The New York Times turned down a chance to borrow money from Hollywood mogul David Geffen last winter, and went with Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim instead.

So says he New Yorker, which has an extensive profile of Slim in this issue. Writer Lawrence Wright says that when Geffen learned that the Times was working on a deal to borrow $250 million from Slim, he offered to make the loan on the same terms, but was rebuffed by  Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

The Times chairman, Wright says, told Geffen’s people he preferred to work with Slim because the telco billionaire already owned Times shares and because “he was reportedly also worried about Geffen’s ambition to take over the company.”

Where would Sulzberger have gotten that idea? From Geffen, of course.

Wright also reports that Geffen offered to buy the publisher outright last September; he says Geffen made the offer via Steve Rattner, the media banker turned Obama adviser who is one of Sulzberger’s closest confidants.

The pitch: Sulzberger would oversee the New York Times’s (NYT) editorial operations, Geffen would handle the business side, and eventually the entire business would be handed over to a nonprofit foundation. Obviously, Sulzberger turned that one down.

Wright’s piece–which is behind a pay wall, so it will be interesting to see how much of the story gets circulated via the Web–is first and foremost a profile of Slim, and secondarily about the Times. So it doesn’t spend much more time on Geffen or the notion of other white knights for the paper, a la Google (GOOG).

But in just a few paragraphs, the article does seem to sketch out Geffen’s desire to associate himself with the Times in whatever way he can: Buying it outright, lending it much-needed money or buying some of its stock (via Harbinger Capital).

For now, the Times is controlled by Sulzberger and his extended family, who have repeatedly insisted that they’re not interested in parting with it. Then again, that’s what the Bancroft family always said about Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal. And those properties are now a part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (NWS)–as is this Web site.

If the Times ever does need a deep-pocketed buyer, Geffen has made it very clear he’s available.

BusinessWeek’s Ron Grover says Geffen “doesn’t so much see this as a business venture, but rather as a civic investment.” Newsweek’s Johnnie L. Roberts goes further, suggesting that Geffen would literally turn the Times into a nonprofit if he bought it.

Both Grover and Roberts are longtime media reporting pros, so when they cite sources with knowledge of Geffen’s thinking, I believe them. What I still don’t understand, and what observers and investors I’ve talked to are still puzzled about: How does Geffen plan to do that?

To reiterate: Geffen has reportedly tried to buy the 20 percent stake in the Times now owned by Harbinger Capital, though the two sides couldn’t agree on price. But even if they did, the transaction would only bail out Harbinger, not the Times.

And because the Times has a dual-class stock structure that keeps control of the company in the hands of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, taking on Harbinger’s stake doesn’t give Geffen a foot in the door to the company. It gives him the right to appoint two representatives to the company’s 14-member board of directors, but nothing else. Just ask the Harbinger folks.

Again, there are two plausible ways to acquire the Times:

1. Buy the super-voting shares outright from the Ochs-Sulzbergers, who have said they have no intention of selling. But then again, that’s what the Bancroft family said about Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal and this Web site. And News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch was able to overcome their objections by offering a 60 percent premium to the company’s share price. Maybe Geffen could try that.
2. Establish a large debt position with the company and exercise the power that comes along with that in the event of a restructuring. The problem: Billionaire Carlos Slim has already done that.

So. Anyone close to David Geffen want to explain what he’s really thinking? I’m all ears.

From The Wall Street Journal:

“Microsoft Corp. may re-evaluate its plans for job cuts, its chief executive said Tuesday, suggesting more reductions could be in store if the U.S. economic downturn worsens.

‘In case the situation gets dramatically worse in the U.S., we will have to rework’ our plan, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said at a news conference without elaborating.”

Here’s one reason why Ballmer didn’t feel the need to elaborate: He said the exact same thing last week.

Here’s the quote, from a companywide memo distributed when Microsoft (MSFT) announced its second phase of mass layoffs:

“As we move forward, we will continue to closely monitor the impact of the economic downturn on the company and if necessary, take further actions on our cost structure including additional job eliminations.”

To reiterate: Ballmer, whose company has remained dour about the economy even as investors and other forecasters (like Rupert Murdoch) have shown more optimism, refuses to say he’s done firing people for the year. But he’s not saying he will fire more people. My hunch: If you ask him next week, he’ll say the same thing.

And News Corp. (NWS), whose Wall Street Journal has long required a subscription for full access to stories, is among the most most aggressive. During his earnings call this afternoon, CEO Rupert Murdoch said he planned on exporting the WSJ’s online pay model to other News Corp. sites.

