That's bad news not only for News Corp. chairman Murdoch but also for all the other old media barons hoping online paywalls will save their bacon. Even those who will pay can't decide if they want to buy individual articles via micropayments, subscribe to print-online bundles or subscribe to just the website:

Then there's the anecdotal evidence collected by Ad Age's Simon Dumenco, who surfed the comments section of Murdoch's websites and found that most of his own readers thought his paywall would fail. Some were downright mean, like Times of London reader Robin Stack: "It will reduce your wealth and influence; please do it."

So, in order to have any hope of weaning consumers off free content, the likes of Murdoch will have to offer a diverse array of payment plans and work like hell to change the thinking of the vast majority of his existing audience. For moguls used to exploiting their readers' and viewers' basest instincts, that sounds like an awful lot of persuading.

That's basically what he told his employee in a Sky News Interview, excerpted above:

Q: You could choose not to be on their search engine... so when someone runs a search your websites won't come up.


A: Well, I think we will... when we start charging.

This is certainly technically possible; all it takes is one correctly-placed text file to tell Google to ignore some or all of a website. And who knows, Murdoch's armies of lawyers and lobbyists might even succeed in effecting the other drastic change he mentioned: rolling back the entire doctrine of fair use, an interpretation of copyright law that allows the sort of quoting and selective reproduction of content that Murdoch's newspapers and TV networks engage in every day.

This isn't the first time Murdoch, 78, and his lieutenants have been made unfriendly noises about Google; they've recently attacked the search engine as a "parasite" with "promiscuous" users. This hostility must seem perfectly sensible if you're an old man who has your secretary find and print up Web pages on your behalf. But here's a pro tip, Rupert: Old media doesn't instant message those pages to your assistant's Twitter, via Blogger, on AOL. She just does what your newspaper reporters and Fox News producers and sales executives and tabloid editors and attack-dog flacks and mid-level accountants do all the time every day: Sticks a hot, throbbing search query into Google and gets busy with a bunch of strange website she doesn't subscribe to. Welcome to the internet.

Sterling's seemingly meandering and occasionally infuriating talk at the annual Reboot digital culture conference in Copenhagen, Denmark this year attracted some notice, originally, but deserves a wider hearing, if only for his contextualization of Steve Jobs and Nicolas Sarkozy as gothic figures and his advocacy on behalf of expensive beds. Luckily, protoblogger Dave Winer recently re-uploaded and linked the talk.

Observers of the social networking wars should listen to Sterling's rundown on "favela chic," excerpted above. Rupert Murdoch, familial overlord of MySpace parent News Corp., is cast as the "remote, distanct, old-school Brazilian tyrant," while MySpace accounts are likened to "huts." Who knows: Maybe when you lose your job, an anonymous space in News Corp.'s online hellscape might start sounding a lot more fun than the prim, proper — and all-too-accountable — playground that is Facebook.

(Sterling pic: Daniel Barradas)

MySpace CEO and would-be savior Owen Van Natta, the studmuffin hired away from Facebook, told the Financial Times he's not gunning for his ex employer any more:

"Facebook is not our competition," he said. "We're very focused on a different space."

Van Natta added that MySpace it will focus on its strength: Music. MySpace has become the default Web host for independent rock bands, and recently purchased music software company iLike.

MySpace wasn't always so blasé about social networking, the company used to have Facebook in its sights. It was barely two years ago that Van Natta's predecessor Chris DeWolfe got an urgent phone call from Peter Chernin at MySpace's parent company saying, "I need a plan for dealing with Facebook in two weeks." This led, according Julia Angwin's book Stealing Myspace, to a strategy for dealing with "the Facebook challenge head on," presented at a Merrill Lynch conference.

"I realize every person in tis room wants to ask me about Facebook, and, frankly, I want to talk about Facebook," [Fox Interactive Media president Peter] Levinsohn said.

But these days MySpace has just one third of Facebook's users. No wonder the company is singing a different tune.

