Depois de  quase todos os jornais apresentarem planos online para os seus clientes, o jornal The Sun ainda aposta suas fichas no bom e velho jornal tradicional (papel).

Para comemorar seus 40 anos, o jornal criou um vídeo publicitário bem bacana, fazendo comparações com smartphones, no caso, percebe-se que o ataque é bem direto, tento o iPhone na mira.

“As melhores notícias, esportes, fotos, fofocas e jogos em um formato fácil de se compartilhar. Não há espera para as páginas carregarem, não há contratos e nem recepção [de sinal] perdida. Não há substituto para o The Sun.” Isso, é claro, sem falar na sua interface panorâmica de 26 polegadas, fosca, CMYK, totalmente colorida e com gráficos realísticos, sete games gratuitos com sensibilidade à caneta e material 100% reciclável.” Macmagazine

Anybody who has read the stories about the birth of Jesus as told in the Bible, who knows anything about the reality of babies in general, and has sung Away In A Manger, will have realised that these festive carols paint a fairly unrealistic picture of the infant. “No crying he makes.” Doesn’t sound like any baby I know! And yet we sing this line dutifully each year as a part of our nostalgic Christmas tradition, a Victorian ideal, which equates log-fires, snow covered landscapes, and Christmas carols sung at the local nativity to be the ‘real’ meaning of Christmas.

Of course most of us don’t need a Bishop to point this out, but just in case you did the Rt Rev Nick Baines is on hand to do just that. And this is how the Sun newspaper in the Uk reported it. A choice quotes:

“He (Rt Rev Nick Baines) says: “I find it bizarre when I see parents singing Away In A Manger as if it related to reality.

“I can understand little children being taken with the sort of baby of whom it can be said ‘no crying he makes’. But how can adults sing this without embarrassment?

“If we sing nonsense, is it any surprise that children grow into adults and throw out the tearless baby Jesus with Father Christmas and other fantasy figures?””

Now there is not much I would find to disagree with there; in fact from the selected quotes I have found in various newspapers today I’d agree with pretty much all that he said.

What I have found most interesting though is the response from people in the ‘comments’ section, particularly from the Sun, as it has such a large readership. Here are some of them (you can read them all on this link) with some of my reflections:

“Looks like this man has been touched by the effect of politically correct influences that wish to have christmas abolished eventually, and favour fetivals of other cultures. Its a bit of fun and cheer, shame on him.”

[there seems to be two understandings of Christmas at work here - the Christmas of tradition, and the Christmas of theology (for want of a better phrase). The effects of Christendom mean that the Christian message has been distorted and absorbed into certain cultural events, such as Christmas tradition, that it is now a huge task to try and untangle the mess. And when you do, as I believe the Bishop is trying, you faith the wrath of the 'Christian' masses who will see the UK as a Christian country and anything that challenges those traditions as a nod to a secular society.]

“It’s because of leaders like him that people are leaving the church as fast as they can. Who appoints people like this?”

[So if we challenge the Christian Christmas tradition we are responsible for the demise of the institutional church? Is this a bad thing?]

“Adults should be embarrassed to wear a load of stupid dresses like these religious nuts do.”

[Fair point!]

“Shame on him…! Carols are what make Christmas so memorable”

[Again the tradition is what is important]

“What a pathetic man this BISHOP is, mind you the congregationa are not getting any better, they sing sweetly and smile and smile in CHURCH then walk past other members in the STREET without speaking to them, and ask one for help, for the vast majority, they cannot or havent time.UNBELIEVABLE.”

[A real insight to how the church is perceived by those outside. We won't stop to acknowledge our own brothers and sisters, who knows what this commenter thinks Christians would do in 'Good Samaritan' type situation - walk on by seems the obvious answer]

Plenty to ponder me thinks…

Just when the future of news publications was under question, Apple looked set to save the day in the form of their internet tablet, which if the rumours are to be believed, is set to be released very soon. The main appeal of this device is said to be it’s news consumption, which some have even suggested could save the newspaper industry.

But now there’s a new kid on the scene. UK newspaper ‘The Sun’ describe it as the “must have handheld accessory of 2009″, featuring a 26 inch full panoramic colour ’screen’ and 3D photo realistic graphics. If that wasn’t good enough, there’ll also be no squinting at pages or need to turn the device on its side for better reading. And don’t go thinking it’s all business with this device there’s also 7 built in pen-friendly games. But the best selling point has got to be that there’s “no waiting for downloads” in order to get your daily news fix.

It’s gotta be too good to be true!

UK rag The Sun has shocked the world today by actually doing something original and well though out.
In a radical move away from it’s daily regime of utter shitness The Sun has produced an excellent little viral advert poking fun at the Apple iPhone and “interactive” content.
Kinda goofy but does actually make some great points. No idea if this will air on television, we can only hope so. Just a shame it’s for one of the worlds most shitest papers.

Kissed…

Hug…

Cuddlin’…

Hickey…

Those are usual for many people around the world, even teenagers are brave to do those. You may get their videos anytime and anywhere you want, on YouTube, YouPorn or any site. A guy and gal just doin’ something “crazy”. I mean they’re fuckin’ with crazy way.. Have you seen some?? LOL. I know that’s lots of fun. But for me, no need to publish, that’s exactly our privacy. Well, it doesn’t matter if they already married, but with someone that you dunno whether he’s gonna be your husband, are you willing to do that?? (especially for women) Hmmm… Most say, “Why not? We love each other, and we do it by mutual agreement. Besides, it’s not your business. Why you interfere in my business??”

Well, Ok..ok..!!!

*Hamil lu, baru tau rasa!! That’s not my business, you’re right.

Ok, let’s go to the point.

Have you heard the hottest news about Angelina Jolie? – the well known actor, Brad Pitt’s wife – Yeah, Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp are playing together in The Tourist Film.

