What Hacking?

I don't buy the Melbourne Herald Sun, I haven't for a a few years. The reasons are are a few reasons

• I like good journalism which is more about what happens rather than opinion.
• I want to support media diversify; independent of the Murdoch's.
• I'm not really interested in first page headlines of 'cute cats up trees'

I have of late with the 'News of the World' hacking drama, looked at the free Herald Sun in McDonald's and the Library. What has surprised me is compared to the Fairfax papers which has the subject front page or close to the front. The Herald Sun has put it way back and today's reporting was more about Murdoch's wife Wendy Deng and her hit! (Bizarre: there are people out there reporting this could bring down the British government!) I was surprised that The Herald Sun's editorial was related to the 'hacking' but more of a defense from Julia Gillard who had her concerns with impropriety of the Murdoch empire in Australia.  You would think that the paper would be out there scrutinizing it operation and convincing its readers that they are squeaky clean...Mind you would bite the hand that feeds them?
I find it hard to believe that The Herald Sun can be impartial and have good journalism when its owners are the Murdoch's. Unfortunately this is is just reinforced when I read the paper.
It just convinced me more that we need more media diversification, instead of been owned by one or two.

Power in the hands of the audience

The ABC Chairman had a bit of a go at Rupert Murdock, I really liked the phrase "Power in the hands of the audience". It sums it all up.

In a speech on the future of media in Melbourne last night, Mr Scott compared the News Limited boss to a "frantic emperor" who is trying to control the media as he always has, unaware that his power is long gone.

He says the power is now in the hands of audiences, and only those who realise the rules have changed will survive.

I made the same point a while ago. Every time Rupert pops up, he is making the same threats. I'm going to charge!!! I just hope he does soon, because no one will pay. I don't think that Rupert realizes that anyone can now become a journalist. Sure there will be a lot of crud journalism out there but occasionally there will be gems. I've found a few. These gems have there ad-sense going so if they keep writing they will be payed. Just not through traditional media.

Rupert Murdock, New Corp to charge for online content

http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Rupert Murdock's News Corp has come out and posted a loss. According to the New York Time
$5.4 Billion dollars worth. The paper reported that

the Internet had created opportunities to distribute news cheaply — no need for printing presses or trucks — but said, “it has not made content free. We plan to charge for all our news Web sites.”

I personally don't think it will Murdocks plan will work, in the long term. Yes there is a cost to readership. Journalist should be paid. Yet there are a lot of very, very, good writers and journalist who don't get paid via the old time 'print media' days, they never got a opportunity. Maybe they never had the right qualifications. Google ads means that if good enough, writers with enough persistence can make money. The internet has broadened the volume of journalists and increased the means of distributing the work. It appears to have flattened the competition. Where anyone can break a story, without the overhead. It's a good thing.

This Mr Murdock in the new competition....