With the closure of Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, due to the ongoing criminal investigations and revelations of highly questionable practices involving spying on private citizens and hacking into their voicemails, many people did wonder if the staff would have any sort of message for their bosses in the final edition. Apparently former editor Rebekah Brooks was adamant that staffers not mock them in the final edition, but she failed:

"Rebekah tried everything to stop the staff having the last word and she utterly failed.

"She brought in two very senior Sun journalists to go though every line on every page with a fine tooth comb to ensure there were no libels or any hidden mocking messages of the chief executive.

"But they failed and we’ve had the last laugh.’

How? They hid it in the puzzles section. Apparently, a bunch of clues for the various puzzles were not-so-subtle references to the whole thing, including "criminal enterprise," "catastrophe," "stench," and "racket."

Apparently all the negative stories about questionable (and potentially criminal) activities by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, and various advertisers pulling out of supporting the tabloid, have resulted in the Murdoch Family/News Corp. deciding to pull the plug entirely on the newspaper as of Sunday. The crisis control includes finally admitting that the problem was much wider and deeper than the company had claimed earlier. James Murdoch put out a statement, in which he also confirmed that he had tried paying off the victims of News of the World's phone hacking/spying:

Murdoch told employees at the 168-year old title: "The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed to when it came to itself".

Murdoch said in a statement: "Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued."

Murdoch also conceded the company had "made statements to parliament without being in full possession of the facts. This was wrong".

He said "the News of the World and News International wrongly maintained that these issues were confined to one reporter" but that was untrue, and that the company had passed information to the police which would demonstrate this.

"Those who acted wrongly will have to face the consequences," he said.

Murdoch also said in his statement to staff that he had authorised out-of-court payments to victims of hacking and that: "I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so."

He added: "That was wrong and is a matter of serious regret."

While it's good to see the Murdochs finally willing to address the mess head on, it also shows just how bad things are that they couldn't keep trying to brush the whole thing aside as one or two rogue employees.

Well, this is rather horrific. We've mentioned in the past the story about how reporters for Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, one of the many publications in his News Corp. empire, were accused of hacking into the voicemails of hundreds of people. Every few weeks, it seems, more reports surface of people who have had their voicemails hacked. But the latest may be the worst of the bunch. Apparently, after teenager Milly Dowler disappeared in 2002, but before her murdered body was found, reporters hacked into her voicemail. Not only that, but they deleted some messages in order to make more room for new messages. Apparently, the deletions were part of what gave her parents hope that Dowler was still alive, believing that perhaps she was checking her voicemail. Most of the earlier reports on Murdochs' journalists hacking into voicemail had focused on politicians and celebrities. But this sounds like they may have actually destroyed evidence and tampered with an actual police investigation. The company has been paying off some of the celebrities whose voicemail was hacked, but this takes things to an entirely different level.

Way back in 2005, when News Corp. bought Intermix, which (believe it or not) was the parent company of MySpace, we focused on the fact that Intermix was big in the spyware/adware business, and didn't even pay that much attention to the MySpace part of the deal (silly us). Believe it or not, that was the point at which MySpace was just really starting to catch on. The whole thing cost $580 million, and a year later, one of the company's founders, Brad Greenspan, sued News Corp., claiming that there was fraud involved and MySpace should have been valued at $20 billion. Of course, the story since then has been one of a big downhill slope. While MySpace had always focused on music, over the last couple of years, at every music conference I've attended, people have joked about the fact that no one uses MySpace at all any more. And so it's come to this. Reports are now spreading that News Corp. is looking to unload what's left of MySpace for between $20 and $30 million. Oh, and in a bit of interesting timing, Facebook is preparing to launch its new music service next month. How quickly things change...

DannyB points us to the news that apparently the folks at the NY Post are still figuring out how this web thing works. As there's been a lot more attention paid to things like apps, they put together a fee-based NY Post app. I have no idea if it's any good, but somewhere along the line, it appears that someone at the Post realized that people could bypass the app by simply visiting the NYPost website via the browser on the iPad. Rather than think that perhaps they should focus on making the app more valuable and worth paying for, the geniuses went a different direction and decided to block access to anyone arriving at the NYPost.com domain via a Safari browser on an iOS device. Will this make people buy the app? Probably not. It might encourage them to go to competing sites, however. Even more ridiculous is that apparently no one at the Post realized that there are other browsers: you can still get to the site via alternatives like Opera and Skyfire.

There have been some stories about how YouTube is preparing to work with a bunch of big movie studios to sell access to movies. It's been offering up some movies for a year or so, though it hasn't really caught on. The hope is that with big Hollywood pictures, people might care more. I'm not convinced it will be that big of a deal -- especially for folks who use Netflix -- but it's an easy enough thing to do. Except... apparently two of the major studios, Fox and Paramount, are balking at the deal, because they don't like that people can find unauthorized copies of their movies via Google's search functionality. This makes no sense. Basically they're saying they'd rather that when people search on their movies, that their only options are unauthorized versions, rather than having a legitimate version at the top of the list. This is not how you "compete" with unauthorized versions.

You know, it really wasn't that hard to predict that the brainchild of Rupert and James Murdoch -- an iPad-only news publication, called The Daily, that people would pay for -- would flop. The Murdochs (father and son) don't have a particularly good history of succeeding on the internet. In fact, they have a history that is mostly littered with failure when it comes to internet ventures. But, in an age when ubiquity, availability, access and sharing are what consumers want, coming up with a publication that was locked down, specific to a single platform, and quite limited, just seemed like a bad recipe from the start. We'd already noted that a bunch of the "big name" journalists and staffers that had been brought on to The Daily had been leaving just weeks after the publication launched.

