Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Handhelds Media Apple News

Rupert Murdoch Hates Google, Loves the iPad 412

Posted by timothy
from the consume-consume-consume dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The Register reports that News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, reiterated his disgust at how search engines handle news and called on old media to rethink how their stories are distributed on the web. 'It's produced a river of gold, but those words are being taken mostly from the newspapers,' said Rupert. 'I think they ought to stop it, that the newspapers ought to stand up and let them do their own reporting.' Murdoch added that the iPad was a 'wonderful tool' for listening to music, watching videos and reading newspapers. 'It may well be the saving of the newspaper industry,' by making it cheaper to distribute content to a broader audience, Murdoch said. 'I'm old, I like the tactile experience of the newspaper,' Murdoch said. '(But) if you have less newspapers and more of these, that's OK. It doesn't destroy the traditional newspaper, it just comes in a different form.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rupert Murdoch Hates Google, Loves the iPad

Comments Filter:
  • Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:28PM (#31771350)
    This is sort of like an Endorsement from Satan right?
    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:39PM (#31771428)

      Right, except there's a logic to his madness. Murdoch loves the idea of people paying 15 dollars a month to read foxnews.com or the WSJ on the ipad. Its a tempting offer, I hear every new subscriber gets a free vial of Glenn Beck's tears and a used mustache comb once owned by Geraldo Rivera.

      • by Cryacin (657549) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:00AM (#31771562)
        Stewie Griffin: Uh, excuse me, it's been brought to my attention that a few bad apples out there are smoking marijuana. Uh, I've got news for you, my friend. Marijuana's illegal. Not cool. [audience starts booing] Alright then. [Begins singing, to the tune of America the Beautiful] Establishment, establishment, you always know what's best... Man in audience: You suck! Stewie Griffin: Learn the rules!
      • Re:Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mjwx (966435) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:16AM (#31772050)

        Right, except there's a logic to his madness. Murdoch loves the idea of people paying 15 dollars a month to read foxnews.com or the WSJ on the ipad.

        For once Murdoch and I have something in common. I'd love to see all Murdoch's sited completely covered by a paywall, I long for the day when I wont accidentally stumble across one of his poorly written tabloids which contains little more then thinly veiled propaganda.

        • Re:Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:45AM (#31772506)


          I long for the day when I wont accidentally stumble across one of his poorly written tabloids which contains little more then thinly veiled propaganda.

          Which 'content' in the overwhelming majority of cases they have not even created themselves (Murdoch's business model has no money left for good investigative journalists): they just syndicate the news from AP (which does get paid by Google) or steal it from some blogger (who does not get paid by Murdoch), add their propaganda to it (which Murdoch should be paying for for us to read. A lot.) and then they slap their advertisements on it (which Murdoch should be paying us for as well - my attention has value and Murdoch should not expect to be able to steal it for free).

          Google on the other hand provides good functionality (a good, unbiased search index and good apps) in exchange for my attention.

          Really, Murdoch should not feel so entitled to the resources of this world. He should compete for them like the rest of the planet does. Right now, as far as I'm concerned his business offer to me falls far short of being as competitive as Google's.

          • Re:Endorsement (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mjwx (966435) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:57AM (#31772570)

            Which 'content' in the overwhelming majority of cases they have not even created themselves (Murdoch's business model has no money left for good investigative journalists): they just syndicate the news from AP (which does get paid by Google) or steal it from some blogger (who does not get paid by Murdoch), add their propaganda to it (which Murdoch should be paying for for us to read. A lot.) and then they slap their advertisements on it (which Murdoch should be paying us for as well - my attention has value and Murdoch should not expect to be able to steal it for free).

            In case you missed out on the last 40 odd years, Murdoch didn't get rich by being honest and forthright.

            But karma's a bitch, if a little slow moving.

            • Re:Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)

              by tehcyder (746570) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:49AM (#31773362) Journal

              Murdoch didn't get rich by being honest and forthright

              Yes, uniquely amongst extremely rich people, he's not a nice man.

              • by linzeal (197905) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:08AM (#31774088) Homepage Journal

                It is really a shame that more people have not read The Theory of the Leisure class [wikipedia.org], it rails against plutocrats, football players and kept women. It intelligently argues for the role of design and creativity for human progress over the barbarity of endless profit making and risk taking. Sadly Veblen died as a recluse in the hills of Palo Alto drinking heavily and writing rambling editorials ever so often in the local newspaper, he had devolved into a troll. 2 months later the stock market crash of 29' happened, I think that deserves a " Ha Ha".

                The hero of the book is 'The Engineer' and 'The New Woman' and they totally get it on. Come on go download and read it.