As a quote from The Sun, Angie as a Cara, Interpol agent, and Johnny as a Frank, the American tourist, are ready to do having sex in a bathroom – sex scene -. Based on scenario, written by Julian Fellowes, Cara will appear without wearing any cloth (in a bath), it means she’s completely naked. And Frank, sudden opening the door and embraced her intimately. So does Cara (Angie), she replied with the same way, with the high desire and hmmm…. The delicious love is starting..

*ckckckck…. Astagfirullah..

For Angie, it’s not the first time she acted with completely naked. Previously, she did it with Brad Pitt – now he’s her husband – on that time, Brad Pitt’s still be Jennifer Aniston’s husband. While Johnny still has special relationship with his love, Vanessa Paradise – the attractive actress –

No matter what, will this scene make Brad Pitt and Vanessa Paradise jealous??

*Hmm… -speechless-

Michelle Obama claimed this month that the most important thing in a man is how he treats his mum, and that’s why she went with Barack. Far be it for me to disagree, but I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that her husband is quite possibly the best looking leader of the free world ever. Does this go for every guy, no matter how bad his mum is? For example, does the guy who wrote the “Child Called It” books have trouble finding girlfriends because they don’t like how he complained about his mum?

“I can’t be with you, you said too many mean things about your mum”

“she abused me and my brother for my entire life”

“but still, she’s you’re mum. You are such a dick” 

This years toy hall of fame ceremony saw a new induction; the ball. It took 10 years for the ball to be inducted. Which is a bit stupid to be honest. Tonka toys were inducted before the ball, wtf?

Kate Moss became the papers pariah this month after (allegedly) saying “nothing tastes as good as thin feels” in an interview. Most of the negative reaction has come from The Sun newspaper, criticising her for (in their eyes) causing anorexia with that sentence. The Sun? The same paper that publishes photos of celebrities and laughs at them if they aren’t skinny? The same paper that encourages women to slim on an almost weekly basis? Newspapers really need to stop whipping up controversy over stupid things. Yes, she was an idiot for saying it, but if the paper didn’t bring it up, nobody would know about it. So surely it’s The Suns fault if the comment causes any negative effects in people? I know why the papers do this; to sell. People tend not to read newspapers for news anymore; they don’t have to, they have the internet and television news. As such, they spend most of their time organising outrage. Anyway, it’s not as though people already don’t know that you have to be really skinny to be a model.

On the subject of outrage; The Sun (again) was forced to apologise after a hilarious balls up this month. They were doing an article about Gordon Brown misspelling somebody’s name in a letter. In the predictably outraged article, the Sun then misspelt the same name. Lol, stupid bastards. 1^st off; Gordon Brown doesn’t really have to write the letters to dead soldiers relatives anyway. The fact that he is is nice enough already. You can’t criticise him for a small mistake for that, it’s like if you gave somebody 10 tonnes of chocolate bars, and one of them was broken. You just think “at least they were nice enough to do it in the first place”.

In other news-related news; Rupert Murdoch announced that he plans to charge people for viewing online news. Bastard. You shouldn’t be able to charge people for information. Yes, you have to pay for internet services, but you can still go to the library and use the internet there for free. Once you start charging for the news; you are withholding the one thing that should be free. He blamed dwindling sales for this; which is stupid. The reason sales have gone down is because people can get it for free elsewhere. Once you start charging for that, people won’t go “ah well, I pay for this” they will just go “fuck that” and use TV instead. Also, a little known fact is that the majority of newspapers don’t make that much money through sales, they make it through ad revenue (in fact, a lot of newspapers actually charge less for the paper than it does to print) and the one thing in common with internet news is the advertising. So if you just increase the price for that; you’re fine.

Gangs in Peru have allegedly killed groups of people to extract their fat for use in cosmetics. That’s quite weird.

The president of Philippines declared torture illegal this month. If anybody commits torture they will be put in jail for 30 days, where they will probably be tortured.

A fire at a firing range in South Korea killed 10 people this month. That story makes me laugh. Not because of the deaths, but purely thinking of what would you say in that situation? You can’t yell out “fire” at a shooting range, you’ll get shot. The best you can do is yell out “burning flames coming this way”.

The web browser Opera closed a loophole in their site which allowed Chinese users to view sites their government had deemed illegal. You dicks, that’s the only way they could get that information and you stopped it. You could have inspired the worlds greatest revolution, instead, you bent to the whims of one of the worlds most Stalinistic leaders, dicks.

A scientology website was defaced this month, ah well, who cares, is only scientology, nobody really cares about them do they? It’s like attacking the BNP.

Robbie Williams announced plans to re-join Take That. That sound you hear? That’s me not giving a shit really, and finding it kind of funny that he’s saying that now that his career is practically non-existent.

Edward Woodward passed away aged 79. Shame, we’ve lost one of the best showbiz names to ever exist.

According to a new survey, one in 20 schoolchildren thought Hitler was a football coach. Who are these kids, and can we shoot their parents?

 Ever go onto a website and get told to put in a word that you’ve never heard of? Well, Verity Muggridge of Cuxton has that beat, when she encountered the following:

Beat that.

An artist has caused a stir after planning to have an epileptic fit on stage as part of a performance. Now that, I find ridiculous, she could die from this. It’s just horrible.

And now: christmas music

Safari in South Africa and you can’t help but think that the idea of Christmas in all the summer heat is not what Christmas is all about, but let me help you change your mind and swap jingle bells and sleigh rides for the heat of a South African summer.

A bold statement, I hear you say. Let me explain …

Tradition dictates that snow, carols, turkey and Christmas trees feature strongly in the festive picture, and indeed they do in South Africa.

Imagine this, it’s 25th December at 5am in the morning. Despite all your best efforts to have kept them asleep, the children have already opened the presents left by Santa in the sacks placed at the end of their beds.

You notice through bleary eyes that the day itself is still asleep, wrapped in its mantle of dark. It will be hours before the sun will arouse itself sufficiently to bring even a glimmer of light to the proceedings.