It's just not a well advised one. Instead of competing with a money-losing internet company headed by a twentysomething college dropout, MySpace will now be taking on Apple (cash hoard: $30 billion) and Google (annual profits: $5 billion, operator of YouTube and soon to be a retailer of MP3s). Sounds like a great plan.

Whispers emanating from the Journal's parent, News Corp., have the paper on track to lose $100 million this year, says one tipster. That's hard to believe, given the $59 million contribution that Journal publisher Dow Jones made to News Corp.'s bottom line as recently as the last quarter of 2008. But Dow Jones profits fell in both of the quarters reported since, according to public earnings reports. News Corp. didn't give precise figures for Dow Jones or the Journal, but did disclose that all News Corp. newspapers saw combined profits fall 97 percent January through April and revenue fall 24 percent in the three months after that.

The Journal could cut some costs by slicing its ridiculous video army down to one guy, plus a cameraman with a cheap recorder, and maybe a video editor. After all, as Current TV's Brett Erlich has show, it's possible to create some seriously fun financial programming with bare-bones production values. Or the Journal can just keep imitating cable news networks, even to the point of absurdly saying "we're running out of time," as the host did toward the end of today's "AM Report." After all, it's not like News Corp. owns a real financial net of its own, or anything.

UPDATE: Dow Jones says it uses "less than 10 staffers" to make the video, and Business Insider has updated its post to reflect that assertion, adding it got its earlier number from "people involved in the show."

Reuters says both Murdoch and Liberty Media's John Malone are sniffing around the 20 percent stake in NBC Universal that Vivendi is prepared to sell, but neither man has actually approached NBC Universal owner GE about a deal. As much as we'd love to imagine MSNBC under Murdoch's gentle-but-firm leadership, here's why it's not going to happen:

1. The report of Murdoch's interest comes via CNBC, which is the preferred in-house avenue for GE getting its messages out there on this deal. So it's almost certainly just a way for GE to keep pressure on Comcast and let them know that it has other options.

2. The FCC would blow a gasket. News Corp. already owns two television stations in nine markets, and is maxed out in terms of how many the FCC will let him own. It's unclear to us whether a minority stake in NBC Universal would trigger the FCC's limits on ownership and require Murdoch to sell off some of his assets in order to satisfy regulators, but the anti-trust implications of one television, cable, and movie giant owning a significant stake of another television, cable, and movie giant—especially when radical leftists control the White House and the Justice Department—make it a far stretch.

3. The Comcast purchase is a done deal, because the mellifluously named prognosticator Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's computer has ordained that it will happen. Bueno de Mesquita, whom the CIA hires to predict the future using Microsoft Excel and has a purported 90 percent accuracy rate, was asked by the Wall Street Journal's Dennis K. Berman to weigh in on the acquisition, and he says it will happen, based on what Berman told him about the players' intentions:

For the Comcast-NBCU game, I provided Dr. Bueno de Mesquita a crude approximation of the positions of the dozen parties most likely to influence a deal.

[snip]

Of course, these were rough estimates done on the fly. As Dr. Bueno de Mesquita reminded me, my evaluations could be flawed. His work was done over a weekend, which may influence the quality of the results. Most assignments can take three weeks, at an opening price of $50,000.

Oh, OK. That settles it then.

After infamous Post cartoonist Sean Delonas published a panel depicting a dead monkey who wrote President Obama's stimulus bill, associate editor Guzman sent an email to other reporters saying "I had nothing to do with the Sean Delonas cartoon... I have raised my objections to management." Naturally, the note went public.

The Post fired Guzman last week when it discontinued her section, Tempo. But sources inside the paper tell the Huffington Post's Sam Stein that it seemed management was looking for an excuse to get rid of Guzman.

