Amazon.com: The Gathering Storm (Wheel of Time)
Unlike Wikipedia, I'm not going to tell you the story and ruin a great chapter in the Wheel of Time series. As a fan, you already know this is the first volume of the final "book" in the series. Well, if you haven't read it yet, get to it, now, yes it's really good.
First off, a couple of minor complaints. The first is that Jordan, throughout the series used, "had had" in sentences. Sometimes it would make sense, other times it was just pointless, one "had" will always suffice in any case. Now, Jordan died and Sanderson picked up the pieces and is making the final volumes whole, and in the pieces are parts of the story that Jordan had written. Obviously, the part I read that has the "had had" was written by Jordan because, if I recall correctly, there was only one instance.
The second mistake I caught because it's a pet peeve of mine, the erroneous use of some words that are spelled differently, but close to the same. In this book, I only noticed one such mistake, which is actually pretty good, and it came pretty late in the book so it was a little shocking to finally see this type of error when most of the book was error free. It comes about 3/4 of the way through, and the printed word is "where" but it should be "were."
So, minor mistakes, and very few... in fact one could really say there's only one technical mistake in the whole book. However, I'm a little confused... for some reason I thought the Ogier constructed the white tower using cuendillar. I'm pretty sure they didn't do that now, they're just really good at constructing using whatever material they used in building the white tower. If my thinking was correct, then part of the story would not make sense. So, there was a mistake on MY part. I got over it, I've looked up instances of cuendillar and I think I just assumed, and you know what happens when you ass-u-&-me.
Positive things... it's a great book. Period. The story, the flow, things are happening, good descriptions, it's got it all folks. I laughed, I cried (well, not cry, but you know what I mean) and I love that Sanderson correctly spelled "judgment." Not the British version "judgement," but the American, and correct, version of the word.
The editing. Like I said, "had had" was used once, and there was only one real word mistake. Comparing that to every other book in the series, it's a freekin miracle! Finally, I'm not wincing ever other chapter at some wierd mistake that should have been picked up. Great grammar, spelling, and, oh yeah, story. It all clicked thanks to great editing probably done by Sanderson himself.
SUMMARY: Get the book, read it, love it, and I told you so.
That is all.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Iranian Protests
It's odd, isn't it? Protests aren't odd in Iran, of course, but they're not protesting America, the great satan, or whatever, they're protesting their own government. The same government that came into power after protesting the former government. And yet, it appears nothing was learned last time.
One of the big mistakes of the old government was to crack down hard on the protestors. This lead to deaths. In Iranian, or maybe it's a muslim thing, after 40 days there's a big to-do about mourning a death, which would lead to protests, which the government cracked down on and involved more deaths. It happened enough that finally most people rebelled.
Now, 30 years later, we see somewhat of the same thing, except it appears to be a little deeper in that the continuation of the protests does not need to be predicated by a death. It's as if, no matter what the government does, whether they crack down on their own people or not, the people want a change of government. They want their votes to count, sure, but is that all? Is this just about one failed election? Will acquiescence of that one issue, a re-vote, subside the protests?
In my American thinking, I don't think a re-vote would be enough as it appears that maybe it is just a pretext to much more prevalent problem at the heart of the government. Corruption.
When the current government took over, they gave themselves a lot of power. Their Revolutionary Guard may actually have most of the power, even though the ideology was for their top cleric to be the one calling the shots. It doesn't appear to be working that way though.
For some reason I'm thinking their Revolutionary Guard is going to try and crush them, but that it will eventually backfire. I'm not sure if you could call it a civil war, but maybe a second revolution, of sorts. It's hard to read them because their culture is so different, I'm not sure if the people would implicate the whole government or just parts. Ultimately, I'm not even sure it the people will really win unless they change the whole structure, which gives itself much too much power, which will always lead to corruption.
