It's about time. Charge away. Psychotic bologna should cost more than real news! :)

Well, charge away Rupert-from-another-century. I can live without you and many of your rather poor and sensationalist sites. How many times have I heard that the free web is dead in the last 10 years. And each time I heard it nothing chnged.
If you can offer something unique that a specific group really wants then charging can work. Maybe WSJ is an example. But mostly people will just go elsewhere and read the ads on a different site and the paid for site will just wither.
You know if I knew that a subscription would give me better journalism and research I might put my hand in my pocket. But when sites (like news.com.au - a Murdoch site) is full of rumour, bad journalism and sensationalism which appears not to be edited - I just go there for a smug laugh, put a charge on it and I'd never miss it again.

Apparently the pay for news plan is working for the Wall Street Journal. All you people who think the news should be free aren't thinking right. How are you going to pay real journalists to write and research compelling content if they aren't being payed. You pay for newspapers right. You pay for TV right. Why shouldn't you pay for the same stuff on a web site. The only thing that is at issue is how much they are going to charge. Banner ads probably only cover the hosting costs.

3 letters for you: BBC.

Paid for by a TV license in the UK, adverts for those overseas. This won't be changing, and therefore people will likely flock there (if they aren't already) because it will remain "free" in that sense.

What do you think those adverts are for all around most news sites?

And how many of those adverts do you click on? They clearly don't pay as much as a TV add would. Also you pay for the BBC. It's part of your taxes.

The Wall Street Journal author their own articles. Many other news sites just regurgitate Associated Press articles. The only way Rupert's plan will be successful is if he colludes with other major news outlets to switch to for-pay models also.

Buh-bye!

I mean, really....charging for "news"? And they think people won't just flock to the free news sites?

I swear some of these CEO's are absolutely friggin' retarded.

Although I hate CNN and MSNBC, their websites are wonderfully designed. The Fox News website looks like a local news channel with more ads than content and a mess of cross promotions and TMZ like stories. I know Murdoch has more than just FN.com, its still not something I would pay a dime to visit.

I don't even go to Fox News' web site and it free, let alone when they'll start charging for it.

And I intend to stop going to Sky.com then.

Simple.

Oh and btw we used to have the full Sky TV package, everything including Films & Football. We cut back a couple of years ago and our package went down from £42.50 to £19.20

Won't EVER be going back to the full works again, but may consider adding the Football again at some point if Liverpool sign David Villa. At the end of the day I only have so much money and Sky just costs too much already as it is.

Pay for Sky.com? Don't make me laugh. [tsk]

I have been a subscriber to the Murdoch Sky television package in the U.K for many years. This year I decided enough stuff available free, so I dumped them. I'm now back, although only for as long as my new six months half price deal lasts, yep dump 'em and they'll beg you to return, and for half the dosh you were shelling out before, no new contract, you can still call it a day (again) when the six months is up, which I will most certainly be doing, and then I'll wait for another telephone call offering me another great deal. It is possible that this huge empire Rupert has built up could yet topple you know, now who would report that ? Well the BBC naturally, and for free.

Ridiculous idea if it's done on their own. People will go elsewhere.
What I'd like to know is: if you bought the physical paper that day, will you automatically be granted access to the main website? If not, to the BBC it is.

lol, yeah this will go over well, good luck with that Murdoch...
regardless 'his' news might cost $, but it won't take much for folks to spread and rewrite news from a source, like everyone already does...
*facepalm

information needs to remain free! as things stand today, it finally is free but i guess not if Murdoch has his way

FOX News advertises itself as "Fair and Balanced." It's incredible just how unfair and unbalanced it is. Anyone who is looking for even a shred of integrity would best find their news from another source. It is people like Murdoch who have corrupted news and made it based more on entertainment value than objectivity.

I don't know when the last time you watched Fox News was, but when I watch it everyday I hear both sides of every story. That's being fair and balanced. That's why Fox News kills everyone else in the ratings.

Woah. You've been smoking FAR too much crack Ivthunder. Fox is the furthest you can get from balanced.

Seriously!!! Fox News is fair and balanced?! *laughing* Wow, the kool-aid is deep in this one...

Prove it to me. If Fox wasn't fair and balanced why would their ratings be so much higher then either CNN or MSNBC combined.

Because they win at sensationalism? Just because your popular doesn't make you right/fair/balanced/better..

More people will go read the story that makes the people in that story look bad.. than the "actual" news piece every time.. its the axiom that Tabloids where build on.. oddly enough its also the cheapest type of news to produce since its so frequently 100% fictional.

I'll stick with BBC for my news. It isn't as biased or sensationalist as American news. If they ever try to charge for it I will just go somewhere else. Someone argued how will journalists get paid .... well, some of them are so bad at what they do (bad grammar, misleading headings, and bias) that perhaps a few of them should lose their jobs.

You mean rating means good content? O_O
Not in my country for sure and I doubt even more in USA/UK/EC.

Those of you who say Fox is not fair and balanced don't watch it.

Fox is the only major cable news network that honestly presents both sides of nearly every issue. And unlike MSNBC, whose efforts at presenting opposing viewpoints end up being nothing more than finding someone they can character assassinate or mock, Fox finds reasonable and intelligent people to present opposing viewpoints. Even on their admittedly conservative leaning opinion shows (O'Reilly and Hannity) both of them regularly have intelligent, well presented individuals to present views in opposition to theirs.

Contrast that to Chris Matthews, who finds the person he can most easily mock and or denigrate to present views opposing his.

But since he's liberal, and mocking and denigrating conservatives, that's ok, because you agree with him.

I won't deny Fox News leans slightly to the right, but that doesn't mean they aren't fair and balanced.

BTW, all of that said, Murdoch is off his rocker if he thinks he can use the WSJ model for the rest of his news site network.

On that point, I think we can all pretty much agree.

Have you checked the ratings? Fox is falling, falling, falling... Almost as fast as Lou Dobbs CNN. And the reason is simple... They read a different dictionary than the rest of us. Fox world = Fair and Balanced, Real world = Take our lies and like it.