She has been on their shit list and they were trying to look for a reason to get rid of her.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/ny-post-fires-editor-crit_n_311432.html

Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns the Post, is, by all accounts, an organization especially obsessed with loyalty and hierarchy. And Guzman spoke out of turn. Yes, she was correct, and her comments were, even then, restrained. Yes, Murdoch agreed with her, writing that the cartoon was "a mistake... I want to personally apologize..." And yes, in an era of Twitter and Facebook overshares, there are editors who regularly slag their own publications far harder. But it would appear that none of these mitigating circumstances matter in the insular culture of News Corp., where a plainly bigoted but loyal cartoonist remains on staff while the mildest of dissenters is shown the door.

The index is actually "in a sales process... earlier stage," Carney reports. If someone completes a buy of the index, it certainly won't be for its informational value; the Dow was born 113 years ago with just 12 stocks and still has just 30. It's been surpassed by several indexes tracking thousands of stocks, weighted to reflect reflecting the entire market.

No, the Dow's value is in its media ubiquity — in newspaper, television and radio reports, even online, it remains the favored way to summarize market gyrtions. The free branding is of limited use to Murdoch and his also-ran Dow Jones Newswires, and would be worth more to competing financial information services like Bloomberg or Thomson Reuters. But if they buy and rename the index, it will inevitably become less popular. If CNBC or the New York Time is going to have to introduce readers to a new index, why not switch to a high-fidelity one not run by a direct competitor?

So the DJIA might go to a Bloomberg-type company, or just sell for cheap as a free advertising play — "OfficeMax Industrial AverageTM" here we come! But the real competition will be in the scramble to replace the average. S&P 500? Wilshire 5000? Russell 3000? Whatever, so long as business news is just that much more boring.

Murdoch's "Chief Digital Officer" (gag) Jonathan Miller is trying to put together a "consortium that would charge for news distributed online," the Los Angeles Times reports. Read: A content cartel. Miller is trying to recruit the New York Times Company, Washington Post Comany, Hearst and Tribune as charter members. So if Murdoch is bluffing about paid content, as we've speculated, trying to get his competitors to make the leap while his own free websites poach their readers, Miller doesn't know about it.

Which is probably just as well: Legitimate Businessmen with reason to think they might get hassled by the feds have to be careful what they tell one another. Need to know basis only!

Today in the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz writes that there's an "emerging consensus" that Murdoch and Brill are leading the way to the future, in which people pay to read news on the Web. The only trouble: Whichever publishers are first to charge for content will be first to see their Web traffic drop — like 90% — if they wall off everything to just subscribers. Especially if their competitors don't also erect their own paywalls. It could be catastrophic for smaller brands who wall off their content while everyone stays free.

Antitrust law prohibits the dying newspaper industry from coordinating pricing, so publishers must trust one another's public pronouncements on payment policies. Right now that means taking Murdoch and Brill at their word, a prospect that should send chills up publishers' spines. We'll be no more surprised when Murdoch reverses himself on this than we were when he broke his promises to the Bancroft family after taking over their Wall Street Journal.

You can still use Facebook dating apps, as AllFacebook.com points out, but those usually want to make you pay money eventually. Of course, it's not like random profile searches are the best avenue to a romantic liaison. But the prim change to Facebook's search system fits neatly into the social network's uptight culture: First it was only for Harvard students, then Ivy Leaguers, then college kids; to this day, your profile is, by default, shielded from the general public and even most other Facebook users. (We asked the company's flacks for comment and have yet to hear back.)

While Facebook has been defined by the nerdy engineering culture of Silicon Valley, and of founder Mark Zuckerberg, competitor MySpace was started by a spam and spyware company, promoted itself in seedy nightclubs, hosted events for aspiring models and eagerly recruited Tila Tequila away from Friendster as an early member. Though owner News Corp. is struggling to turn the site around, it must take some comfort in the fact that Facebook is as prudish as ever.

(Pic: Helgasm on Flickr)

Such an agreement would mitigate the most high-profile battle within contemporary media, a feud that hearkened back to the newspaper wars of the early 20th century and which offered heartening — ever so slightly heartening — evidence that, in an era of 500 channel television sets, corporate media didn't have to be toothless or dull media.