Anyway, it's just odd how history seems to be repeating itself so soon. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the biggest thing that should be changed in Iran is the anger, because everything since the 70s from Iran appears to be motivated by anger. How about looking at the realities?
For instance, Iran currently blames the USA for all their woes under the Shahs. Why? Well, Madeleine Albright said (from wikipedia):
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
Simply put, we wanted to develop Iranian resources, Massadegh didn't. So, at Britan's urging, we got rid of him. That was a different era, we clearly wouldn't do something like that today.
Unfortunately, forgiveness does not seem to have a place with muslims. I mean, they still hate people over things that happened 1500 years ago. They even still dress like people did 2000 years ago.
So, it would be foolish to think that their hate will ever subside. Even if Iranians form a new government, so what? Do you think it will suddenly be amenable to the USA? Well, maybe, but here's the catch... no matter what we do, no matter how much money we invest, no matter anything, the Iranians hate us, they always will, and anything you have with them, you better be prepared to lose it. Just say no, to trusting Iran. After all, look at how corrupt they are, they're near the bottom of the list.
No, don't get your hopes up. Things could change for the better, sure, and maybe it's good to hope for that and act in a way to encourage that... but don't expect it anytime soon. Maybe in another 3000 years, Iranians, or whatever Iranians are called then, will be less angry. Until then, watch the protestors and hope that things go right for once over there.
One of the big mistakes of the old government was to crack down hard on the protestors. This lead to deaths. In Iranian, or maybe it's a muslim thing, after 40 days there's a big to-do about mourning a death, which would lead to protests, which the government cracked down on and involved more deaths. It happened enough that finally most people rebelled.
Now, 30 years later, we see somewhat of the same thing, except it appears to be a little deeper in that the continuation of the protests does not need to be predicated by a death. It's as if, no matter what the government does, whether they crack down on their own people or not, the people want a change of government. They want their votes to count, sure, but is that all? Is this just about one failed election? Will acquiescence of that one issue, a re-vote, subside the protests?
In my American thinking, I don't think a re-vote would be enough as it appears that maybe it is just a pretext to much more prevalent problem at the heart of the government. Corruption.
When the current government took over, they gave themselves a lot of power. Their Revolutionary Guard may actually have most of the power, even though the ideology was for their top cleric to be the one calling the shots. It doesn't appear to be working that way though.
For some reason I'm thinking their Revolutionary Guard is going to try and crush them, but that it will eventually backfire. I'm not sure if you could call it a civil war, but maybe a second revolution, of sorts. It's hard to read them because their culture is so different, I'm not sure if the people would implicate the whole government or just parts. Ultimately, I'm not even sure it the people will really win unless they change the whole structure, which gives itself much too much power, which will always lead to corruption.
Anyway, it's just odd how history seems to be repeating itself so soon. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the biggest thing that should be changed in Iran is the anger, because everything since the 70s from Iran appears to be motivated by anger. How about looking at the realities?
For instance, Iran currently blames the USA for all their woes under the Shahs. Why? Well, Madeleine Albright said (from wikipedia):
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
Simply put, we wanted to develop Iranian resources, Massadegh didn't. So, at Britan's urging, we got rid of him. That was a different era, we clearly wouldn't do something like that today.
Unfortunately, forgiveness does not seem to have a place with muslims. I mean, they still hate people over things that happened 1500 years ago. They even still dress like people did 2000 years ago.
So, it would be foolish to think that their hate will ever subside. Even if Iranians form a new government, so what? Do you think it will suddenly be amenable to the USA? Well, maybe, but here's the catch... no matter what we do, no matter how much money we invest, no matter anything, the Iranians hate us, they always will, and anything you have with them, you better be prepared to lose it. Just say no, to trusting Iran. After all, look at how corrupt they are, they're near the bottom of the list.
No, don't get your hopes up. Things could change for the better, sure, and maybe it's good to hope for that and act in a way to encourage that... but don't expect it anytime soon. Maybe in another 3000 years, Iranians, or whatever Iranians are called then, will be less angry. Until then, watch the protestors and hope that things go right for once over there.