          • Re:Endorsement (Score:4, Informative)

            by Virtual_Raider (52165) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @03:03AM (#31772586) Homepage

            I think you're spot-on. And so is Murdoch, kinda. At least the part about this being just a new medium in which to deliver his product. I think the way he would like to price it isn't viable in the long run but that's just me being cheap. I get free news from reputable newspapers for free in my mobile and on the papers' websites. I even get the actual dead-tree version for free with my groceries purchase so any subscription of more than a couple of dollars for something intangible and pretty much ephimeral by its very nautre won't appeal. I'm guessing a very large and increasing group of people will be on the same boat.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mysidia (191772)

      No, it's like an Endorsement from Beelzebub.

      The CEO of Microsoft didn't endorse it, at least not yet, that I know of.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jurily (900488)

        He did, it just got drowned out by the sound of breaking chairs.

    • Yeah. (Score:5, Funny)

      by weston (16146) <westonsd.canncentral@org> on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:37AM (#31772180) Homepage

      I've kindof been on the fence about the iPad (yeah, it's kindof pricey, it's missing some nice peripheral features, and the app-lock might be inconvenient someday, but on the other hand, the featureset makes it seem like it'd be a good spot between e-reader and netbook for me, plus there's a cool array of audio/instrument apps that have grown up around Cocoa Touch over the last two years).

      But now that Rupert Murdoch has endorsed it, I'm more interested in checking out alternatives.

    • Re:Endorsement (Score:4, Informative)

      by TeknoHog (164938) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @04:59AM (#31773130) Homepage Journal
      Any true geek should have watched enough MacGyver to know that Murdoc is the bad guy.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by mwvdlee (775178)

        I mostly watched The A-Team, and I've learned Murdock was a nice guy. And insane.

    • by Shivetya (243324) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:05AM (#31773418) Homepage Journal

      iPad's customer is big media. It is not us. Oh sure, many of us love the idea of the iPad but honestly look who is benefiting most from it. e-Book sellers now get to raise prices, even Amazon caved on this and many originally thought Amazon to be a bunch of money grubbing jerks for charging so much for an e-Book. Hell, Apple handed their end users right into the hands of the new consumer, big media, and the end users are rejoicing at being bent over a barrel.

      So of course Murdoch loves it, a whole slew of new ways for us to transfer money to them and their friends. And we will be happy for it because we will look so cool at Starbucks and the student centers.

  • Logically... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao@ho[ ]il.com ['tma' in gap]> on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:29PM (#31771354) Homepage
    If Rupert Murdoch praises something, it just can't be good.
    • Re:Logically... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blankinthefill (665181) <(blachanc) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:39PM (#31771420) Journal
      It really makes sense that he would praise it, too. The strict control that Apple keeps over the app store is something that our good friend Rupert would love to see people get used to, since it falls right in line with his paywall schemes.
      • Re:Logically... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by shentino (1139071) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:16AM (#31772056)

        Paywalls are just a pain in the ass to deal with.

        I don't object to them much on moral grounds as long as the fees aren't exorbitant.

        But whipping out a credit card for a sub-dollar transaction is hardly worth the time it takes to track down my wallet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The next logical step to ask is who paid him to endorse iPad. Google? Microsoft? ~

    • Re:Logically... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jd2112 (1535857) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:14AM (#31771674)
      Actually, the Old Media fixation on the iPad and their false hope of how it will revive their failing empires will only help to hasten their destruction, so it is a good thing.
    • Well, that is a Godwin-ish comment.

      The reductio ad Hitler issue is the fallacy that "if Hitler likes something, it must be bad" or "if Hitler disliked something, it must be good", and you're doing the same thing with Rupert Murdoch.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by iNaya (1049686)
        No, it's simply ad hominem. Could also call it "reductio ad Murdoch", but it's simply nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, and is not Godwinish at all. Your comment, however, is.
      • Re:Logically... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rennt (582550) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:37AM (#31772168)

        Not at all - it is not that Murdoch likes the iPad, but the reason he likes it. It is a locked-down device designed for passive media consumption.

        If the fact that Murdoch is promoting the iPad really should be setting of alarm bells in your geek psyche.