You think of your friends who have decided to safari in South Africa and wonder what they are up to on this chill morning.

Indeed it will be chill, because they are on the first drive of the day, hoping to spot the first of their Big Five animals. Wrapped against the cool of the early African morning they see the spectacular sight of the sun shedding its night-time blanket to unveil the lion, elephant, rhino, buffalo and leopard, amongst others.

As the morning gathers pace and the cameras have worked overtime to capture this most special day, they head back to camp for a sumptuous breakfast, followed by a lazy few hours reading, opening presents, swimming in the warm pool, spotting the visiting birds like the brightly coloured kingfishers that come to the veranda or watching the animals who are swimming in the lake in front of their private lodge, such as the hippo.

Later on your friends have decided to experience the thrill of an elephant safari, riding through the bush on the back of this magnificent beast before returning to camp for their Christmas Day meal – probably turkey with all the trimmings. There’ll be crackers and tinsel, party poppers and jokes.

So the sun slowly sinks back down into the umber, ochre and burnt sienna colours of the earth, producing a glowing red sunset to mark the end of another day.

You resolve that next year you will take the tinsel and angels to task and exchange the cold for the heat and combine the summer with the traditions of Christmas.

I wish everyone wherever they are in the world and however they celebrate the very best for the coming festivities.

Falling advertising revenues and the ‘online revolution’ have placed a strain on newspapers in recent years. So, what is the solution?

Is it conceivable to consider a world with no printed media? Possibly.

Is it conceivable to consider a world without The Sun, or The Times, or Private Eye? No.

Wherever technology is taking us, these huge brands will survive; it is in what format – and more importantly, how they will make money – that is the important issue.

Newspapers have traditionally relied heavily on advertising to boost revenues. While the market for this has waned – and with it rates for page space – the online ad market paints an equally glum picture.

With advertisers often paying on a click-by-click basis, no guarentee can be made for revenue to websites. And if, as Rupert Murdoch and a handful of other believe, paywalls are the answer, then reduced traffic to websites charging for news will see a steep fall in advertising revenue.

Also, do people even want to read newspapers online? I don’t believe so. I think people are happy to read news online – having access to information at your fingertips is the Web’s great selling point – but reading opinion, or any in-depth material, online can be taxing.

An study into the New York Times’s online readership found that users spend an average of just 40 minutes on the website each month. Many spend at least that with a newspaper every day.

At present, there is simply no market for online newspapers. Advertising will not cover the costs involved in producing the copy and charging customers to visit the site will reduce traffic and, therefore, damage the brand.

But newspapers are making little to no money and printing that much paper every day will eventually become unsustainable.

So, print media may end up a thing of the past, but that day will be a while in coming.

By Rory Reynolds

SCOTS sofa queen Lorraine Kelly joins the big 50 club today.

The chirpy TV favourite is still looking good as she enters her 6th decade, as her legions of polling internet fans could attest to.

The Dundee-based veteran presenter has been on the box for as long as anyone can remember, rising quickly from a cub reporter on a local paper to a TV-am telly journalist.

And it wasn’t long before she’d worked her way onto ITV, and even had a hand in helping to launch GMTV despite being in her early 30s.

Now Lorraine is one of Britain’s best-loved presenters, still fronting the early morning news and chat show, while finding time to write two newspaper columns every week and commute home to Dundee.

She said: “I can’t believe I’ve reached my half-century already as I still feel about 15 – and sometimes I know I act like a teenager.

“To be honest it’s just a number and a terrific excuse for a party.

“I’ve been told that there will be some surprises on tomorrow morning’s GMTV show and it could be well worth tuning in just to see me looking embarrassed when I have to blow out all those candles.”

But instead of celebrating her big day, the big-hearted mum is spending it raising cash for an armed forces charity to support Britain’s injured brave soldiers

And she’ll even get up on stage for the big fundraiser, despite admitting that she hasn’t thought of an act yet.

She added: “Despite the fact that I can neither sing, dance, nor play an instrument I will be up on stage and will prove, in my case, that Britain doesn’t actually have any talent.”

See more of our pictures at our Flickr site and videos at our dedicated channel,  Deadline TV.

Le journal britannique The Sun avait rédigé un rapport prophétique intitulé « Big Brother’s Coming » le 1er août 1989. Cet article exposait brièvement les plans secrets du gouvernement qui consistaient à implanter, sous prétexte d’une pandémie de grippe porcine, des micro-puces à chaque individu afin d’avoir un contrôle absolu sur les populations.

Le rapport aurait pu être rédigé aujourd’hui où les gouvernements s’apprêtent à mettre en œuvre un programme de vaccination massive contre « la grippe porcine » avec des vaccins non testés et toxiques. De nombreuses sources avancent que les gouvernements fourniront des nano-puces qui seront introduites dans les seringues.

Les MICRO-PUCES CODÉES implantées dans chaque individu nous relieront tous à un ordinateur pilote qui pourra retrouver n’importe qui à tout moment. Que vous le voulez ou non, les plans pour un tel système sont déjà en cours.
 
Le projet secret est présenté comme un service de protection de la population par les hauts représentants du gouvernement. Néanmoins, certains initiés qui s’opposent à ce plan affirment qu’il s’agit simplement d’un autre moyen pour que les dictateurs contrôlent leurs sujets.
 
Émetteurs
 
« Les agents de haut rang de la sécurité nationale tentent de convaincre des sources de l’administration Bush de mettre en œuvre le projet qui permettra l’implant d’un petit émetteur dans chaque homme, femme et enfant », affirme Davis Milerand, un critique de l’intervention gouvernementale qui confie avoir reçu des fuites provenant d’un informateur dans la place.
 
« Ils essaient de dire que c’est un moyen qui permettra aux autorités de retrouver facilement des personnes et des enfants portés disparus, mais aussi des criminels et des espions ».
 