The Heisman 2009
Ok, now... first off, the Heisman is not just about the best college athlete, it's also part popularity contest. What it should or shouldn't be is neither here nor there, that's just the way it is.
That said, one of these is going to win it:
Colt McCoy - He put on some big numbers, but towards the end of the season he threw some interceptions. People talk of a cream puff schedule, I suspect those same haven't seen him play except for the Nebraska game. And, oh yeah, there was the Nebraska game. The offense was non-existent, Colt made errors, and the only thing that allowed them to win was Nebraska's two costly penalties that allowed Texas to be in field goal range almost instantly.
Ndamukong Suh - Oh... My... God... Is there anything else you can say when a single person seems to completely shut down one of the best college offenses? Colt McCoy and the Texas offense had been putting up some good numbers, rolling over some good teams. But none of those other teams had this guy, and what a difference a team with Suh makes. Obviously deserving of the Heisman, but did the Big 12 championship game have a big enough spotlight?
Mark Ingram - He had a good season, 1500 yards rushing, 18 TDs. Somewhat the opposite of Suh in many ways. In the SEC championship game, he did fine and all, but he wasn't a overwhelming factor. However, he's in the spotlight big time.
The other candidates are all really good players, but when you look at their schedule, or in Tebow's case his simple failure to perform in his last game, and a tiny spotlight if any, they simply will not likely win.
So who will win? My order:
3. Colt McCoy - I simply do not think he can overcome the Nebraska game. UT won, but Colt lost. True, Nebraska has a great defense, but a great player worthy of the Heisman will have beaten another Heisman candidate on the field, in this case it was Suh. Sorry Colt, be like Vince Young and prove it in the title game.
2. Mark Ingram - I think, like Colt McCoy, Ingram really didn't shine in his last game, and if anything, lots of people watched and were underwhelmed, thinking that all this talk was just hype. Don't get me wrong, he did well, but the key to that win was McElroy. No doubt about it.
1. Ndamukong Suh - Why is Nebraska's defense so good... he's the answer. I think the Big 12 championship was a big enough spotlight to show most people what a terrific, stand out, man among boys, player he is. Suh, wow, definitely deserving. Even if you take out the spotlight factor, there is no competition. This guy is #1, period.
So there you have it. These are the top 3 no matter what anyone else says. Any deviation from this is just wrong. That is all.
That said, one of these is going to win it:
Colt McCoy - He put on some big numbers, but towards the end of the season he threw some interceptions. People talk of a cream puff schedule, I suspect those same haven't seen him play except for the Nebraska game. And, oh yeah, there was the Nebraska game. The offense was non-existent, Colt made errors, and the only thing that allowed them to win was Nebraska's two costly penalties that allowed Texas to be in field goal range almost instantly.
Ndamukong Suh - Oh... My... God... Is there anything else you can say when a single person seems to completely shut down one of the best college offenses? Colt McCoy and the Texas offense had been putting up some good numbers, rolling over some good teams. But none of those other teams had this guy, and what a difference a team with Suh makes. Obviously deserving of the Heisman, but did the Big 12 championship game have a big enough spotlight?
Mark Ingram - He had a good season, 1500 yards rushing, 18 TDs. Somewhat the opposite of Suh in many ways. In the SEC championship game, he did fine and all, but he wasn't a overwhelming factor. However, he's in the spotlight big time.
The other candidates are all really good players, but when you look at their schedule, or in Tebow's case his simple failure to perform in his last game, and a tiny spotlight if any, they simply will not likely win.
So who will win? My order:
3. Colt McCoy - I simply do not think he can overcome the Nebraska game. UT won, but Colt lost. True, Nebraska has a great defense, but a great player worthy of the Heisman will have beaten another Heisman candidate on the field, in this case it was Suh. Sorry Colt, be like Vince Young and prove it in the title game.