But what about readers? While the Murdochs have been quiet, the folks over at Nieman Lab put together a nice proxy, in looking at how many people were Tweeting stories from The Daily's iPad app. I'm sure it's not a perfect correlation, but if people were really engaged with the news from The Daily -- which, increasingly, is an important aspect of news communities, you would expected to see this number continue to go up. Instead, as Joshua Benton describes, it's "decline, plateau, decline." Here's the graphical representation: Again, this almost certainly does not represent a direct correlation to readership. We see stories that gets lots of traffic get very few tweets or comments, and stories with relatively little traffic get a ton of comments. But, on the whole, as an overall proxy, it at least suggests something not good is going on at The Daily in terms of actually getting readers engaged.

And, I think, that's the obvious problem the Murdochs always run into with their online efforts. They're good at producing content. They're dreadful at actually engaging with a community. They bought MySpace, but their failure to understand what people there wanted resulted in its rather massive decline. It seems clear, with the Daily, that engagement and interacting were an afterthought. At best, it was a "let them tweet!" sort of discussion, rather than a look at how to actually engage the community in any meaningful way.

Back in November when News Corp. released some subscription info for its paywall for The Times/Sunday Times (publications which it walled off behind a complete paywall), the details were really lacking. They claimed 105,000 "paid" digital users, but that mixed up a bunch of different kinds of users, including one-off "daily" purchases and subscribers. They did say about 50% of those were "monthly" subscribers, but there was an introductory £1 per month rate, as compared to the full £8.67 per month rate that would go into effect after the first month. So, now, with News Corp. claiming 79,000 monthly subscribers, I'm wondering how those "intro" plan subscribers are being counted. Did all of them convert to full priced? How many dropped off? Are they still counting those who dropped off in that subscriber count?

Either way, while 79,000 subscribers may sound like an impressive number, I'm still not convinced the economics works out. Assuming that they're all paying the full price, subscribers are paying almost exactly $1 million per month. That's not bad, but it's not a really huge number for an operation like News Corp. either. And if it's true that traffic to the websites dropped about 90% from about 21 million unique visitors down to less than 3 million unique visitors, ad revenue from the site really isn't bringing in that much (no matter how many times they try to spin the audience as being "more valuable.") It still seems like they almost certainly gave up significantly more in ad revenue than they're making via the paywall, and while there are still new signups, over time it's going to be tougher and tougher to sign up new users. Clearly, the paywall is not a complete disaster, like some others, but it still doesn't seem like the economics add up here.

We had warned from early on that News Corp's "iPad-only" fee-based publication, The Daily, was a disaster in the making. After a ton of hype, and launching a few weeks ago to a ton of overwrought praise, all we've been hearing is that people aren't buying. A bunch of folks checked it out early, and then it more or less disappeared off the map. And now, it appears that staffers are bailing at a rapid rate. Of course, in the run up to launch, there was all this talk about how Murdoch was hiring a ton of big name journalists and staffers away from other publications. To see a bunch of them rushing out the door, barely weeks after the launch, suggests this may be a failure of epic proportions.

You may remember, not so long ago, Rupert Murdoch was running around claiming that other publications "stole" from him. He gave a speech where he warned:

"The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content."

Of course, around that time, we highlighted the fact that Murdoch, himself, owned a whole bunch of aggregators, many of which acted much worse than the sites -- such as Google -- that Murdoch was complaining about.

However, over the weekend there was a nice example of how one of Murdoch's publications clearly copied a story from another publication and did not give any credit for it whatsoever. We noted earlier how Broadband Reports broke the story of AT&T deciding to put in place metered billing. Broadband Reports got a tip with a leaked email showing the new rules, and got confirmation from AT&T. Nearly every other report on the story credited Broadband Reports with breaking the story. However, when the WSJ (via Dow Jones Newswire) wrote the story, by reporter Roger Cheng, there is no mention whatsoever of Broadband Reports breaking the story.

Now, a few quick points, I don't think that every publication should necessarily have to credit who breaks a story. It's often the neighborly thing to do, and I think that many people appreciate it when it's done. But news is news, and if it's factual, then there's no proprietary nature to it. So, my complaint isn't simply that Dow Jones/WSJ didn't credit BBR. What I take issue with is when a company comes out and states, repeatedly, that it is going to crack down on other sites that copy its work -- who often do it while providing credits and links back -- and then chooses to publish without credit, that seems hypocritical. Don't say one thing and do another.

Of course, some others will (correctly) point out that Cheng appears to have contacted AT&T himself, and added a few tidbits to the story (even if it's been pointed out that he seemed to unquestionably accept AT&T's claim of congestion). So, defenders will claim this is "okay" because he did "additional independent reporting." And, again, it's great that Cheng did additional reporting. But it doesn't change that it appears BBR had the original report, and got the info out there. Even with the additional reporting, it appears that the WSJ was able to create a news report off of a lead from BBR. And this goes right back to the claims of Bill Keller last week in which he seemed to be saying when the NY Times builds off someone else's work, that's journalism. When new media sites do it, it's piracy. It's too bad that these newspapers claim that they're so against such things, but have no problem doing it themselves. Again, most of the actual actions that they do are fine... by themselves. But doing those things after claiming to be against them in others... that's hypocrisy.