Injections
 
« Mais avec l’incroyable technologie avancée dont nous disposons aujourd’hui, toutes les informations vous concernant peuvent être contenues dans une toute petite puce qui sera connectée à l’ordinateur du gouvernement.
 
Chaque organisme gouvernemental sera au courant des activités passées et présentes de n’importe quel individu à n’importe quel moment ».
 
D’autres sources soutiennent que ces petits émetteurs peuvent être injectés aux humains sans trop de mal grâce à de petites armes et sans qu’ils ne s’en rendent compte au cours d’un programme de vaccination national.
 
« Les gouvernements n’auront qu’à inventer quelque chose comme le vaccin contre la grippe porcine », explique Milerand.
 
« Imaginez un peu qu’on nous dise qu’il existe un vaccin contre le sida.  Les gens se bousculeraient pour se faire vacciner.
 
Les médecins eux-mêmes ne sauraient peut-être pas ce qu’ils injectent.  On pourrait leur faire croire que les micro-puces sont des implants génétiques qui reprogramme le système immunitaire et lui permettent de combattre certaines maladies ».
 
Il ajoute : « Le programme exigera que tous les employés du gouvernement fédéral et local soient vaccinés. »
 
« Ce n’est qu’une question de temps. Tout le monde aura une micro-puce implantée sur lui et nous serons tous des esclaves du gouvernement ».
 
Reproduction Interdite

.Tous droits réservés SpreadTheTruth.fr

.Toute reproduction même partielle, entrainera des poursuites judiciaires conformément au code de la propriété intellectuelle
Source: forum prison planet
spreadthetruth

Honnêtement, j’espère que c’est un fake, c’est trop gros sinon !!!!
je me pose serieusement la question, même si ça ne m’etonnerais pas, regardez par exemple ArticleEconomist1988GetReadyforthePhoenix_001-1, dès 1988, the economist parle d’une monnaie mondiale pour juguler les problèmes économiques.

Les Anglais sont tellement dégénérés que même si on leurs dit la vérité, ils ne comprennent pas.

Ce qui est troublant c’est que ça sonne très vrai, c’est exactement ce que nous craignions, c’est ahurissant.

Regardez cette vidéo, on parle sur fox news d’une puce implantée qui peut tuer la personne !!!

Je ne sais pas quand est ce que les gens vont prendre la mesure du monde qui se met en place, je ne sais pas si ils vont se révolter, mais ils ont interêt parceque en face nous avons des malades mentaux qui fonctionnent comme des nazis ou des khmers rouges et qui vont nous exterminer comme des chiens.

Nous sommes des pions, nous sommes totalement manipulés, l’histoire suit un plan, et même si il y a le paramètre du hasard, la puissance de ceux qui tirent les ficelles est si forte qu’ils sont capables de réaliser leurs projets, même les plus fous.

Les gens ne croiront jamais à un tel projet, en plus du lavage de cerveau et du tittytainment, les verroux psychologiques bloqueront toutes réflexions rationnelles, il suffit de jeter un coup d’oeil à l’histoire pour s’en persuader.Que ce soit les Cambodgiens, les chinois, les russes les juifs, les tutsis, ils sont tous allés à la mort sans combattre, c’est humain de croire à la vie jusqu’au bout.

Je doute donc qui nous arrivions à faire prendre conscience à beaucoup de gens, mais la noblesse humaine doit nous pousser à le faire quand même, nous nous devons d’alerter le plus de gens possible.Je sais que beaucoup sont zombifiés, mais en réalité nous n’avons pas le choix.Le plus triste et le plus grave c’est que les gens n’ont aucune culture, ne connaissent rien à l’histoire et surtout ils n’ont aucune curiosité.C’est cela le plus grave.

Les temps sont grave, Vincent nous a dit que la ville de Paris n’avait pas authorisé la manifestation anti vaccination grippe A pour aujourd’hui à 14 heure deevant l’hotel de ville.
Ils ont peur de la vérité, sinon pourquoi interdire ce rassemblement ?

My article on the Moon and its relation to the Nodes (The Hungry Moon: the Nodes Part One) prompted some questions about dispositors. There was confusion about the way they operate and how they are different from aspects to planets, and rulers of houses. Part of the problem is in the language; we tend to forget and call the dispositors of a planet the ‘ruler’ of that planet, which is just sloppy terminology, and one I’ve often been guilty of. A dispositor doesn’t rule. A dispositor receives.

First of all, let me say that the first thing anyone needs in learning astrology is a thorough understanding of the houses, on all their levels of manifestation. I’ve said this before and I will keep on saying it. This is particularly important in understanding the relationship between planets and their dispositors.

Aspects to a planet describe the kind and type of activities that will cause that planet to develop. If our ultimate goal is to better ourselves, to raise our consciousness to a higher form of expression, then the aspects will show us how to do that. (The lights behave differently in aspect from the planets, but we will get to that another day.) They put pressure on the planet to evolve. The aspects are continually ‘teaching’ the planet, whether drumming in lessons or offering information. The types of aspect will show the ease or difficulty in processing the new expression. Our inclination (via the Moon) is to cling to the old, the familiar. Our aspects push us, gently or forcefully, to new and often uncomfortable places. This is how we learn, how we change.

So how does the dispositor of a planet or light fit in?

All of this activity, all of this new energy, has to have a focus, a pulling point. If the aspects are ’squeezing’ the planet, the energy of that developing planet has to go somewhere. It has to spill out, play out someplace. This is where the dispositor of a planet kicks in. The dispositor of a planet will receive that planet’s newly forming energy and test it out, use it within the house it finds itself in. The planet has an indirect, but important, influence on the dispositor’s house.