But it's last chapter is all too predictable: A powerful, suited overlord got embarrassed by all the boat-rocking and called things to a halt. The suit, in this case, would be GE's Jeffrey Immelt, a frequent target of Fox shouting head Bill O'Reilly and his professional stalker Jesse Waters; according to the Times, Immelt sealed a deal with News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch this past May, "with a handshake" at Microsoft headquarters.

Details were left to underlings Jeff Zucker, at NBC, and Gary Ginsberg, at News Corp:

[They] agreed that hosts on Fox and MSNBC would resist lobbing mortars at each
other or their parent companies, according to an employee with direct knowledge of the agreement.... "For this war to stop, it meant fewer headaches on the corporate side," the employee said...

Then the orders went out to the troops — meaning, to journalists, now being told what true things they should avoid saying or investigating, because it was not in the interests of their corporate parent companies. Or at least that's what the Times' sources say:

Phil Griffin, said on a daily conference call with producers that he wanted the channel's other programs to follow Mr. Olbermann's lead and restrain from criticizing Fox directly, according to two employees. At Fox News, some staff members were told to "be fair" to G.E.

The feud between the two corporations dates back at least five years, to the first of MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann's relentless attacks on O'Reilly, who uses his highly-rated Fox News show to attack various lefty targets, including an abortion doctor, "Tiller the Baby-Killer," who O'Reilly railed against some 28 times on his show, until someone finally murdered the guy.

O'Reilly attacks ginned up Olbermann's ratings, but the feud spread; O'Reilly, who refused to utter Olbermann's name, lashed out at General Electric and NBC News; News Corp.'s New York Post was enlisted to repeatedly jab at Olbermann.

Olbermann can be an insufferable blowhard, and there was no small amount of ego and self-interest behind his O'Reilly slams, a point emphasized in the Times' story. His attacks could go too far; Olbermann once wore an O'Reilly mask and gave a Nazi salute, on air. "It was time to grow up," a source told the Times.

But it's out of a swamp of impure motives and foolish mistakes than good journalism must arise, and for those who distrusted Fox News there was something comforting in the idea that MSNBC was ready to jump on the network's misstatements, tasteless moments and overreaches. Fox-lovers no doubt relished monitoring of the liberal media housed at 30 Rock.'

Olbermann protests to the Times that "I am party to no deal," but the paper documents how he appears to have led the way on this one. Our jaded hearts twinge only slightly for those NBC News staff who consider themselves journalists but swallow these sorts of orders from above; far more upset is our id, at the prospect of relinquishing the great fun of a vigorous — and vigorously cleansing — media feud.

To all:



Please gather at the Hub on the 6th floor at 2:30 for welcome remarks by Rupert Murdoch.



Best,

The Hub is the Journal's new high-tech, multiplatform cyborg center for conquering news in the 21st Century. There are screens everywhere, used mainly for laughing at Fox Business Network.

Take Thomson's comments at the goodbye party for longtime Journal man Dan Hertzberg, the deputy managing editor pushed into retirement after 32 years. They may have been good for staff cohesion, but we wonder if lead Fox News viper Roger Ailes will take them so cheerfully.

The story as we've confirmed it with three different WSJ staffers, is that Thomson, in praising Hertzberg's newsgathering skills, ended up discussing the newspaper's new "Hub," an area on the sixth floor with loads of flat-screen displays blaring TV news around the clock — the beating heart of the new, multiplatform Journal. Thomson (pictured) was saying Hertzberg is like a human version of that room, or something, with his ability to gather and process news. Whatever.

The line that pricked up reporters' ears was when Thomson joked that the real reason the Hub was built was actually to "double the viewership of Fox Business Network," or words to that effect, making fun of the network's vanishingly small audience. Zing!

Thomson then instituted a "new old tradition" of "banging out" forcibly retired staffers by pounding on the wall as they walk out of the newsroom for the last time. Apparently this is a British thing and, according to one staffer (disclaimer: American), awkward, especially on deadline after many long speeches. Back to the Fox bashing, please; that's the sort of catty backbiting a great many English-speaking journalists can really enjoy!

