subscription.

The company maintains that implementing its system will not lead to a substantial loss in traffic or ad revenue, claiming that papers would be able to keep 88% of page views and 91% of ad revenue, as any paid content would be part of a hybrid model. In his examples, Brill demonstrates how he believes a paper could essentially double its income. Brill has also stressed that Journalism Online will incorporate lots of sampling. He told Nieman Lab's Zachery Seward that Journalism Online's assumptions are that 5-10% of current monthly unique visitors will be willing to pay for content; that 95 percent of those paying customers will choose subscriptions over micropayments; and that after subscribing, those readers will view 30-40 percent more pages than non-paying readers.

Overall, the company seems to be presenting its service as a chance for newspapers to focus on their best customers, offering a premium service to those who are prepared to pay. At the Chicago meeting, Journalism Online also emphasised the advantages of paid online content in terms of preserving the print product: it is "about the value proposition of print... about print subscriber acquisition and retention costs."

ViewPass

Another third party service was presented at the NAA-organised meeting in Chicago: ViewPass. It is the brainchild of Alan Mutter and Ridgely Evers, and could be implemented in 9 months at a cost of $6 million. The idea is that newspaper readers would be required to register once with ViewPass and it would then track their activity across participating websites.

Like Journalism Online, it would aim to offer readers the chance to purchase premium online content from multiple sources, with potential for subscriptions, micropayments and bundling. Essentially, the ways in which it differs is that ViewPass would be industry-owned, giving publishers the chance to (hopefully) share profits in the business itself, and it most crucially it would allow users to 'pay' for their content with their time or their information instead of with cash, because of their increased value to advertisers. In fact, ViewPass would focus on presenting readers that were attractive to advertisers for highly targeted ads. Mutter himself is not enthusiastic about charging for much online content, suggesting to Nieman Lab that it would only work for specialist content.

Circlabs

The creation of another start up was announced the day before the Chicago meeting: CircLabs, founded by Bill Densmore, Jeffrey Vander Clute, Martin Langeveld and Joe Bergeron. Its first product, code-named Circulate, aims to "offer a solution" to publishers who are experimenting with micropayments and subscriptions, suggesting that they should charge for content which is "both scarce in nature and of high utility to a segment of the audience." CircLabs is also focussed on developing opportunities for "high-value" advertising revenue, and plans to incorporate personalised news services. Further details are yet to appear.

Efforts of individual publishers

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch has announced that all the company's newspapers would be charging within a year. It is looking at bundling content, according to chief digital officer Jonathan Miller, such as putting all the media conglomerate's New York-based content into one subscription package. One of the company's prime assets, the Wall Street Journal, is proof that paid premium content does work, although of a specifically financial nature. The paper is to expand its paid online options, with plans to introduce micropayments later this year along with a further level of premium subscriptions. Murdoch suggested that the company wants to "test" a pay model on some of its stronger properties first, and there has been speculation that the Sunday Times will be among these. The paid online content debate, although definitely present in the UK, has not been as strong as across the Atlantic, and it would be interesting to see what sort of reaction such a move would provoke.

MediaNews Group is planning to charge online under the belief that "we continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free." A memo to staff from CEO Dean Singleton and president Jody Lodovic suggested that a part-paid strategy is in the works, and made it clear that the company is intending to charge for existing content rather than for new products or services.

The New York Times is apparently looking at two different ways in which it could charge for online content. The first would be somewhat similar to the Financial Times' model, whereby readers could surf the site without charge until a page-view or word limit were reached, when a 'metre' would start running and it would charge a user for the rest of their time spent. (The FT allows 10 free articles per user per month, then demands a subscription.) This would have the advantage of not putting specific content behind a paywall, and therefore not angering journalists.

The other option is a 'membership' scheme: readers would donate money and subsequently be invited into a "New York Times community," which would offer them free merchandise and other benefits. Possibly a tiered membership scheme could be implemented. When these proposals were discussed, Bill Keller told staff that a decision would be made by the end of June. The NYT is wary following its failed TimesSelect experience back in 2007 and seems determined to find a solution that will not damage its significant ad revenue.

Potential obstacles: search and antitrust

Currently many people find their news through search engines such as Google, and for articles to get good Google rankings and appear higher up in search results, they cannot be behind a paywall. Newspapers must strive to find an appropriate solution to this when they start charging: the Wall Street Journal's tactic of allowing its paid content to be accessed free via Google is clearly not fair to its paying customers, and is a definite deterrent to potential subscribers.

