"The thing that’s hard for the sociopaths to get their head around is that this isn’t because one of their rivals has outsmarted them — it’s just the march of technology. "

I don't get this quote. It's quite clear Brin and Page did outsmart them. Murdoch's latest rantings clearly show he doesn't understand we live in a world of algorithms now and just having a team of content producers has nothing on having a team of programmers, a host of servers and the capacity to find people the content they need in the vast expanse of the Internet/long tail.

Newspapers are second best at almost everything now, world news (vs. the top blogs or state-funded like BBC), local news (vs. long tail of blogs), dating (vs. numerous sites, craigslist), classifieds (vs. ebay, craigslist), book reviews/sales (vs. amazon), reviews (vs. tons of sites), advertising (vs. algorithmically placed ads). A bundle of second bests, the newspaper, was the best when it was the only thing you could buy. It was a very effective delivery mechanism that far exceeded trying to subscribe to multiple newsletters/pamphlets/zines to cover each base. But tabbed browsing (or even sequential browsing untabbed) just slaughters that delivery mechanism in specialization/choice, cost and cost of delivery, time of delivery and place of delivery.

Murdoch will be able to charge for some financial news, perhaps even some political news for a while, he will be able to put some sports he gets the exclusive rights to on mobile pay-per-view (banning twittering sportsmen/women and banning video/enforcing "IP rights" at sports events). But in the end he can't beat the fact that a newspaper or a TV station is just a bundle of second bests and isn't customized. He probably knows this deep down and is just looking to "hide the decline" until he retires (which has to be in the next 10 years given how old he is) so that his legacy is intact. But my will he be biting his fingernails in retirement.

And frankly, this is how it should be in any somewhat capitalist system. I don't want to hear a journalist expound on economic matters when they don't have a degree in economics, only in journalism (or no degree at all). I can just go onto one of the many economic blogs, quite a few run by professors of economics. Ditto political news. Ditto tech news on reddit, HN or slashdot where there are multiple commentators who often have graduate degrees in the subject matter and certainly many links posted to peer reviewed articles or at least Wikipedia. So often tech journalism is just the recycling of press releases, or science journalism pops up with, yet again, a correlation/causation fallacy with all of the interesting details cropped out for a mass audience. I am glad journalism is dying, the bailouts were insane enough, but there was actually a stage where some journalists tried to float the idea of bailouts for all the big newspapers and media groups. Absolutely disgusting. Hopefully they will never get any more "IP" rules passed or sabotage net neutrality and the world of information plenty that we happy few live in can be expanded to the rest of the population on the planet (half of whom have yet to make a phonecall, which is humbling when you see the resources at our fingertips).