Say you have the Moon conjunct Uranus in Leo in the 11th house. The Moon/Uranus conjunction will cause incidents of enforced change and sudden removal that will alter the Moon’s comfort zones, both mentally and physically. Moon/Uranus has to learn to get comfortable with change. The dispositor of both of these planets will be the Sun. If the Sun is in the seventh house, the change that the Moon has had to endure and learn from will directly affect the 7th house Sun–a change in the way we relate to others on a one to one basis and the experiences that the Sun creates in that house. The 11th house conjunction will describe the general area of the changes the Moon will experience (changes of friends, isolation from groups or societies, being alienated from group creativity) but the dispositor will reflect the results of those changes. As a result of the 11th house experiences, there is an effect in the 7th. (This gets interesting when there are two different dispositors for an out of sign conjunction. If these dispositors are in aspect, you have a key to the nature of the conjunction and the relative ease or difficulty with which it will manifest itself. It becomes highlighted. Note the Moon/Mars conjunction in Tony Perkins’ chart, in which Mars is dominant in it’s own sign and inconjunct a prominent Neptune, which disposits the Moon and the North Node; possibly the most important single aspect in the chart, indicating a major life theme.)

When considering dispositors, it’s best to first focus on each planet separately, all of the aspects to that planet, and ask how that planet is developing; the dispositor will show you were the developing energy of the planet will spill. If a number of planets have the same dispositor, or the dispositors of a number of planets fall into one house, the emphasis should be noted. It will give more information to the meanings of the planets in those houses.

This isn’t to be confused with house rulership. House rulers are like the landlords –it doesn’t matter where they are in the chart, they still own the house. Anything that effects them will have an echo in the house that they rule. This is particularly true with transits and progressions. The immediate impact is in the house the planet finds itself in, but the secondary influence will effect the house it rules. If I have transiting Pluto in the 10th opposite natal Venus in the 4th, this transformative experience may effect both my home life and my career, but will also reflect strongly in whatever houses Venus and Pluto rule. If we understand this, transiting and progressed aspects will start to make sense, and feel less random. Likewise, if we understand dispositors, we will know better what changes are required of us.

If Rupert Murdoch imposes paywalls on his newspaper websites, will the public pay, or just click elsewhere?

“Quality journalism is not cheap. The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites.”

Rupert Murdoch aims to put paywalls on all his newspaper websites

So said media mogul Rupert Murdoch back in August. This week’s online journalism lecture featured ex-Cardiff alumnus Rob Andrew who spoke to us about business models and paying for online content. Bearing in mind Murdoch’s recent plans for all the newspapers under his command (The Times, The Sun, and The News Of The World to name a few) to introduce paywalls, this lecture couldn’t have come at a better time.

Having previously freelanced for The Guardian and Wired magazine, Rob Andrew is currently responsible for the UK part of paidcontent.org- a website that was started by entrepreneur Rafat Ali back in 2002. As well as its UK counterpart, paidcontent.org also features moconews.org- a website that deals with mobile content, and contentsutra.org- the Indian equivalent. Paidcontent.org has three fundamental aims- to provide breaking news, to act as an aggregator of current and topical issues and also to provide a layer of analysis and expertise. The structure of the website takes on a blog framework, and the writers increasingly use social media tools, such as RSS feeds and Twitter, to get the information they need for their posts. Andrew explained how Ali has been seen by many in the media industry as the “poster boy for career independence from global media companies.” Ali appears to be seeing the future of the journalism industry clearly and realistically; he has said from the onset that all media will become digital media, and the fact that the website was set up over seven years ago highlights how this issue of paying for online content is not a new idea.

Although the idea of paying for online content is not entirely new, the fact that it has not been an integral part of online news consumption means that it is going to be very difficult to persuade people to pay. Paidcontent.org teamed up with Harris Poll earlier this year and conducted their own research to see how much, and for which types of content, people would be prepared to pay.  The survey found, contrary to Murdoch’s plans, that only five percent of people would be prepared to pay for online content, whereas a massive 74 percent would look elsewhere. Over all ages almost three quarters of people polled would find a free alternative if their favourite news site starting charging. Surprisingly though, the results found that people in the 16-24 age bracket were 13 times more likely to pay for content than those in the 35-44 and 55-66 age groups.

The same survey also found that out of the five percent of people who would be prepared to pay for content, three quarters of them would want to pay less than £10 a year. Which isn’t exactly going to make up the increasingly huge drop in newspaper sales over the last year…

Yet despite the bleak support for paid content, Andrew made one point very clear; if news organisations are going to start charging their consumers for reading news on the internet, they are going to have to make huge improvements to their online content. Competition will be fierce, and if news organisations are going to attract, and keep, customers, their online material will have to be unique and interesting. If not, people will find an alternative. He used the example of B2B magazine Farmers Weekly. As this publication provides unique information on a niche subject, more people are likely to pay for its content, as it is not information that readers can find readily available elsewhere.

The FT is already successfully charging its readers online

Andrew also put the issues of paying for online content into the context of media advertising. He explained that there are two main reasons why companies are much more willing to invest their money in online resources. The first is that advert visibility can be counted on the web, unlike its print counterpart where advert views can only be estimated. This therefore allows companies to make informed decisions when choosing which websites to sponsor. Secondly a KPMG research survey found that 60 percent of people polled would rather have to watch an advert before accessing news than pay for it. Although this level of advertising does make up a large volume of revenue for the news organisations, the selling of online adverts does not make up for the loss of revenue from dropping newspaper sales.

There are, however, a few news websites that are already charging for content through subscription. Currently The Financial Times’s website FT.com has 1.6 million unique unpaid readers a month. It also has 128,000 paid-up subscribers who pay £90 a year to read the full content of the website. Although The FT has successfully demonstrated that people will pay to view their content, it is also important to note that this publication typically has a wealthy readership, and therefore would be more likely to purchase a subscription than forego reading it at all.

Will newspaper sales increase if online news has paywalls?