2. Mark Ingram - I think, like Colt McCoy, Ingram really didn't shine in his last game, and if anything, lots of people watched and were underwhelmed, thinking that all this talk was just hype. Don't get me wrong, he did well, but the key to that win was McElroy. No doubt about it.
1. Ndamukong Suh - Why is Nebraska's defense so good... he's the answer. I think the Big 12 championship was a big enough spotlight to show most people what a terrific, stand out, man among boys, player he is. Suh, wow, definitely deserving. Even if you take out the spotlight factor, there is no competition. This guy is #1, period.
So there you have it. These are the top 3 no matter what anyone else says. Any deviation from this is just wrong. That is all.
Monday, December 07, 2009
BCS Bowl Games 2009
For the title game it's #1 Bama v. #2 Texas. Texas barely beat Nebraska in a controversial, but hard fought game. With less than 2 minutes to go, Nebraska shoots itself by first kicking the ball out of bounds, putting UT on the 40 yard line. Then, in another very stupid move, Nebraska commits a personal file on a 19 yard pass reception. Granted, he would have ran for more if not for the penalty, but the penalty adds 15 yards and I'm not sure if he would gone that much farther. So, within seconds, Texas is in field goal range to win it.
That's when things got stupid. Time is running out, you're in field goal range, you have an unused time out, so what SHOULD you do? If you think you should run down the clock a little more, keep the ball safe, call a time out with about 2 to 5 seconds left to play... well in UT terms, you're wrong. Instead, they try running some plays, lose yardage, and with just a handful of seconds on the game clock... are trying to pass the ball. That's just stupid and it almost, and maybe should have, cost them game.
The controversy is that the game clock went to zero seconds, meaning game over, after their last play, the pass attempt that went out of bounds. Now, the time keeper did nothing wrong because a play isn't dead until the whistle blows. On the replay, I didn't hear a whistle until after the clock was at zero seconds. But, the officials did a review and decided to stop the clock at the instant when the ball hit out of bounds. I don't know if that should have been the case, how many other plays throughout all games do the officials rule on whether the ground crew blew the whistle as soon as a ball is thrown incomplete? I'm sure "none" is a pretty close, if not dead on answer.
But let's hear if for Nebraska, what an outstanding defensive effort that came up a second short on winning a big game for their team. Usually defensive battles are boring games, but both UT's and Nebraska's defenses made it enjoyable to watch, and got hearts beating.
That said, Texas won, and will now face Bama for the Title. It's actually good that Texas won in that the Big 12 will be present in the title game. If Texas had lost, then the Big would not have a chance to upset the best conference out there, the SEC. But if there's a Big 12 team that can do it, it's definitely UT. Just like a few years ago when nobody thought Texas could beat USC, with it's two Heisman winners, Texas won. Now, it's a matchup against the SEC's best. And considering Bama's domination over Florida, well, it should be interesting. Bama simply looks like it's getting better, and Texas looked pretty flat against Nebraska. But then, I think Nebraska could give any team's offense fits... so it's tough to say who's really better. Additionally, there's like a month's wait.
A month's wait. Yeah... to me, when the teams are close in talent, that means the it's up to the coach. The better coach will have his team better prepared, and inspired to play some great ball. Oddly enough, these two coaches are both really, really good. Bama is favored by three points, but that's only because they've been ranked higher all season and those same people aren't going to suddenly indicate that Texas will win.
So who knows, just root for Alabama if you like them more, or root for the underdog, giant-killers. I'm hoping for a Big 12 win because a Big 12 win would help take away that mystique of the SEC somewhat and maybe people wouldn't automatically rank SEC teams ahead of equally good Big 12 teams in the future. Strength of schedule, yeah, Big 12 has strength, Nebraska proved it for sure, as did A&M.