Antitrust regulations in the US effectively prevent publishers from coming to a joint agreement on when and how they should start charging for content. At the newspaper executives' meeting in Chicago on May 28, an antitrust lawyer was present to make sure all the discussion was legal. Poynter analyst Rick Edmonds suggested that the use of a third party "vendor" such as Journalism Online could be the solution to these concerns. Journalism Online has taken on David Boies and Ted Olson for antitrust advice.

So, is it going to work? And how?

Undoubtedly, implementing paid content is going to be a considerable challenge and is likely to involve substantial experimentation. Newspapers need to consider what exactly they would want to charge for, for example whether they could create a new paid service or put what is currently free behind a pay wall. It seems as if it would be easier to persuade people to pay for something new, rather than telling them they have to start paying for something previously free. But then people might decide that they are happy with what they get now and that they do not want to pay for anything extra. A paper with a highly developed website such as the New York Times could possibly offer basic news free but keep its interactive graphics and other more innovative content for its premium customers.

As yet, Journalism Online seems to be ahead of the pack with regards to third party services. No papers have publicly signed on but Brill told Seward that he had already spoken to about half of those at the Chicago meeting. In terms of connections and credibility of its founders, Journalism Online has a head start. ViewPass and CircLabs do seem to be onto something, however, with their focus on offering consumers as targets for higher-revenue advertising and effectively allowing them to pay for their news by looking at ads. Could these companies coexist, or is there only room for one?

A crucial factor which should not be underestimated in any attempt to charge online is ease of use for the consumer. People will be far more likely to part with their cash if doing so is simple and straightforward. For this reason, sign-in-once and all-you-can-read offers are likely to appeal. And once people are paying, the level of service should reflect this: good journalism presented attractively and accessibly. An element of personalisation would also seem worth paying for.

Can paid online content 'save' newspapers? If Journalism Online's figures are correct, it looks like it could make a significant difference to a newspaper's fortunes. The next few months will be telling in terms of experimentation and competition between proposals, but it will take some years for the definitive answer to this question to be realised.

Pess freedom in Italy has come under international scrutiny in recent weeks as a down-grading of the press's freedom status by US non-profit Freedom House has coincided with an increase in prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's aggression towards media outlets which oppose him. Leading left-leaning daily La Repubblica has even attempted to take on the premier directly, publishing a list of questions concerning his relationship with a young girl, to which it believes he owes answers. A Dutch politician has threatened to take action in the European parliament against the Italian leader because of journalistic constraints. Should a newspaper be demanding such information which concerns a politician's private life? Is the press freedom situation as bad as it seems?

The La Repubblica crusade

On May 14 La Repubblica journalist Giuseppe D'Avanzo published ten questions directed at the prime minister concerning his involvement with 18-year-old Noemi Letizia. Berlusconi's relationship with the girl gained mass media attention when, four days after the prime minister dropped in on the girl's 18th birthday party in Naples, his wife issued a press release accusing him of "consorting with minors" and pressing for a divorce. Berlusconi promptly went on a late-night political chat show to defend himself, but the holes in his story which have gradually emerged have attracted even more attention than the original incident. D'Avanzo's questions address these holes and ask the premier to come clean about the nature of his encounters with the girl. Berlusconi has not yet answered the questions and has given no indication that he intends to. The paper has put a timer on its website to indicate the days, hours, minutes and seconds since the questions were issued, and even offers them in English.

Berlusconi himself has tried to present the left-leaning paper's campaign as a left-wing plot to undermine his authority, accusing the paper of lying and adding in an interview on TV-channel Sky that he believes many readers will abandon the paper because of this. His office issued a statement saying referring to the "campaign of denigration" and saying that the paper is driven by "jealousy and hatred."  The prime minister has fought back as the story developed, with his lawyers applying for the seizure of photos taken at his Sardinian villa (where Letizia reportedly attended parties with other young women) before they could be published, and a journalist from Berlusconi's brother's Milan-based daily Il Giornale posing as a member of the foreign press to get an interview with Ms Letizia's former boyfriend in an attempt to discredit him.
 
