If News Corp. Buys My Cat, I'll Stop Feeding It

I am not one of "those commenters", in the sense that I did not actually voice my opinion on any of the previous threads about this topic.

However, my personal objection to a possible acquisition by News Corp. is not the politics of the company itself (which I do, incidentally, object to), but rather the act of a big corporation (any corporation) acquiring a service such as this at all.

Many times in the past, once an enterprising new company or service has been bought out by a larger company, this has resulted in the original intent of the service to be lost. This is especially true if the larger one is involved in the same industry as the smaller. In this case, for example, News Corp is involved in the publication of the news. News Corp's political alignment (and I'm using this factor simply as an example), has never been kept a secret. If they were to purchase Newsvine, would they reject articles which did not agree with their political stance, as they do on Fox News? Would discussions be censored because someone offended a political ally, or an advertiser?

There have been examples where a buyout has not resulted in any major change, such as in the case of Flickr. Yahoo is not "in the photo business" per se, and as such they have not dramatically changed the Flickr service to suit their needs. If a similar arrangement could be brokered between News Corp and Newsvine, then this would be perfectly fine, however this would seem unlikely.

News Corp can buy my cat whenever it wants to, because she's dead. I had to kill her because I became allergic to her.

In addition to everything the Cabbage wrote, it's helpful to keep in mind that News Corp is also a partial(?) owner of MySpace. Most of the posts I've read here about MySpace lead me to believe that most 'viners are not big fans of MySpace.

I, too, worry about censorship and a partiality to Conservative voices. If the FOX network is anything to go by, it's pretty obvious that Liberal viewpoints are not particularly welcome within the Murdoch empire of media. The only reason the Simpsons is still on FOX is because it is hugely popular and likely brings in a lot of revenue. It's the money, bottom line.

If FOX would start diversifying it's programming offerings to include more Liberal voices and viewpoints, perhaps that would allay people's concerns, but if that doesn't happen, you can be sure that if NewsCorp buys Newsvine, many of us will be out of here, and it's very likely our content will be wiped and/or edited before departure.

And yet, Fox is known for having produced some of the most off-the-wall, lame, and decidedly non-conservative reality shows. I agree with Colin that the only evidence I've seen of Fox's political bent has been in their news programming, but the Fox News channel was created for that reason. Sure, their hope may be that Newsvine would become a bastion of conservative news on the internet, but I just don't see this happening. By the way, has this buyout even been confirmed? Or is it merely just a rumor?

If News Corp bought my cat I'd expect THEM to feed it.
I'm not sure how the analogy translates that far.

I don't agree with Fox News, I don't like it, I don't watch it. I DO, however, watch the Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad (which pokes fun at Conservatives all the time, by the way), House, Bones, and many other Fox shows.

I think the distinction here is that News Corp and Fox are NOT the same as Fox News. Just because Fox News is conservative doesn't make the rest of their offerings conservative.

That said, if Newsvine IS acquired by Fox and turns into a Conservative-biased site, I will be disappointed.

In closing, I offer some advice:
Don't listen to rumors. They're almost always a very skewed version of reality, if not outright lies. Why start worrying about this when you have no clue whatsoever about it's truth?

Hell... if CNN, a liberal-biased organization bought NewsVine I'd still use it.

Calling CNN "liberal-biased" is laughable. There are is no real "liberal media" as long as it's controlled by corporate interests.

TheGAT, couldn't have said it better

Then by your reasoning.... FoxNews can't be conservative either!

The fact that Rupert's Fox employs a despicable fascist like Bill O'Reilly and allows his ravings to be called The No Spin Zone is enough for deep and profound contempt. No other reason necessary.

The point of leaving Newsvine if it was bought by FOX was because at some point this site will generate revenue. In my "no FOX for me" comment, I said I have enough difficulty avoiding multinationals throughout the rest of the day, let alone the ones owned by Rupert Murdoch.

I do not wish to add to his coffers, if I can help it. By not participating here, I would have a direct, if small impact and that's why I'd go. I believe in the principle.

On the Bill O'Reilly debate, I just have to add:

The average age of a BO watcher is 68! And on a good night, he gets maybe 2 million viewers. 1 million retirees and 1 million others isn't the kind of impact that matters at all, so he's not really a concern for me. In his mind he is far bigger than the Beatles, but that world doesn't exist.

Colin, yes, I know this is about the protest and not the rumor itself, that was just a small aside.
But I agree with you still, there is no cause for protest, unless its a scenario like robK's, but then you'd also have to swear off everything NewsCorp produces, which is a bit difficult, but doable.

It seems that if News Corp. did buy newsvine it would automatically become a bastion of conservative views for the simple fact that many liberal voices would rather quit and leave than actually fight for what they believe in. If this site was bought by George Soros I would damn sure stay on and fight the good fight!

Let us just hope that newsvine is never bought out, and then this issue becomes moot.

I don't care who buys Newsvine (although Fox would be a really bad pick). The point is that newsvine needs to remain an independent news source. It needs to be a news source for the people by the people. Historically, Fox has not provided such a service, and I don't believe Newsvine under Fox would remain the same service it is today.

the analogy doesn't quite work, in the sense that if News Corp bought my cat, it would then be News Corp's cat, and thereby their responsibility to feed. :)

I understand what you're saying, though.

robK, I get your point, but do you think all Newsvine readers are young? I'm not. 68 is truly no longer that old, by the way. With parents having kids at 40 and up, a 68-year-old could have a kid just 28. Mine aren't that old yet, but believe me, I'm a Very Happening Thing, and we V. H. T.'s vote in much larger numbers than 20-somethings.

Bill O'Reilly is only a TAD older than "mainstream America," not miles older. Where I live, people 30 and up worship him and Sean Hannity and hold big absurd rallies when they come to speak. Those people VOTE. It's not who watches him that counts - it's the people who share his world view who take those views to the polls. And O'Reilly is a formidable influence, as illogical as that may seem.

I think it would be just another feed source. (AP and FOX and User Links) ...

I personally think it would be cool to see all sides of a single event from all news outlets around the world.

As long as Newsvine never modifies the data the users create from such sources. User data being user links,votes,comments,posts, etc. Then whats the issue?..

EvaG, you have a point. I was trying to emphasize the relatively low number of TV viewers comparatively speaking. However, I forgot about the legions who listen to his sermons on the radio mount.

Every time I hear either him or Hannity I'm reminded of the single most important class I've ever taken:

Critical Thinking

I don't see why some of you HATE O'Reilly that much. He gets the ratings of all the other cable news channels combined so someone must be watching. Maybe you don't think child rapists should get 25-life.