Oregon against Ohio State in the Rose Bowl - bleh. Ohio State always plays tough and have a lot of support wherever they go. They get invited to bowl games because of that, hard playing and lots of fans to buy tickets and spend money. I'm not a fan of the Rose Bowl because I really don't care much for the Pac or Big East.
Iowa against Georgia Tech in the Orange - bleh. I dunno, I like Tech. Not sure why, except that maybe while serving in Pensacola I watched them play a couple of times on TV. Of course the players I watched back then probably have their kids playing in this game.
Florida against Cincinnati in the Sugar - Stupid. Really, it is. Cincy barely wins games against unranked teams, and they get to play Florida? That's BS. TCU deserved to play Florida by its utter domination over teams. In fact, I predict that TCU would have beaten Florida. As it is, look for Cincy to get wiped all over the field.
TCU against Boise State in the Fiesta - This would appear to be a good game... but appearances can be deceiving. The only thing Boise State has going for it that maybe (along with the disappointment of not playing Florida) with all this time off that TCU has had, that they'll be overweight and sloppy come game time. Unless that happens, even though Boise State is a good team, look for TCU to dominate, again. No doubt, with a convincing performance even over Boise State, TCU may very well be considered, unofficially, the best team this year.
And then there's the Super Bowl... well, that's not collegiate and no teams have been scheduled yet to appear... but my prediction is that the Cowboys will not be there. Even if by some miracle they were to get into a playoff game, they'd find a way to lose it. Romo, Wade, or both need to get kicked out. Romo has sucked all season. He used to be inconsistent between games, not he's inconsistent even within games. Sorry, but rare flashes of good passing should not be good enough to keep your job as a QB within the NFL, and will definitely not get you to, much less win, a Superbowl.
Come on Jerry Jones, you're good at getting rid of coaches, what makes Wade worth hanging on to? Seriously, why? I don't see it. Is it something personal? The Cowboys need a stern coach, that's been proven. Landry, Johnson, Parcels... those are the types that made the Cowboys great. Notice I didn't include Switzer, he inherited a team that my dog, very smart dog I might add, could have coached to a championship. It'd be like taking credit for coaching MJ, Shak and Kobe to a NBA championship. Sorry, not going to happen.
Sorry, it's hard to not express my disappointment with the Cowboys while talking football.
That's when things got stupid. Time is running out, you're in field goal range, you have an unused time out, so what SHOULD you do? If you think you should run down the clock a little more, keep the ball safe, call a time out with about 2 to 5 seconds left to play... well in UT terms, you're wrong. Instead, they try running some plays, lose yardage, and with just a handful of seconds on the game clock... are trying to pass the ball. That's just stupid and it almost, and maybe should have, cost them game.
The controversy is that the game clock went to zero seconds, meaning game over, after their last play, the pass attempt that went out of bounds. Now, the time keeper did nothing wrong because a play isn't dead until the whistle blows. On the replay, I didn't hear a whistle until after the clock was at zero seconds. But, the officials did a review and decided to stop the clock at the instant when the ball hit out of bounds. I don't know if that should have been the case, how many other plays throughout all games do the officials rule on whether the ground crew blew the whistle as soon as a ball is thrown incomplete? I'm sure "none" is a pretty close, if not dead on answer.
But let's hear if for Nebraska, what an outstanding defensive effort that came up a second short on winning a big game for their team. Usually defensive battles are boring games, but both UT's and Nebraska's defenses made it enjoyable to watch, and got hearts beating.
That said, Texas won, and will now face Bama for the Title. It's actually good that Texas won in that the Big 12 will be present in the title game. If Texas had lost, then the Big would not have a chance to upset the best conference out there, the SEC. But if there's a Big 12 team that can do it, it's definitely UT. Just like a few years ago when nobody thought Texas could beat USC, with it's two Heisman winners, Texas won. Now, it's a matchup against the SEC's best. And considering Bama's domination over Florida, well, it should be interesting. Bama simply looks like it's getting better, and Texas looked pretty flat against Nebraska. But then, I think Nebraska could give any team's offense fits... so it's tough to say who's really better. Additionally, there's like a month's wait.