  • by dmgxmichael (1219692) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:31PM (#31771366) Homepage
    The sooner the "old media" of mega corporations deciding how millions should think passes away, the better. Murdoch has proven to be worse than most in that regard. His misery at the passing away of the bad old days only makes me smile.
    • by dbIII (701233) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:37AM (#31772178)
      Don't worry, he's been busy running around the world yelling in the ear of any politician that will listen to try to create "bad new days". It's already resulted in the BBC drasticly cutting back it's online presence.
      Don't think we can ignore him. He may be an old bastard but he's an old bastard with teeth dripping venom and many elected representatives owe him something.
  • by kimvette (919543) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:32PM (#31771370) Homepage Journal

    robots.txt

  • Yes of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:33PM (#31771380)

    It's no surprise the media loves a locked down device. If enough people have these kind of crippled devices, they can stop making content available online and require apps or subscriptions for everything. This also helps to explain the media's unabashed love for the iPad.

    • Re:Yes of course (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Budenny (888916) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:07AM (#31771626)

      Agreed. This is where Apple has been going for a long time now, and the world of a locked down device, where you only access media through one controlled point, where all apps have to be obtained from one supplier who keeps a tight lock on what can be installed, that's a wet dream for Big Content. If you think about it, the most important aspect of it is that you can bar hacks that will unlock DRMd media. As long as you just had DRMd media, but freedom to install whatever software you wanted, and the ability to transfer files from machine to machine simply by copying them across, DRM was always going to be readily hackable.

      What we are moving towards is a situation where you will buy your content from Apple only, you will not be able to copy it without Apple's consent, you will install no apps that Apple does not like. So DRM will really work. Not only that, but all the content will at last be family friendly and politically correct. No need to worry about nasty subversive political sites, or swimsuit pictures showing up unexpectedly.

      Apple is far, far worse than Microsoft. Microsoft is an old fashioned tech company, similar in attitude to IBM or HP etc. Its anti competitive of course, very market share focussed. But it does not have this stifling desire to control what customers do and read, it does not worry much about what content is accessed by the products it sells which give it its market share.

      Apple is not really, in spirit, a tech company at all, or rather, its a unique sort of tech company, its a tech company in the tradition of Walt Disney 1955. So it is always thinking, how to use its tech position to control what customers do, think and read. That is the fundamental aim to which all its design tends. Its natural allies are Big Content companies. It has sometimes been said that Apple had DRM imposed on it against its will. Don't believe it. DRM and lockin are central to the Apple value system, they are shared values with the content and media industries. It seems inexplicable to Apple fans that it should be trying to ban the reading of perfectly lawful publications on its devices. You have to realize that Apple thinks of itself as Walt Disney 1955, but who in the 21st century has chosen to deliver its family friendly and politically correct content via computers and tablets. This is all of a piece, part of the same thing. This is why your music was DRMd, even when the rights owners did not want it to be. DRM is central to the Apple vision of how the world should work, as is content censorship.

      I read that you cannot activate the iPad from Linux. Now, why would that be, exactly....? Its because open source is the enemy for Apple, even more than for MS, because it represents intellectual freedom. That is what is really at issue here. Do you want to live in a world in which a sort of latter day Disney tells you what you can read? Most of the press and media do. They cannot wait to be part of that latter day Disney consortium. That's the appeal of Apple today.

      The Slate article is spot on. Its come a long way, and its ended up, like many revolutionaries, turning into a far worse version of what it originally campaigned against.

      • by node 3 (115640)

        Apple is not really, in spirit, a tech company at all, or rather, its a unique sort of tech company, its a tech company in the tradition of Walt Disney 1955.

        Apple is the world's most successful tech company.

        So it is always thinking, how to use its tech position to control what customers do, think and read.

        Apple has never, once, told me what to think, and I own plenty of Apple kit, so I speak with actual, first-hand experience. This is in stark contrast to the Free Software types who never tire of telling me to fear Apple because Apple wants to control everything I do. The current groupthink nonsense is that I'm supposed to boycott h.264 in favor of an inferior codec, and that I'm supposed to shun the iPad because... Well, the because here is never quite coher

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jo_ham (604554)

        So their whole stated goal of removing DRM from the iTunes Store and never wanting it there in the first place... where does that fit?

        Rip, Mix, Burn?

        "We encourage you to back up your iTMS purchases [back in the days where they had mandatory RIAA-imposed drm] to Audio CD using iTunes as soon as you download them".

        What about Apple's open source commitments? (and yes, they are doing *way* more than they are "legally obliged" to do).

        "DRM and lock in" are not "central to the Apple value system" - they happen to

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Xest (935314)

          "So their whole stated goal of removing DRM from the iTunes Store and never wanting it there in the first place... where does that fit?"

          It fits in marketing mostly.

          Whilst Jobs was telling us he'd love to do away with DRM, and how he hates it, but can't get rid of it because the studios force it upon him, other online music vendors like eMusic, Play and Amazon were selling DRM free music with the blessing of the music industry and often at lower prices than Apple's DRM'd versions. So what Steve Jobs said abo

  • ...has anyone checked if he has a short position in Apple stock?