A point was raised towards the end of the lecture concerning Murdoch’s possible motives for creating paywalls on his news websites. As well as his frustration towards free aggregators such as Google, there is also the possibility that in the whole scheme of things, perhaps Murdoch is secretly hoping that by forcing people to pay for online content, people will eventually revert back to their old habits of nipping to the corner shop to pick up a newspaper. Only time will tell if paid content will become the norm, and whether it will force the five percent figure to increase as access to news sites are denied to those who want their news without cost…

Full results of the paidcontent.org and Harris Poll survey can be found at paidcontent.org.

The print industry is in a rapid decline, online news is more popular than ever and  Rupert Murdoch is proposing making people pay for his online paper’s from next year.

Are we just waiting around for the end of print – or will Murdoch’s plan actually push people who are unwilling to pay for online news back to their newspaper?

Online news is growing rapidly but in a lecture with journalist Rob Andrew, editor of Paid Content.co.uk, it became clear that at the moment people are unwilling to pay for it. A yearly subscription to The Guardian can cost around £350 but in a recent PCUK/Harris Poll, it was found that only 5% of people asked were willing to pay to read news online.

Newspapers rely on advertising but unlike with online adverts – there is no guaranteed return – and more and more advertising companies are moving away from print for this reason.

Rob, worringly, but accurately, describes newspapers as being in a perilous state and compares this to the music industry.

Music is now accessible free online and the only way to make money from it is through live performances – as the experience of watching live music can’t be replicated online.  The industry tried to introduce copy protection to stop music being shared online but abandoned this after sites like Spotify and We7 have made music instantly available for free.

Newspapers are looking for a short-term answer to this crisis to appease shareholders but what they should be doing is finding a long-term solution.

Specialist papers like the Financial Times and European Wall Street Journal currently charge a subscription. The FT has 128,000 subscribers paying approximately £90 a year. I find it highly unlikely people will pay for The Sun, News of the World or even The Times – but Mighty Murdoch is dead set on introducing these charges and if they are no longer available in print form the only option may be to buy online.

Surely if one paper charges online, people will just go to a free newspaper’s site instead? It would be impossible to implement a pay wall system unless all the papers agreed to do this. People do not want to pay for online news and most public opinion polls go directly against Murdoch’s plans.

The Guardian has a different ownership model to papers in the Murdoch News International empire and this allows it to put more into being innovative and exploring and developing it’s online version.

The future of print is very uncertain – if Murdoch does introduce charges will other paper’s follow? or will this backfire completely and will people just go somewhere else for their news?

• Cassini Sends Back Images of Enceladus as Winter Nears…

• …and Two More Awesome Pictures of the Enceladus Flyby…

• Skeptical topic: Global Warming denier not even close on 2009 temperatures…

• Future particle accelerators: beyond the Large Hadron Collider…

• Tech: Smart Armor Learns More With Every Bullet…

• The Milky Way galaxy bulges with cannibalized corpses…

• Skeptical topic: “Climategate” and Other Nonsense…

• Mystery of the Solar Tsunami: Monster Waves on the Sun are Real…

• Hey Kirk, here’s yer crocoduck! Galloping, Dinosaur Eating Crocodiles Found in the Sahara…

• Astronomy Picture of the Day for November 25, 2009…

The Sun is tackling the controversial subject of posing for Playboy magazine- an American magazine founded by Hugh Hefner containing images of naked women, interviews and fashion.

Founded in 1953, Playboy has featured the likes of American national treasure Marilyn Monroe and The King of Pop’s older sister LaToya Jackson.

Women who pose for Playboy will undoubtedly come across critics who will accuse them of degrading themselves for the sake of money.

But with a salary of approximately $25,000 (around £18,000) a month is this an offer too good to turn down? Why not make quicker earnings rather than be stuck in a dead-end job paying the minimum wage, some argue?

Of course the woman that poses nude for Playboy carries the risk of being seen as an object of sexual desire, and nothing more.

What people seem to forget is that the girls of the Playboy mansion are not all prostitutes, and if they are then that is wrong. A woman’s body is a temple and giving it up to any Tom, Dick and Harry is quite simply self abuse.

However,people often don’t realise that to be in Playboy you do not necessarily have to be naked- some are dressed in the iconic bunny outfits.

There is definitly the view that women who pose for Playboy, whether naked or not, are all beauty and no brains. An old Bible saying comes to mind here; “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

MY Sun users have engaged with this debate.

Phoebe81 says: “I have no problem with getting my kit off and to be paid for it. I’d be laughing all the way to the bank.”

alliebabe agrees and said: “I’ve always fantasised about doing it and the thrill of it.”

gemmamariemc is more reluctant, stating “The thought of my dad, brothers,uncles, grandad etc coming across it is enough to put me off!”

emmazzz hits the nail right on the head when she argues: “I don’t have the body for it anyway, but have no problem with those that do. They aren’t harming anyone and aren’t exploited as the get paid good cash for it

“My daughter is a photographer and gets lots of women asking her to take nude shots for loved ones and portfolios. It’s become much more open in the last few years. As long as it’s tasteful I’ve no problems with it.”

Forum comment of the day:

“It’s a COMPLIMENT if a guy is jerking off to your picture or even thinking of you while he does it. It means you look HOT and are attractive and desirable. Sex is not bad…..relax and go with it. It’s a healthy, natural thing.”

A tad explicit, but funny nonetheless!

Would you flash your flesh for cash?

Is it a case of move on with times, women are free to do what they want with their bodies?

Which was one should expect. But I don’t think the Big G is scared:

‘Microsoft has had discussions with News Corp over a plan that would involve the media company being paid to “de-index” its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.

‘The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early stage.’ -Financial Times

Here’s an excellent commentary from Wolff:
Murdoch and Microsoft: The Mice Are Trying to Roar
by Michael Wolff -Vanity Fair

The sun. It's big, hot, and apparently, occasionally subject to some serious turbulence.

Scientists at NASA have confirmed earlier observations of wavelike events on the solar surface as being truly stellar tsunamis. NASA is good at putting out really great press releases, and they know a heck of a lot more about this than I do, so I’m just going to point you to their site. Make sure you check out the videos!

