Freedom Of Press

Rupert Murdoch is a busy, and rich man. Kind of makes you want to take him for all he's worth. You know, get a scheme going where you become a lost family member/love of his life/child given up for adoption, earn his trust, get him to leave you everything in the will and then STAB HIM IN THE FACE REPEATEDLY until he's gone.

If anyones capable of doing it - it's 50 cent. For those who aren't aware, in 2005 Murdoch and his baby Newscorp started 'Myspace Records' (you've probably seen it floating around) which is all well and good but since their inception they havent had a marquee performer. Insert 50 cent. Insert $300 MILLION after that and you've got yourself a deal. Possibly.

Negotiations are still underway but if someone came up to me offering that much money for me to make some shit music I'd do it. But why do the rich need that kind of money? That is the question. Is it morally OK for him to accept such a large amount given his already existing wealth? And on the reverse side should Murdoch be able to accumulate more wealth by taking a controlling interest in 50 Cents career? Not that he needs Murdochs help, making himself $400m last year from selling his ass, investments and name to Coca Cola. He loves those multinationals. But is it greed? And is it the beginning of another way for NewsCorp to control global media?

Locally - I've been a keen studier of the music industry, both locally and abroad since my days back at Nirimba under the tutelage of Mr. Geoff Weuele. It was there that I was introduced to the wonders of themusic.com.au - a free online service giving you direct links to the stories deemed most important by leader Phil Tripp. Heading over there to check the news feed the other day it was brought to my attention that these links are no longer free and that the site has "gone from free-view to monetised like so much digital content in our online universe" - this is a fucking joke.

These guys don't write the articles, they just find them and put them on a list every weekday. Some of them are good, some of them are useless. Now they expect you (and me) to pay $100 a year for the service of looking through other peoples articles. I've got no problem if the news sites want the cost of a paper. I've got no problem if these writers get royalties from the costs incurred - but NO. These guys are charging you money to look at something THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH. I highly doubt that any of the people operating this service are strapped for cash, and I'm sure that someone smart like Mr Tripp can think of other ways to make money.

Luckily for all of us, despite not linking the articles the people at Immedia they still provide the headlines. Headlines which can be copied and pasted into GOOGLE for a direct link to the article.

Until we have to pay for that too, as less and less (and less) becomes free.

Can you imagine if we charged people? We'd go broke.