    I mean if Rupert likes the iPad then, ipso facto, the iPad can't be a good thing. And that means Apple's stock is going down.

  • If, say, _anyone_ released an RSS feed reader for the iPad, newspapers are just as dead as they are now.

    Oh wait, someone has... A quick Google search returns several.

    It'

  • by Angst Badger (8636) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:37PM (#31771392)

    Unless newspapers delivered via iPad are going to consist of something other than lightly-edited wire stories and insubstantial fluff reporting, they're not going to be a whole lot more appealing than the paper kind, and arguably less appealing, since lining the bottom of bird cages with iPads will be prohibitively expensive. And don't get me started on how much it would cost to pack boxes for a move.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by oldspewey (1303305)

      lining the bottom of bird cages with iPads will be prohibitively expensive

      There's an app for that.

  • by caladine (1290184) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:37PM (#31771394)
    Wall Street Journal:
    Online + Printed: $2.99/week
    iPad only: $3.99/week
    Anyone else see the problem here?
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:38PM (#31771410) Homepage

    reiterated his disgust at how search engines handle news and called on old media to rethink how their stories are distributed on the web.

    Then do us all a favor and pull your tabloid rags off Google. What's stopping you? I'm sure the core of your readers will stay with you, it's the only source that tells them what they want to hear.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:18AM (#31771714)

      Tabloid rags? WSJ? Geez, I'm as non-Republican as they come but you sound like an idiot saying that.

      I'd prefer avoiding going into some redundant spiel, but basically:

      • It's true that newspapers are dying, because they're not getting paid for what they used to get paid for and nothing is making up for that loss of revenue.
      • No matter how much you want to argue that this paper or that newpaper isn't doing "real journalism", they are all dying and they are almost the sole original sources for most news we hear, including most news the government or various corporations don't want you to hear.
      • Blogs and Google News on their own would be almost completely devoid of news if all the newspapers closed shop today. Their value, with rare exception, is derived from the value created by these news companies that are losing money. (Which leads back to the first point.)

      Finally, I'm close friends with some journalists. People who've written for the NY Times and Village Voice, rags like Entertainment Weekly, and more local papers you probably don't know. These people do good work (though more rarely when it's EW or People), and some of them are having problems figuring out what to do once they can't do what they're good at. It seems very likely that we're entering into a period that will historically be known as the nadir of journalism, the time when something not under any one person's individual control lead to the loss of a generation of reporters.

      • by Obyron (615547) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:51AM (#31771894)
        They could maybe go out and do some real journalism instead of thinking they deserve a check for writing an article about who Britney is fucking. There will always be room in journalism, in some form, for the good writers who do good work. The problem is that there are a lot more hacks who can be replaced by a monkey, and their job has suddenly gotten a hell of a lot more competitive.
    • by mjwx (966435) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:30AM (#31772134)

      Then do us all a favor and pull your tabloid rags off Google.

      Actually he's trying to have it both ways, the headline and first sentence to be indexed by google, the link leading to the paywall.

      I wonder if Google's super secret search algorithm has the ability to tell if this is happening (I.E. the page content essentially not being there) and degrade these results in relevance (which is what I'm asking a search engine to do, order the results by the relevance to the search string)

  • While I disagree with most everything Rupert Murdoch says, I think he's at least partly on to something with the iPad as a newspaper replacement. OK, let's ignore the fact that it's terribly overpriced for this function, but he is right in that many people would like something that's lightweight and portable. Build a device like that and make it cheap, and you may have a winner on your hands. People would be able to sit on a bus or train and read the publication of their choice, be it a traditional newsp

    • by Superdarion (1286310) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:06AM (#31771614)
      Have you ever watched that movie called Big, with Tom Hanks? I remember very clearly this scene in which Susan is presenting her new revolutionary idea to her company. It is a cyber-comic book, in which you can display the pages of your favorite comic book and change the page and everything. Sounds familiar?

      The executive, disgruntled, then asks: Why would a kid pay $100 for that device if he can get a comic book for just 15 cents?

      Everyone laughs at Susan.
  • It seems like (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OrwellianLurker (1739950) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:41PM (#31771448)
    It seems like Google would be better off not linking to any of Murdoch's sites. It will be a small loss of income for them, and a rather large loss of income for him. Seeing as how he constantly bitches and moans about Google I think they're well within their rights (not just legal rights) to do this.
    • by oldspewey (1303305) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:54PM (#31771532)
      Sergei Brin: Last week we pulled out of China, and today we're pulling out of Rupert Murdoch.
      • by houstonbofh (602064) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:10AM (#31771646)

        Sergei Brin: Last week we pulled out of China, and today we're pulling out of Rupert Murdoch.