The sun is awesome. “Some matter in a ball,” indeed.

-Neil

by Anna Fenton

The Murdoch media group has made two very important announcements in the past few months. The first was James Murdoch’s speech at the MacTaggart lecture delivered at the 2009 MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival. The second was the announcement that The Sun was switching its allegiances to support the Conservatives in the next general election. The timing of both of these events appear calculated and seem to foreshadow pressure for change in the British media.

James Murdoch’s speech offered a dark vision of the direction in which Britain’s media might be heading. The News Corporation’s chairman and chief executive for Europe and Asia took the opportunity presented by his platform to lampoon the BBC and criticise its operation.  He called for its systematic deregulation and prophesied dark times for the media as a result of the dangers of state regulation. He depicted the BBC as being a malign force in the media, interfering with the “natural diversity” of other media platforms. He expanded on this notion by suggesting that the BBC was an authoritarian entity by virtue of its regulated content. Murdoch proposed a comprehensive deregulation of the BBC, a curbing of its on-line content capacity and the dropping of the ‘impartiality clause’ in how the BBC reports news: in short opening the floodgates for partial news reporting.

Although the views expressed in his speech might find favour with some, many recognised the motives of the speech as being ultimately self interested. It is clearly natural for the Murdochs to be hostile to the BBC. In the UK, they own:  British Sky Broadcasting (40%), Sky One, Sky News, Sky Soap, Granada Plus, Sky Sports, The Times, Times Literary Supplement, The Sunday Times, News of the World and of course, The Sun. The BBC is obviously a great threat to the Murdoch empire. It offers ever expanding online content for free, and its use of the license fee gives it an economic edge. Profit media, like Murdoch’s have heavy competition from the BBC; as Murdoch says: ‘Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet.”

It is of course absolutely necessary for the BBC to face scrutiny and where needed, criticism. However, to curb the BBC’s reportage, and to remove the impartiality rules that have been in place for over half a century could open up the British market to potential FOX news channels, allowing rampant bigotry and bias to enter our news. How many British people would like to see a British version of Glenn Beck on their screens? I suspect not many.

Speeches are all very well and good, but the truly “chilling” implications of Murdoch’s words for the BBC really come in the form of The Sun’s switch in political allegiance to back the Conservatives for the coming general election: “The Sun believes – and prays – that the Conservative leadership can put the great back into Great Britain”. This revelation seems to have been timed for maximum impact – right after Gordon Brown’s rousing call for Labour support at the Party conference. However, the Sun’s political editor, George Pascoe-Watson, stated that the announcement was not scheduled to cause maximum political damage but simply reflected a loss of faith in New Labour.

Not many people would admit to their vote being influenced by their newspaper, but surely the support of a paper that 60% of the newspaper readership buys would not hurt the Conservative vote. Robert Beverage, journalism lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University suggests that the allegiance change shows “a recognition that Cameron is extremely likely to win the next election, as Murdoch usually goes for winners, and spots winners.”

“As The Sun increasingly, in its news coverage, highlights the inadequacies of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister I think it will contribute towards a reinforcement of the definition of Gordon Brown as an incompetent Prime Minister. Whether that assessment fair or not is another judgement, but it will contribute towards a higher majority for the Conservatives at the next UK general election.”

But the question we should perhaps be asking is what Murdoch wants in return for his media leverage. Beverage speculates: “In return for the support of the Sun newspaper, Murdoch might get a loosening of the impartiality rules for commercial broadcasters”.

It wouldn’t stretch the imagination to conceive of a possibility where Cameron was gifted the support of The Sun in return for some of the media “solutions” offered in James Murdoch’s speech. Namely, the deregulation of British broadcast, a reduction in the power of the BBC, particularly their free web content, along with a host of other requests.

Conservative designs upon the BBC favourable to Murdoch’s plans will have been registered on the Murdoch radar. “Bloated BBC out of touch with viewers”, writes David Cameron for The Sun newspaper, though he quickly professes that he is a ‘lifelong fan’ of the broadcast. Fox News style broadcast channels are currently unacceptable in the UK, but with changes to broadcast regulations, they could soon be coming to a screen near you. Combine an unfettered, profit based, right wing news broadcast with a weakened BBC, and it signals the undermining of British media as we know it.

The BBC has naturally responded to Murdoch’s designs on the Fourth Estate. Jana Bennett, BBC head of vision said: “Given the way the audience and their public want to trust their news, I think it would be a regrettable step to go for partial news, as if that’s really going to help public debate and civic society, so I’m afraid I really don’t share that view.”

“I also question his idea that somehow the American model for news production is really healthy, because it isn’t.”

Chairman of the BBC Trust, Sir Michael Lyons, was rather more measured in his comments, admitting: “There are current problems and they need to be addressed. Our starting point is what is in the interests of the public and the BBC agrees with James Murdoch’s analysis that we need to trust them.”

As a public service broadcast, it is BBC’s duty to serve all audiences. However, Lyons was quick to say that this “doesn’t mean that it can or should seek to squeeze out other providers.”

The media industry has clearly embraced the huge changes in technology that have become available over recent years in its drive to keep and expand its audience. The multitude of platforms through which news can be followed have ensured a constant ‘hunger’ for live feeds and up-to-the-minute information. As a result of these technological advances, the way the media is understood and regulated will inevitably change. However, it is important to remember that when decisions concerning Britain’s broadcasting future are made, it will be difficult to have them retracted.

Murdoch’s forward-thinking speech raised some pertinent issues affecting the media. Online content of all forms is affecting newspaper sales, and the BBC, like any other organisation, must constantly reform to keep up with the times. However, in a public service broadcast, an aspiration towards impartiality is a prerequisite to achieve representative reporting, and to lose that would alter our broadcast beyond recognition. If these changes are already irreversibly set in motion, and Cameron and Murdoch are allied, we must consider at what point a media organisation becomes a political actor.