“We’re absolutely looking at that,” Murdoch told a reporter. Expect to see movement on some of his stronger properties “within the next 12 months,” he said.

But Murdoch also made it clear that he doesn’t plan on selling his content via the Kindle, as publishers like the Washington Post (WPO) and the New York Times (NYT) are doing. Here’s part of his opening remarks:

That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Journal’s experience. We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear that, for many newspapers, the current model is malfunctioning. We have been at the forefront of that debate and you can confidently presume that we are leading the way in finding a model that maximizes revenues and returns for our shareholders.

I can assure you that we will not be ceding our content rights to the fine people who created the Kindle. We will control the prices for our content and we will control the relationship with our customers–any device maker or website which doesn’t meet these basic criteria on content will not be doing business long-term with News Corporation.

What’s that all about? During the call, Murdoch reiterated News Corp.’s interest in investing in a Kindle rival, though he insisted it would be relatively small, and that the company is “neutral” about different mobile platforms–”we’re not appliance makers.”

Presumably there are some specific issues News Corp. has with Amazon (AMZN), but I have a hunch that this is one of those cases where it’s straightforward: News Corp. wants to control the price of its content, and it wants a direct relationship with its customers, and Amazon doesn’t allow that.

UPDATE: This PaidContent story spells out one problem: Amazon is demanding 70% of revenue from digital subscriptions it sells, at least from papers the size of the Dallas Morning News. That’s the inverse of the ratio at iTunes, by the way: Apple keeps about 30% of each transaction and the content owners get the rest. Presumably big players like the Times, the Post and News Corp. could cut  a better deal, but Murdoch would want the lion’s share of revenue, and Amazon seems unwilling to give that up.

I also assume that the company is wary of repeating the music labels’ iTunes error, which has led to Apple’s stranglehold on the digital music market.

Then again, Murdoch also boasted about The Wall Street Journal’s new iTunes app, which he said been downloaded 360,000 times in the few weeks following its release. And last time I checked, Apple (AAPL) kept a pretty tight grip on its iPhone apps. So perhaps one of my corporate cousins–News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site–can explain the difference.

[Image credit: billjacobus1]

For the past year or so, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch has been a consistent voice of pessimism, and he forecast an ugly economy before his big-media peers did.

And now he’s more upbeat than his fellow media CEOs. Here’s his opening salvo:

“I am not an economist…but it is increasingly clear that the worst is over….As you know, I have been uncharacteristically pessimistic in recent calls, though I would argue that it was a well-founded concern. But there are emerging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous decline are done and that revenues are beginning to look healthier.”

Not only is this a turnaround, it’s a turnaround from just a month ago, when Murdoch professed to be full of bearish sentiment at the cable industry’s annual show.

So what changed? Advertisers have started spending money again, he says: “Everybody was in shock by the economy and all business was falling of a cliff in the last 3 months of last year. Including me.” And that meant ads disappeared in January, February and March. But now they’re coming back. “It’s not back to the old levels. Don’t get me wrong, he says. “But at the very least we seem to have hit the floor.”

There is some nuance to this: When asked by an analyst why that optimism has prompted him to reinvest in his company, via stock buyback, Murdoch hedged: “I want a little more evidence that the worst is over…there is a real feeling that we’ve hit bottom and there is something turning, but this is early days yet.”

As usual, Murdoch’s call was well worth listening to, as he’s the most unbuttoned of the media moguls when it comes to earnings calls. Plenty of good stuff here on the Kindle, the state of the newspaper business, his plans to charge for more online content, etc.

EARLIER:
Thanks to a helpful News Corp. (NWS) official for deciphering the company’s earnings for me. The media conglomerate, which owns this Web site via its Dow Jones unit, posted earnings of 16 cents (after factoring out one-time gains and charges) on revenue of $7.4 billion. Wall Street had been looking for 16 cents and $7.7 billion, respectively. The company’s revenue number is down 16 percent from a year ago.

CEO Rupert Murdoch isn’t crowing: “Our third-quarter results directly reflect the continuing weakness of the global economic climate.”

News Corp. doesn’t offer much transparency regarding MySpace, which just recently swapped out its leadership team, or the Fox Interactive Media group MySpace belongs to. But it does say that its “other segment” which includes FIM/MySpace, lost $89 million in the last quarter, down $82 million from a year ago.

“The decline in FIM operating results was driven by lower advertising revenues combined with increased costs associated with the MySpace music joint venture and the launch of new features.”