 
The international reaction 
La Repubblica has defended its actions, with editor Ezio Mauro saying that "There are contradictions here and when the powers that be don't explain something, journalism has a job to do." And foreign journalists seem to agree. The paper also featured an interview with Bill Emmott, former editor of the Economist, who said that "for a newspaper, asking a political leader questions is not only legitimate, but part of its mission to inform the people." According to the International Herald Tribune, "for the first time in recent memory, the Italian press is shining a bright light into the dark recesses of a politician's personal life." The Times wrote that the premier's campaign against La Repubblica "looks ominously like an attempt to cow dissent rather than protect a private reputation" and that "his newspaper critics are performing a public service for a badly governed populace." A Financial Times editorial criticised the way that Berlusconi turned on La Repubblica following the questions, and stressed that part of the "danger of Berlusconi... is that of the media sapping the serious content of politics, and replacing it with entertainment."

Berlusconi has reacted with anger and scepticism to such foreign criticism. He seems to refuse to believe that papers might be acting of their own accord, announcing that "the international press's campaign is being orchestrated by an Italian group" and referring to it as a left-wing "plot." He insists that the foreign press is misrepresenting the Italian situation, and a rift in his relationship with Rupert Murdoch seems to be further deteriorating following the Times' article and others. He has accused the Times of writing critical editorials about him because his government is in dispute with News Corp. Il Giornale, owned by the prime minister's brother Paolo, ran a story discussing the FT editorial entitled "The left has also enlisted the Financial Times."

One of a newspaper's main goals should be to act as a watchdog over the government, but it is unusual for a paper to take on a country's leader so directly, particularly over a matter which is largely private. In the UK, the Daily Telegraph's recent campaign over MPs' expenses was firmly in the public interest, as it dealt with public money being used by members of parliament for personal gain. Berlusconi has been derisive of the media discussing what he says is his private life. Should a paper be putting so much focus on an issue that is arguably unrelated to the prime minister's ability to govern the country? Is this indicative of media trivialisation?

The Times editorial does not see the questions as intrusive, as they relate to Berlusconi's "public roles as politician and media magnate". The Independent's Peter Popham said that the media "cannot be accused of muck-raking on the issue because it was Mr Berlusconi himself who drew attention to the relationship" by attending the 18-year-old's party and not only posing for photographs but publicly giving the girl a 6000euro gold necklace. And the fact that a politician might have lied to the public is probably enough of an incentive to investigate.
 
Press freedom in Italy
 
Italy has a fairly unique media situation, which makes confrontation between a newspaper and the prime minister even more pertinent. The country's press freedom status is clearly in question. A Dutch politician who is leader of the Green Left party in the European Parliament, Judith Sargentini, has said that her party is considering taking legal action against Berlusconi because of the press freedom constraints in his country. Amongst her complaints is the fact that the premier blocks critical questions at press conferences. If a majority of the European Parliament were to agree to the initiation of legal proceedings, then the matter would come before the European Court of Justice.

US-based nonprofit Freedom House recently downgraded Italy's press freedom status from 'free' to 'partly free' for 2008. In conversation with Karin Karlekar, editor of the report, she explained that the main reasons given for this were the unusually high level of media concentration, particularly in broadcasting, threats from organised crime and others, and attacks on journalists, mainly from far right groups. During Berlusconi's former term as prime minister, the country was also given partly free ratings, and Karlekar added that the media concentration was "one of the highest levels anywhere in the world."

Daria Gorodisky, a veteran Corriere della Sera journalist who is also a union representative for the paper, told the Editors Weblog that she believes there is a "truly enormous press freedom problem in Italy" which will be "extremely difficult to resolve." She does not place blame for this directly on the government but on the fact that there are no "pure" newspaper owners, rather, those who publish newspapers also run other businesses and therefore have aims and interests aside from their papers. She also believes that the quality of Italy's journalism schools have deteriorated as more and more have sprung up. She did, however, point out that this is not the first time that Berlusconi has threatened the press.

Internet penetration is low in Italy in comparison to that of its Western European neighbours: about 48%, compared to 72% in the UK or 66% in France, for example. This low figure would suggest that many people are more likely to get their news from television and one or two newspapers, rather than the range of sources that online readers might visit. Despite this, however, Karlekar noted the country's "very vibrant and influential" blogosphere, particularly politically-orientated blogs.

Gorodisky commented that although some journalists were "very worried" by the situation, she did not think that there was enough widespread concern about Italy's press freedom status. Karlekar said that her organisation's report had sparked considerable debate and she had received both praise and hate mail from Italians. Niccolo Ghedini, lawyer to Berlusconi, dismissed the report on a TV show called Anno Zero, saying it was a private organisation and took its information from only two sources, La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera. Karlekar responded that she was "not sure where he got that" and was clear that "the range of sources is large and our authors would never just rely on one or two." She added that it was "interesting that the government felt compelled to respond in some way."
 