A month's wait. Yeah... to me, when the teams are close in talent, that means the it's up to the coach. The better coach will have his team better prepared, and inspired to play some great ball. Oddly enough, these two coaches are both really, really good. Bama is favored by three points, but that's only because they've been ranked higher all season and those same people aren't going to suddenly indicate that Texas will win.
So who knows, just root for Alabama if you like them more, or root for the underdog, giant-killers. I'm hoping for a Big 12 win because a Big 12 win would help take away that mystique of the SEC somewhat and maybe people wouldn't automatically rank SEC teams ahead of equally good Big 12 teams in the future. Strength of schedule, yeah, Big 12 has strength, Nebraska proved it for sure, as did A&M.
Oregon against Ohio State in the Rose Bowl - bleh. Ohio State always plays tough and have a lot of support wherever they go. They get invited to bowl games because of that, hard playing and lots of fans to buy tickets and spend money. I'm not a fan of the Rose Bowl because I really don't care much for the Pac or Big East.
Iowa against Georgia Tech in the Orange - bleh. I dunno, I like Tech. Not sure why, except that maybe while serving in Pensacola I watched them play a couple of times on TV. Of course the players I watched back then probably have their kids playing in this game.
Florida against Cincinnati in the Sugar - Stupid. Really, it is. Cincy barely wins games against unranked teams, and they get to play Florida? That's BS. TCU deserved to play Florida by its utter domination over teams. In fact, I predict that TCU would have beaten Florida. As it is, look for Cincy to get wiped all over the field.
TCU against Boise State in the Fiesta - This would appear to be a good game... but appearances can be deceiving. The only thing Boise State has going for it that maybe (along with the disappointment of not playing Florida) with all this time off that TCU has had, that they'll be overweight and sloppy come game time. Unless that happens, even though Boise State is a good team, look for TCU to dominate, again. No doubt, with a convincing performance even over Boise State, TCU may very well be considered, unofficially, the best team this year.
And then there's the Super Bowl... well, that's not collegiate and no teams have been scheduled yet to appear... but my prediction is that the Cowboys will not be there. Even if by some miracle they were to get into a playoff game, they'd find a way to lose it. Romo, Wade, or both need to get kicked out. Romo has sucked all season. He used to be inconsistent between games, not he's inconsistent even within games. Sorry, but rare flashes of good passing should not be good enough to keep your job as a QB within the NFL, and will definitely not get you to, much less win, a Superbowl.
Come on Jerry Jones, you're good at getting rid of coaches, what makes Wade worth hanging on to? Seriously, why? I don't see it. Is it something personal? The Cowboys need a stern coach, that's been proven. Landry, Johnson, Parcels... those are the types that made the Cowboys great. Notice I didn't include Switzer, he inherited a team that my dog, very smart dog I might add, could have coached to a championship. It'd be like taking credit for coaching MJ, Shak and Kobe to a NBA championship. Sorry, not going to happen.
Sorry, it's hard to not express my disappointment with the Cowboys while talking football.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
The Amanda Knox Lesson
One of these people is a murderer.
The Story
She went to study abroad, in Italy, and ended up teaching us all a lesson. That lesson is this: If you are outside of the USA, and it looks like you might be involved in a crime, get your ass back to the USA. Amanda could have come back at one point, but didn't. Maybe she thought that because she is innocent, that she was safe.
I repeat, if you are outside the USA and it looks like you might be involved in a crime, get your ass back to the USA. The more serious the crime, the more you need to pack your bags and get back.
Listen, the "birthplace" of civilization is by no means an example of a modern society. The birthplace is usually associated with the middle east, fertile crescent... which as anyone knows is a pretty ass backwards place. A baby is by no means an example of an adult.