Side-wiki is a newish tool from Google that allows members of the public to place unmoderated comments onto a web page using the google toolbar. Every company needs to start monitoring this new tool,which theoretically can open a pandora’s box. Comments could range from the very positive, to the down-right insulting although, it is too early to say if it could have a real effect on a company’s brand image as it can only be accessed and viewed if you have the Google toolbar and you can only add a comment through a Google login and username. Both however, are very easy to get.

If Google starts indexing comments as part of their search result list, then there could be significant issues.

Below are a few high profile names that have been hit by negative or off-message side wiki posts which include the Labour and Conservative Parties’ home pages. The Liberal-Democrat website has no comments at all.

My particular favourite are the comments on the Sun.

My advice to all organisations, post something on your side-wiki now. You can’t stop people from making comments, but youcan at least try and push them past the fold. There is no way to moderate either.

Labour Party side-wiki comment

Conservative Party side-wiki comment

The Sun side-wiki comment

Tesco side-wiki comment

Walmart side-wiki comment

Sorry Martin but The Sun is weird. Here are some facts about the tabloid that I find surprising:

* It is extremely popular (with the second highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world and the biggest circulation within the UK).

* Has featured a topless model on page 3 since 1970.

* It is written by journalists who, for the most part, studied at Oxford or Cambridge university.

* It regularly wins British Press Awards.

* 44% of readers are female.

I see people reading The Sun on the way to work and wonder – why? My only rational answer is that people are reading it as an alternative to a trash mag like Hello. With The Sun you get your fix of celebrity gossip and ridiculous headlines plus a distorted overview of the latest headlines that make the complicated and detailed reporting of The Guardian and the BBC easier to understand.

Microsoft is holding talks with News Corporation and other media-companies to convince them to remove their news content from the Google search engine while continuing to feature their material on the Microsoft search engine. One source told the Financial Times that this initiative had originated with Keith Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and that talks are in their initial stages. News Corp and Microsoft representatives refused to comment.

Media entrepreneur Rupert Murdoch is reviewing plans to remove all stories from his newspapers from Google and giving Microsoft’s new flagship search-engine Bing sole index rights, in a move that could threaten Google with genuine competition for the first time in years.

The Bing-only agreement would undoubtedly see visitors to Murdoch’s newspaper websites (The New York Post, the Sun, The Times) fall, but with subsidiary payments given by Microsoft to compensate the multi-billionaire and his media empire, the move could prove beneficial.

The proposed move comes after an agreement three years ago between News Corp and Google for the solitary right to provide search tools and advertising on MySpace, at a cost of $900m. The deal has proven sour for Google, with MySpace projected traffic expectations falling way below target.

Ryan Cittum of the Columbia Journalism Review has suggested that search tools and links to Wall Street Journal via search engines is more an advertising tool, rather than a financial one, with only $12m coming there way through Google, whereas it accounts for almost a quarter of it’s online readers.

In other words, Murdoch is happy to lose the advertising generated through Google, and instead be rewarded with a tasty chunk of cash from Bill Gates and Microsoft than more than compensated for his lost readership. Only time will tell if this is a shrewd move.

http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/2009/11/murdoch-tries-to-swap-google-links-for-microsoft-cash/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/nov/23/microsoft-bing-news-corp

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/post_24.php

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

In The U.S., Rupert Murdoch is best known as the Australian owner of the Fox Broadcasting Company, the parent company of Fox News through which the mogul directs media marionettes such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. Hard as it may be to imagine, Murdoch wields even greater power on the other side of the Atlantic as he revels in the role of ‘decider’ in UK politics. As owner of newspapers such as The Sun and The Times, as well as Sky television, Murdoch has never shied away from politicians’ plaudits and often uses his influence to a worrying degree.

The Sun, as Britain’s most-read newspaper, has long served as the tabloid bludgeon with which Murdoch beats politicians into submission. This was evidenced last week when the newspaper carried out a characteristically contemptible attack on Prime Minister Gordon Brown, formally ending the newspaper and Murdoch’s love affair with the Labour Party. Brown was lambasted as “Bloody Shameful” having handwritten a letter of condolence to the mother of a British soldier killed in Afghanistan. His crime was to have misspelled the name of the soldier in question, which led The Sun to mount its moral high horse and illogically conclude that he was “disrespecting our war dead.” More shameful still was Brown’s reaction, with the UK leader telephoning Murdoch to beg for better treatment.

Brown’s snivelling sycophancy is part of a disturbing trend where politicians cuddle up to Murdoch and his minions in a bid to gain favorable coverage. The Sun’s political zenith came in 1992, when it campaigned tirelessly for the sluggish Conservative Party and was credited by many pundits  for winning the election for then-leader John Major. The Sun’s influence was so unrestrained that, following a policy disagreement, its editor had the impudence to tell Prime Minister Major that he was going to pour “a large bucket of shit” over his head. Tony Blair quickly realized the extent of Murdoch’s power and courted the Australian prior to his 1997 election. The Sun consequently changed sides and supported the Labour Party through Blair’s ten years at the top. In exchange, Blair’s government developed policies in sync with The Sun’s editorial line. One example occurred in August 2003 when The Sun printed a full week of coverage dedicated to criticizing asylum-seekers. One of Blair’s top ministers, David Blunkett, subsequently wrote an article for the paper supporting The Sun’s stance. It later transpired that the campaign was the result of a co-ordinated effort between The Sun and the Government.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party and Gordon Brown, the Conservatives under David Cameron have successfully wooed Murdoch and friends, with The Sun annoucing its switch the day after Brown delivered a major speech at his own party’s conference. Combine the Sun’s headlines with Brown’s disastrous premiership and the Labour Party are destined for a mammoth loss at next year’s general election. Yet as Murdoch and his cronies begin to use their leverage over the new Conservative government, it is British democracy that stands to be the real loser.

Michael Collins, November 2009

michael.mc.collins@gmail.com