Karlekar did say that Berlusconi did not seem to be "exerting the same amount of influence over the broadcast media" as he did during his previous term as prime minister; there seems to be less "overt political manipulation." She was also clear that she did not think that the high media concentration had "stifled" the whole media, and drew attention to the diversity in terms of political opinion in the print sector.

Arguably there are far more important questions that the Italian press could be asking its country's leader, rather than focusing on the somewhat sordid details of his involvement with a teenage girl. But as a vital part of the press's role in a democracy is to play watchdog on the government, the fact that a paper is challenging the prime minister to clear up inconsistencies is something that must be welcomed. And even though the original issue may not be crucial in itself, the other questions it has brought up concerning use of government planes for private use, for example, are very pertinent. Given how much of the media the prime minister does control, and the fact that even the journalists who do not currently work for Berlusconi know that they may well some day, the press freedom situation could undoubtedly be worse than it is, and it is important that journalists keep fighting.

News Corp chief digital officer Jonathan Miller has said  the company is looking into bundling its online content when it adopts a new pay model, according to the Hollywood Reporter. He also expressed his belief that paid online news is the future and indicated that the media conglomerate is willing to lead a push for change.  

Miller, speaking at the Hollywood Reporter's Digital Power event in New York, explained that "we want to see a model established" for charging online, adding that  "what works for consumers, I think - and this has to be tested - are bundles." He suggested that News Corp's various papers or various New York media outlets could be bundled. It is an idea which has proved successful for cable TV channels and which many believe could also work for news, as an alternative to individual subscriptions to general news sites, which largely failed. It is one of the options proposed by start-up company Journalism Online.

According to an article in today's Guardian Media, the Sunday Times is planning to launch its own standalone website and is even considering introducing a paywall.

Publisher News International is a subdivision of News Corp headed by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch has expressed his desire - to see his newspapers based around the world to follow the example of the Wall Street Journal by charging readers for content - on numerous occasions.

Last week's "secret" meeting between newspaper publishers in Chicago has prompted much discussion and commentary about the implications of such a meeting, particularly in terms of antitrust laws. According to the AP, the meeting's agenda was titled "Models to lawfully monetize content," and an antitrust lawyer was present, said the Newspaper Association of America, which organised the meeting.

In his article, "How the Obama administration can save newspapers," Los Angeles Times writer Tim Rutten argues that the way to save US newspapers is to make it easier for them to charge for online content.  It seems clear that charging for general news content would have a far greater chance of succeeding if all newspapers were to start to do this simultaneously. The same goes for licensing their content to search engines: it will only be possible if it is an industry wide effort. And such moves are currently illegal, as Rutten points out, under laws barring collusion and price-fixing.

News Corps CEO Rupert Murdoch yesterday reiterated his conviction that newspapers must charge readers online, and expressed extremely strong opposition to the idea of a government bailout for newspapers. He was speaking on the News Corp-owned Fox Business Network.

"We would never take money from the government," he declared, as this would mean giving up "our freedoms and everything else to criticise or to play our full role in the community." He added that he did not think that "even the New York Times would," and expressed doubt that the government would even try to offer money. Debate about government intervention in newspapers has grown following a recent US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet which discussed whether to help newspapers become non-profit or whether to relax antitrust laws. Obama then told those at the White House correspondents' dinner that "government without a tough and vibrant media is not an option for the United States of America."

Martin Morgan, chief executive of the Daily Mail & General Trust has revealed that the group is considering methods of charging for its content, as well as devices such as Amazon's Kindle. Whilst he did say not to expect a "big initiative that is going to come out any time soon," he said that DMGT is "certainly looking at those models."

"The more specialised the information is . . . the more likely to you are to be able to charge for it," believes Morgan - DMGT's flagship publication the Daily Mail is particularly known for its celebrity coverage. The paid online content debate is rife, and Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp has recently announced that the company will be charging for content on all of its sites within a year - could more publications be set to follow?

Source: Financial Times

Poynter's Romenesko blog has published a memo from MediaNews Group CEO Dean Singleton and president Jody Lodovic to the group's employees which explains that the company is planning to charge for online content, to revamp its websites and to build new local information sites. The memo, originally sent on May 8, is the result of a recent executive meeting on the company's interactive strategy.