Italy contained the capitol of the Roman Republic/Empire. They were very influential, and all that stuff... but by no means is Italy a country that you should have any faith in their judiciary. For one, they are known for being corrupt. Heard of the mafia? Heard of payoffs? Heard of Mussolini? It's been in the news, has made headlines, etc., enough to where one should know going in there, that despite the great beauty in the place, it's not America, they'll torture you.
Democracy, fairness, individual rights, it's newer there than it is here. You can be innocent and get convicted anywhere, but it's less likely you'll get convicted here if you're innocent than most other countries. So if you find a roommate dead in your apartment with her throat slit and semi-nude, or otherwise find out about it, get out. Get out now. Who cares if it makes you look guilty, it's better than actually being found guilty in their corrupt system. So get out.
This girl is obviously innocent. For one, she was a college student that smoked pot. No college girl smoking pot can get into a rage or angry enough to kill someone. The defense should just admit that into evidence somehow and rest their case because it's almost like a natural law.
That, and she's hot. What hot chick is going to commit murder? - When you get out of there, Amanda, look me up whenever you're in Austin. ;) - Sorry, she just doesn't look or act like someone who can do it. Plus, and maybe slightly more importantly, I saw a news program talking about this case which showed the prosecutors' theory on how and why she did it as being very flimsy and it simply doesn't make sense. One guy admitted guilt already to some charge in the murder, and it looks much more plausible that he did a rape/murder.
Anyway, no matter the outcome, learn from this and get the hell out of whatever foreign country you're in when it looks like you could get accused of a serious crime.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Pay for News? Again?
"To thrive in the digital age, media companies need to persuade consumers to pay for news online by providing compelling information in any form they want, News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said Tuesday.
Murdoch said the future is promising for publishers that can adapt to the ongoing migration of audiences and advertisers to the Web. Key to survival, he said, is giving consumers what they want how they want it — be it on a computer, mobile device or e-reader — and then charging for it, as his company already does with The Wall Street Journal.
'We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free,' Murdoch said. 'Good journalism is an expensive commodity.'"
----
This has been tried before, and it failed. People will flock to sites that give news for free. That free site will have enough traffic to lure advertisement dollars. The pay sites will not flourish, will never flourish, because any competitive news org will see it as an opportunity to gain some fast ad revenue. And if you think they will get away with collusion, I believe you will be mistaken.
If anything, maybe news orgs will pay Google News or Yahoo News a modest fee to feature their articles in order to lure people to their site, to turn a profit via ads. That seems more like a solution that revisiting the old attempt of making people subscribe to read news online. That's just silly... you'd have to get the BBC and every other news org to participate, willingly, without collusion. Ain't gonna happen.
Rupert is a smart guy, but he's apparently stuck in a paradigm. Either that... or he's working to get federal money. Hmm....
Murdoch said the future is promising for publishers that can adapt to the ongoing migration of audiences and advertisers to the Web. Key to survival, he said, is giving consumers what they want how they want it — be it on a computer, mobile device or e-reader — and then charging for it, as his company already does with The Wall Street Journal.
'We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free,' Murdoch said. 'Good journalism is an expensive commodity.'"
----
This has been tried before, and it failed. People will flock to sites that give news for free. That free site will have enough traffic to lure advertisement dollars. The pay sites will not flourish, will never flourish, because any competitive news org will see it as an opportunity to gain some fast ad revenue. And if you think they will get away with collusion, I believe you will be mistaken.
If anything, maybe news orgs will pay Google News or Yahoo News a modest fee to feature their articles in order to lure people to their site, to turn a profit via ads. That seems more like a solution that revisiting the old attempt of making people subscribe to read news online. That's just silly... you'd have to get the BBC and every other news org to participate, willingly, without collusion. Ain't gonna happen.
Rupert is a smart guy, but he's apparently stuck in a paradigm. Either that... or he's working to get federal money. Hmm....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
