To pay for online news?

Have you ever imagined that one day we can never search and read general interest news stories online for free? Will you stick on reading them regardless how much it will charge, or will you seek for some other alternatives to acquire the information?

News International, the British division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., announced on Friday that two of its newspapers, The Times and The Sunday Times of London, are set to begin charging readers using its sites in June. The two papers have been offering their content in a combined news Web site called Times Online. The sites will reportedly be offered for 1 pound (S$2.1) for a day's access, or 2 pounds (S$4.2) for a week's subscription. Those fees will cover access to both sites, which will be available for free during a trial period.

Internet is a great facilitator in the sense that it enables people to access to a large amount of information at finger tips. Computer-mediated-communication helps communicators to be heard throughout the world, as well as to hear the voice from many others from every corners of the world. We are becoming more and more used to the way we get information and feel kind of handicapped if we cannot access to the internet. Charging readers of certain internet content serves as a barrier to some extent. Although the charging is not expensive, it will still keep some regular readers from subscribing.

"At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition," News International CEO Rebekah Brooks said in a broadly reported statement. She added that "This is just the start" but did not offer up details on plans for the company's two other U.K. publications. Meanwhile, in another move to save his business, Murdoch continues to point fingers at Google for depriving the industry of revenue by making news articles searchable for free. He plans to press legal action against the search giant if talks fail over its indexing of news content.

By adding extra charge, they are obviously maximizing their profit margin in the competitive market. While the two news websites are for general interest information, but not for academic or professional works, is it still necessary to charge public readers? CMC has already made it possible to access to world wide web which provides all kinds of information that updates people with the latest situations in the world. Do they have any advantage in charging the internet content? Will people be willing to pay for it for just turn to other websites? It is still to be seen after the trial period. Consumers are always the leaders in the market.

Chinese minister insists Google obey the law

To leave or not to leave. That is a question. Whether or not Google Inc. will leave China market has become a hot topic these days.

In the January announcement on Google's official blog made by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, it reads that"...These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

In response to the announcement made above, Chinese government replied without hesitation. "If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay consequences", Li Yizhong, the minister of Industry and Information Technology, said on the sidelines of China's annual legislature. Li insisted that Beijing needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people. "If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we have to block it." he said.

There is no consensus on China's censorship of Internet content, with each party sticks on their own stand. We don't know whether Google will leave the country of great profit opportunities, but one thing can be sure of is that China government does not want any form of harm to be placed on the nation's stability. Among the four functions of the media defined by Charles Wright, correlation and cultural transmission have more to do with influencing the way people evaluate issues, no matter big or small the issue is. Media is influential enough that it can sometimes manipulate people's perceptions on certain issues. Marshall McLuhan also argues that the medium has the power to change the way we live and experience the world. In such way of thinking, we can understand why China government insists on filtering the messages on the websites. China is a Sovereign nation that may not come to agreement with some western countries on some affairs, but western countries cannot instill their opinions to the people in China, in a way of cultural imperialism. So China has the right to formulate its own laws, to formulate its own system for punishing violators, and those companies that do not wish to abide by those laws are quite free to choose not to continue their business there.

Besides, China is not the only country that has such disagreement with Google, similar cases also exist in countries such as Germany, England, France, Korea, and America. Each country has its own regulations, whether to stay and accept the rules or to leave the country, its Google's choice.