The interactive summit was meant to address "three daunting challenges" that the company is facing. The first is that "we continue to do an injustice to our print subscribers and create perceptions that our content has no value by putting all of our print content online for free." As well as reducing print circulation, this "devalues the core of our business - the great local journalism we (and only we) produce on a daily basis." The second is that "our interactive revenue growth has slowed because it has been too closely tied to our print classified business, which has suffered with the advent of Craigslist" and others. Thirdly, "we are not significantly extending the reach of our audience, as our online products too closely resemble the newspaper, and thus fail to meaningfully read the next generation of readers."

New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee gave details on her Twitter feed of the paper's discussions at a strategy presentation to staff yesterday on how the Times might charge for online content, amongst other things. The meeting for news staff was held at the company's Manhattan based headquarters, reported the Guardian.

Her 'tweets' indicated that the NYT is considered introducing a tiered membership scheme, which was compared to an American Express credit card membership with different levels such as platinum and gold. The paper is also "rethinking the assumption that home delivery subscribers get access to everything," and thinking of membership as a "brand building product, not online product."

In what the Financial Times describes as "a first step towards charging for its content on smartphones", Thomson Reuters has launched overhauled its mobile applications. The new apps contain video and market data, as well as headlines. Whilst remaining free for the moment, Alisa Bowen, head of consumer publishing at the company added "It would be a logical conclusion that there would be a paid element in time... The ability to launch premium services is our ultimate goal."

Similarly, the Wall Street Journal's iPhone and Blackberry applications remain free - despite content being charged for on the publication's website. However, Rupert Murdoch recently revealed that users of the paper's iPhone application would soon be required to "pay handsomely". Journal editor Robert Thomson also revealed that it will launch "a sophisticated micropayments service" for the main website this autumn.

"Prepare  yourself for an all new digital media experience," says Australia's Daily Telegraph talking about Papermotion, a revolutionary new technology that will enable readers to digitally interact with advertising not online, but on print.

Developed by French company, Total Immersion, together with an Australian firm called the Dreamscape Group, Papermotion uses special animation technology to turn an otherwise static, one-dimensional object on print into a three-dimensional moving image including sound. To activate content, readers visit a special website before running the print image past their webcam which, in turn, feeds the picture to the site and transforms it using a variety of media, including video, audio, music and games.

Wall Street Journal managing editor Robert Thomson has told the Financial Times that the paper is planning to launch "a sophisticated micropayments service" this autumn along with premium subscriptions. The system will be aimed at occasional users and pricing would be "rightfully high," Thomson said.

The premium subscriptions will focus on specialist areas such as energy, commodities, wealth management and other niches, reported the FT, and premium subscribers will have web access to the Dow Jones newswire, which is currently a product aimed solely at companies. When WSJ Online executive editor Alan Murray mentioned this "premium initiative" in April, he also suggested the paper was considering a news service for chief financial officers.

Guardian Media Group chief executive Carolyn McCall suggested to delgates at FIPP, the World Magazine Congress, that the Guardian is not ruling out charging for more specialist parts of its website in the future. She said that as many publishers rethink their business models, charging for online content that is not easily replicated is one of the solutions that may arise. She mentioned MediaGuardian as an example of a "specialist area" which might be able to charge readers.

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch just announced that his papers are to charge for online content in the next year, and with the recent founding of Journalism Online LLC which aims to facilitate online payment for news, more papers may well follow.

It seems unlikely that the Guardian is going to follow News Corp down the paid content road in the immediate future, however. GMG Head of Communications Chris Wade explained that the Guardian website is currently "not reviewing its strategy in this area." McCall also pointed out that the strong presence of the BBC might make it harder to persuade users to pay for newspaper content as it provides free news on "every aspect - politics, society, education."

Source: Guardian

Charging for online publications is looking more appealing among publishers as we see News Corporation, and The New York Times Company leaning towards the idea of putting up pay walls either for part or all of their websites.

Tough advocate for paid online content, Rupert Murdoch announced News Corp is considering charging within a year. "That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal's experience," he said in reference to growing WSJ.com subscription revenues. He said that they might start the moves in the next year.

In the new Innovations in Newspapers 2009 World Report, Rupert Murdoch said newspapers will succeed depending on the relationships they develop with their readers, regardless of how news is delivered. The Innovation International Media Consulting Group released the annual survey today (27 April) for the World Association of Newspapers.

Newsquest has announced its decision to merge the websites of its publications TheHerald.co.uk and SundayHerald.com into one new site: heraldscotland.com. PaidContent describes the move as "something of a no-brainer", as many other news organisations have already integrated their daily, Sunday and website operations over the past few years. Editor-in-chief Donald Martin also referred to Rupert Murdoch's assertion that newspapers should charge for content during the announcement - although did not say that heraldscotland.com would be doing this.