(PIc: Esther Dyson)

Berlusconi attended model Noemi Letizia's 18th birthday party; his outraged wife then stated publicly he didn't attend his own sons' 18th birthday parties. She filed for divorce.

The fracas over Berlusconi's real intentions with the woman has been covered frequently in Murdoch's Times of London, which recently ran an editorial about the Italian prime minister headlined "The clown's mask slips" and beginning, "The most distasteful aspect of Silvio Berlusconi's behaviour is not that he is a chauvinist buffoon." OK!

Murdoch insists his papers are just covering a legitimate scandal that's been the talk of the Italian press while Berlusconi insists the News Corp. overlord has ulterior motives. The Italian tycoon has called out Murdoch as biased on a Berlusconi-owned TV channel; Murdoch fired back on his Fox Business Network, saying it's not his fault his employees find Berlusconi sleazy.

The real fight: Berlusconi owns an Italian pay-TV system Murdoch once tried to take off his hands, while Murdoch's upstart Italian satellite TV operation has seen customer taxes double under Berlusconi's government, to 20 percent.

That's the thing with guys in their 70s: No matter what they say they're fighting about, it's usually really about a girl simultaneous control over popular opinion, mass communications mediums and technological innovation in the modern world.

[NY Times]

A deal with Google is about to shrivel, and now MySpace is facing layoffs and needs a new sales chief, sources "close to" Van Natta and fellow News Corp. newcomer Jon Miller tell Business Insider.

Expectations for MySpace's future were pretty low to begin with; the company's new leaders and their associates have now pushed them so low that the barest gains will make them look like heroes.

(Pic via All Things D)

Nevertheless, the reports in The Wrap and Variety say it's true: Carey is apparently close to a deal to become vice chairman at News Corp., replacing longtime number two Peter Chernin, who left the media conglomerate back in February. Murdoch's son James had long been considered the odds-on favorite for Chernin's job.

Murdoch is still widely expected to pass control of News Corp. to one of his children, giving Carey a limited future at the company. His work is also likely to be constrained by the direct lines of control Murdoch has established at News Corp. in the wake of Chernin's departure. Murdoch's involvement is now sufficiently extensive that the chairman was expected to personally screen new shows for Fox TV this past spring.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.If things don't work out with Murdoch, Carey will can always fall back on his role as the Pringles mascot, as Seth Abrmovitch notes over at Movieline. After all, the tasty snacks can officially be called "chips" now, making the Procter & Gamble brand more respectable than ever.

Jill Sobule's dig at Glenn Beck was fun. And one can only marvel at the singer-songwiter's fortitude in conjuring a detailed fantasy date with Murdoch.

It turns out she was prodded into the tune, per her own account, by D co-host Kara Swisher. You have to hand it to Swisher and her D partner Walt Mossberg: This is certainly one of the more creative ways to re-secure your job in a recession.

[All Things D]

New York Times editor Bill Keller has been practicing his jabs and left hook for some time. He called Murdoch's Journal "New York Times lite" at a staff meeting in February. This month he was quoted in the Nation musing on the rival paper's "identity crisis:"

If the paper has made up its mind what it wants to be, it's not clear to me... I really miss the long, well-told narratives and ambitious investigative projects. [The Journal's editor] decries that kind of journalism as a self-indulgence...

The Journal's managing editor Robert Thomson is feuding a bit harder, edging toward the bare-knuckled combativeness of his corporate siblings at the New York Post and Fox News.

Here's a memo he sent to staff earlier today. Along with the chart above, it's supposed to prove the Journal caters to the sort of active, engaged readers who pick up the paper on the newstand. USA Today and the Times, meanwhile, are for the non-sentient.

If this all reads like something out of a reality television show, well, maybe that's for the best: young people seem to pay far more attention to those types of programs than to newspapers. To change that, the industry might just have to borrow some tactics.