Doesn't really matter. F.A.R.K.com has the good stuff.

Should be interesting to see if this lasts... I'd bet they'll be surprised to see how much traffic their news sites are getting as a result of google news searches.

Oh well.. most news these days is totally slanted.. hence why all the big name stars of the news are leaving since they were actually in it for "real" news not what they were told to say..

Totally agree with what NewsCorp is doing, they are only one example but there are loads of sites that charge for the content.
They want to prevent Google from indexing the pay-for content and people just searching to it and circumventing the payment.
Fair play, you may think NewsCorp are a bunch of idiots, but what if it was a company that you respected and admired?
Gotta be a level playing field guys...

Traffic ads don't create enough revenue to run a decent newspaper, i.e. having actual reporters on the ground to cover events.

if the news was credible people will buy it. too bad for news corp.

“The things that go behind pay walls, we will not let Google search to, but the things that are outside the pay wall we probably will, because we want the traffic”

As in they want you to pay for the content but still get ad revenue from non-paying customers.

I'm all for paid news sites really, it's unreasonable to expect serious journalism to survive on ad revenue alone and the business model has pretty much proven that at this point.

That said I don't see how de-registering from Google would matter, assuming you have a paid subscription you'd have to log in with a username and password and even if you could get the link from Google you'd still be denied the actual content.

Or are they expecting to set up a "secret" URL that only paid subscribers would know of? Yeah, that'd work great - no risk of circulation there. /sarcasm

I'd rather get my news from The Onion than from Newscorp.

Murdoch is a cheap old man. Plus, his little "news" organizations tend to be biased beyond belief, i.e. they lean so far right they about fall over.

If i had to pay extra for channel Fox I would cancel and never miss it. Google probably is thinking the same.

Crap I'm going to have to pay to read and watch made up news. I guess I'm just stuck Colbert and the Daily Show for funny news

You are all missing the point, mark me down -999 if you wish

This isn't about NewsCorp, it's about Google circumventing pay-for content via search. I suppose all the pay-for content of the Wall Street Journal is just phoney tabloid jouralism?

Don't let your anti-NewsCorp stance railroad you into siding with what essentially is Google doing something wrong.

As opposed to all the other "news" organizations who lean so far left they arent even on the grid?

It's not like google shows you the entire article. They show a very short one liner for the search, I don't see how everyone confuses this for giving you the contect for free. It's like an author telling barns and nobles to remove the front cover and title of all his books because he wants people to pay for the content. I want them to stop talking about pulling their content and just do it, then they will find out how stupid they really are. At least the one had it right, block paid content but still allow free content for advertising purposes.

...and nothing of value was lost.

Indeed.

But seriously this is good news, getting rid of those low level piece of s**t ''news''paper articles in my research is another reason to stay with google.

If Google's web crawler is somehow bypassing authentication and retrieving pay-for content, then it sounds like someone needs to work on their site's security.

(Hint: the someone is not Google.)

(Just thinking) So in theory here in the EU ... if they succeed in blocking Google frim indexing them, and later Google finds a way to index them back, can Google be considered a pirate protected copyright material and therefor be banned from using the Web??? Mmmmmm!!!!

To be fair, only MSNBC/Air America are truly biased. CNN is generally down the middle (Dobbs was the only exception), and the big 4 networks have long avoided taking sides. Of course, anyone with half a brain knows the right is wrong most of the time, so the news appears slanted to them.

Back on target: currently 99% of what google returns is open content right from the news websites. If they go to a pay for content model, google has no choice but to not show anything. The issue then becomes what happens if they index some other site that references that material? There will be headaches.

I don't quite understand how this is different from any other pay site, link to the free content on google then pay for other content just like porn... news is trying to become the new internet porn, that would be a much more interesting title imho

That's okay. I'll continue to get my news from the Daily Show. At least it's funny that way.

Google is not bypassing authentication. News Corp specifically allows Google searches in their robot.txt file.

This is really sad. Rupert and an increasingly large number of other news orgs are getting their panties in a bunch because as subscription revenues decline, Google revenues (partly thanks to Google news) keep going up. This amounts to, in their completely un-humble opinion, Google 'stealing' revenue by copying their news information.

The problem is that they are ignoring the entire premise of print media: *people want all their information in the same place!*

Just because someone is giving Google ad revenue by reading stories at news.google.com does NOT mean that the same person would have ventured into wsj.com in search of a story that they didn't know they would find there. Google is making money because it has ALL the news in one place, not because it specifically has WSJ news or Foxnews.com news (if you can call it that) or whatever. So, Rupert is on a fool's errand to redirect the revenue Google is getting, into his own pocket. He will soon learn that if the news orgs do not hang together, they will certainly hang separately, and his revenues will almost certainly go down as a result of this move (unless he secures an especially sweet deal from Microsoft). Personally, I am delighted to think that Google will no longer be bothered by the unabashedly right-wing propaganda coming from Foxnews.com, but the implications for news media at large are far more depressing.

That me be very well true. But I would think there are ads behind the pay curtain that may never be seen if they block the search engine, which in turn will not bode well for the advertisers if circulation drops. What I don't understand is why charge at all? If I had a failing newspaper whose advertisers where threatening to jump ship, I would make my paper free to the public. Since it's the ads revenue that pay for it all!

I wondered how long it would take before it was suddenly the customers fault. Nice attitude. Next time a burglar breaks into your house, let's hope the Police have the same attitude and say it was your own fault for not having a bank vault for a front door.

So give your soul to CNN...

+1 lmfao!

You seem to have figured it all out! Congrats! ...

GO FARK!

I even have a chart that displays how balanced Fox News is compared to all those crazy left wing outlets! Well, it was produced by Fox News so you have to take that with a grain of salt but I digress...

Seriously, your high horse is dead and rotting, and quite frankly stinks. Anyone using the excuse "well I watch Fox because there are all those leftist channels out there" really has their head in the sand. The "Fox News: Fair and balanced" badge is slapped on so much pathetically partisan stuff that it really makes it hard to tell which way is up. I defy you to name a major news outlet that even compares to their level of hubris, aside from MSNBC who at least has the decency to save their overtly political stuff for late at night.

Funny thing is... Comedy Central and Toms Hardware are more credible in news than CNN or FOX or MSN.