In December, there was another example of Scottish Newsquest titles converging when Martin was appointed to the post of editor-in-chief at both the Herald and the Sunday Herald - added to the post of editor of the Glasgow Evening Times, which he already held. Former Scotsman editor Tim Luckhurst recently wrote about the Herald's declining circulation in direct relation to his concerns for democracy in Scotland.

Source: PaidContent

James Murdoch, son of the media magnate Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp, is being talked about as a hope for the newspaper industry and a potential heir for his father. James Murdoch has been the CEO of News Corp's European and Asian operations since 2007, running News International: Britain's largest newspaper group.

The Wall Street Journal released a free iPhone application yesterday, Wednesday April 15, which allows readers to freely access WSJ's text, radio and video content, a significant move considering they're one of the few websites that still charge for content. Rupert Murdoch, CEO of WSJ stated recently that online papers should be charging for news if they want to survive.

About eight months ago, WSJ created a free application for Blackberry, yet they charge $9.99 a month on Amazon's Kindle. Critics highlight how ironic it seems that one of the oldest pay walls online is allowing users to find ways around paying. However, they also argue that it is the Journal's move to help broaden their audience.

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, in which 96 Liverpool FC fans were crushed to death on the terraces. At the time, as it does today, the event made headlines across the country; for the most part, sympathetic with the plight of the Liverpool fans. However, the Sun and its then editor Kelvin MacKenzie notoriously laid the blame firmly at the feet of the fans.

In an article headlined 'THE TRUTH', three sub-headings below read "Some fans picked pockets of victims ... Some fans urinated on the brave cops ... Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life". The story sparked outrage in Liverpool, and as a result many in the city boycotted the newspaper.  In 2004, when the Sun apologised for making "the most terrible mistake in its history", circulation of the publication in Liverpool was still just 12,000 - compared to 3.3 million nationwide.

Rupert Murdoch, News Corp Chairman and CEO, has announced that the company is to create a new portal that will allow its worldwide editorial properties to share content and resources across the entire organisation. "The creation of a new unit designed to share valuable news content and harness the power of News Corporation's vast editorial resources is vital to our success as a global media entity," he said.

Executive VP of News Editorial for Fox News John Moody has been appointed to oversee the new unit. He will be reporting directly to Murdoch, and will collaborate with news chiefs across all News Corp properties "to improve news gathering efficiencies and identify areas of cost savings," which implies that the move is largely financially motivated. News Corp's vast empire includes the Wall Street Journal, the Dow Jones Newswire, the Times of London, the Sun, the New York Post and Sky Italia, as well as Fox News.

According to an article published on the Nieman Journalism Lab website, "print is still king", with only 3% of newspaper reading taking place online.

Journalist Martin Langveld says that his study - in which he attempts to calculate the average number of online page impressions compared to print - "was prompted" by an earlier article by John Duncan on his blog, Inksniffer, which concludes that web metric data for newspaper sites is grossly misleading. Using the UK's Guardian site as a starting point, Duncan's study shows that the act of digesting a newspaper online only equates to about 17% of the total page impressions made by its print equivalent.

Unlike Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp, Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR says that free online news is the way to go. Murdoch said last week that newspapers should start charging for online content if they want to survive. Schiller, however, is sure that paid content would not work, telling Andy Plesser, executive producer of Beet.TV that it would drive readers away to "lesser quality news content that is free."

When Murdoch spoke last week, he used The New York Times to illustrate an online paper that, he believes, has a great website but is not covering its costs with online ad revenue only. When asked how he thought the NYT would do if it charged its Internet readership, his response was "fairly well." One of News Corp's papers, The Wall Street Journal is one of the few that does charge for online content.

Alan Murray, the executive editor for WSJ.com, says that paid content on their website has worked out for them. He said news sites should have both free and paid articles, saying that niche content is more likely to succeed with a pay wall.

Source: Beet.TV, PaidContent.org

The Associated Press board of directors has announced that it will launch an industry initiative to protect news content "from misappropriation online," developing a system to tag and track content distributed online to determine if it is being legally used.  At the AP's annual meeting in San Diego on Monday, Chairman Dean Singleton said that the organisation would work with portals and other partners who properly license content, and pursue legal and legislative actions against those who do not.

"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," Singleton asserted. AP President Tom Curley said that the initiative will also include developing new search pages that point users to the latest and most authoritative sources of breaking news.