        Really... Wrong image there... Now I will have nightmares.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by spruce (454842)

          Sergei Brin: Last week we pulled out of China, and today we're pulling out of Rupert Murdoch.

          Really... Wrong image there... Now I will have nightmares.

          Don't mind if I do...

          When asked about his feelings towards one of his current partners Google, Murdoch proposed he and his old friends yank off the news they currently provide. Murdoch said he prefers (Steve) Jobs, and the warm embrace of Apple. He feels that the new iPad is (locked) tight enough that they may be able to avoid unwillingly spewing their content on loads of customers.

    • Re:It seems like (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timmarhy (659436) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:56PM (#31771544)
      I think the best option for google would be to write a formal letter to rupert asking him to confirm he'd like to be delisted from google. this puts the ball squarely in his court and denies him any recourse when he realises his site's traffic has dropped 100%.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:42PM (#31771454)
    Forget paying money to Murdoch and support Wikileaks!
  • Oh grandpa! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cyberllama (113628) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @11:52PM (#31771512)

    He's like the elderly relative at Thanksgiving who keeps saying racist things that would make everyone uncomfortable but they're so used to it they just roll their eyes and say "Oh Grandpa!" Is there any way this guy could not get it less? He understood how to be a Newspaper tycoon, but these days that skillset makes him roughly as useful as a candlestick maker or a wheelwright.

    He keeps saying all this crazy stuff, but the guys who actually run Newscorp keep doing the opposite, lucky for them. They could easily edit their robots.txt and keep Google out, but they're smart enough to not only let Google in, but to let users coming in from Google slip past the pay wall . . .

    • Re:Oh grandpa! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timmarhy (659436) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:03AM (#31771586)
      don't kid yourself, rupert run's news corp with an iron fist. he knows what he wants to achieve but he doesn't understand how to get there. he want's a slice of google's billion dollar ad business.

      if he was clever about it, he'd offer apple a partnership where ipad users get free subscription to all news corp material for a year, and fund an apple search engine to take on google. throw in digitised copies of historical papers as part of the search service.

    • by Dan667 (564390)
      they are like people who hire illegals so they don't have to pay a fair wage and then complain about illegals.
  • There are an awful lot of similarities between Republicans and Apple fanboys. They're both submissive, they're both religious in their single-minded devotion. They both believe you must sacrifice freedom for security.

  • enough said on this man's stupidity regarding technology. Many sites would pay buckets of money for the kind of hit rate that search engines are sending them, but murdock cannot find out how to make money. What an idiot, he should just retire.
  • Yet again... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Zixaphir (845917)
    So aggregation of news, which is best for the consumer because they get the best writers everyone could hire (theoretically speaking), sucks for the big guys, so shut it down? I too like to have my cake and eat it too.
  • I posit that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nightfire-unique (253895) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:53AM (#31772550)
    I posit that if Rupert Murdoch is pissed, we (Internet generation) must be doing something right.
  • by dugeen (1224138) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:37AM (#31773326) Journal
    I don't know how many times I and other posters on here have pointed out that he can have all his news sites excluded from search engines by giving a few simple instructions to his webmasters. I'm starting to think he's not paying attention.
  • by evanspw (872471) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:26AM (#31773502)

    Murdoch has got it ass-about. The reason that print media is dying is that the classified advertising model that was so profitable for so long has died. Craigslist has done far, far more damage to Murdoch's business than Google ever has, and there's nothing he can do about it. The cover price on newspapers doesn't even get close to covering the printing cost, let alone profit.

    Another thing, maybe he can see coming. Online media provides a way of measuring advertising efficiency, something that is not possible in print. Count the clicks. As corporate advertising etc is going online so bean counters can know it's effectiveness. Same goes for job ads.

    Print is dying because its advertising is obsolescent, not because of Google. Murdoch must know that

  • by OpenSourced (323149) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:11AM (#31773744) Journal

    'let them do their own reporting'

    Well, I guess you wouldn't like it if they took up on that idea. They sure couldn't make a much worse job of it than you do.

  • by darjen (879890) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:16AM (#31774802)

    The sooner dead tree newspapers die the better. Google can't put them out of their misery fast enough.

  • funny... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hitmark (640295) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:37AM (#31775098) Journal

    given that most "news" these days seems to be verbatim copies of press releases passed around by AP or similar agencies...

    the investigative journalist are a myth these days, much the same as the rugged individual and other such concepts that US people wraps themselves in each day.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...