Expect more detail in the earnings call, which begins at 4:30 Eastern time.

Here’s the sector-by-sector breakdown (click chart to enlarge):

News Corp.’s numbers come a day after Disney’s (DIS). not-as-bad-as-we-feared report. CBS (CBS) reports tomorrow.

Call starting shortly: I’ll be covering live.

Call starting. This will be COO Peter Chernin’s last go-round.

CFO Dave DeVoe starts:
Paper and broadcast TV down, cable doing OK (just like every other media conglomerate).

Some segment notes: Studios are up in part because of “Wolverine,” “Slumdog,” etc. Also because they’re making more TV shows (recall there was a strike a year ago).

TV stations down 28 percent (if you strike out Superbowl revenue from last year). That’s about par for local TV these days (i.e., down 20 percent is the new flat!).

Cable: “Very strong growth.” Operating income up 30 percent, revenue up 11 percent. Affliate fees up 24 percent. Ad revenue down six percent (not bad). Fox News Channel had record operating profit. New affiliate deals in effect with everyone except for Charter and Cox, and those should be set next year.

Newspaper business: Operating income at $7 million, down from $200 million(!) last year. Dow Jones: Advertising down 33 percent at The Wall Street Journal (gulp).

FIM (MySpace): $187 million, down 11 percent. Online ads down 16 percent. That’s a big collapse from last quarter.

Murdoch: “I’m not an economist…but it is increasingly clear the worst is over.” This is meaningful given that Murdoch was an early pessimist, at least by media mogul standards. “We’re beginning to see a number of bright spots that give us encouragement.”

Movie business: “It is booming right now.” “Could not be happier” with “Wolverine” opening.

Lots of praise for Fox News’s “stunning achievement” in closing the gap on NBCU’s USA.

Broadcast ad volume and pricing are holding up well.

Strong growth at WSJ.com, as measured by internal metrics. Ad revenue for site will grow 20 percent year to year in the fourth quarter. Will soon be making pay people “handsomely” for iPhone app.

I believe I heard a challenge to the Kindle, but not sure. Following up with News Corp. PR. Yup: “We will not be sending our content rights to the fine people who created the Kindle. “

“Too many content creators have been passive in the face of obvious violations of property rights….Our content is extremely valuable and the violators recognize that value.”

Re MySpace: Confident in new team that will “spur new growth and new profitability. Profitability, I must say, that has completely escaped our competitors.”

Praise for Hulu. “There are lessons for Hulu’s success in other parts of our company.”

Now praise for Chernin: “I’ve watched him grow from young executive to my trusted deputy”…built strong management team. I’ll miss him, etc.

Chernin: Praising investor community, a bit tongue in cheek. “Also a great privilege to work at News Corp…and a deep, deep privilege to work for” Murdoch.

Q&A:
Murdoch: Cable advertising down six percent this Q but will be up two percent for the year. General purpose cable nets all up:

Q: If worst is over, why not buy back stock?
Murdoch: “I want a little more evidence that the worst is over…there is a real feeling that we’ve hit bottom and there is something turning, but this is early days yet.”

Q: You have $6 billion in cash. What do you want to do with that? Would you spin out any part of business, like newspapers?
Murdoch: We believe that we are a very strong interrelated company and that all of our divisions help each other. And yeah, we have $6 billion. Except that in the first three or four months of next year we do have $2 billion worth of repayment. So let’s deal with that first.

Q: How does local TV business look? And how is home video looking?
Murdoch: A month ago, I would have said that pacings for the quarter looked “frighteningly bad,” but things are improving. Other stats: For the year, Dow Jones will be down 22 percent. Fox Interactive will down four percent. On movies: A big film will do as well as ever. Library a bit doubtful. But we think there are some things in the works. Thinking about Hulu…and Blu-ray will help too. “There are various things that we believe are going to more than make up for the present slight decline in library titles.” Chernin: “We’re seeing strong titles perform strongly. Particularly with “middle-America-type titles like ‘Marley and Me.’”

Q: Have credit markets loosened up?
CFO DeVoe: Yes. Spreads have contracted. Over last week, the markets are open at attractive prices.
Murdoch: There is a lot of money out there, and we would have no trouble raising one or two billion in public bonds.

Q: Want to buy any additional newspapers?
Murdoch: No.

Q: What’s the outlook for cable, once you’re done jacking up affiliate fees for the likes of Fox News?
Murdoch: Same growth.
Chernin: Some channels still have a lot of growth in them: Big Ten channel, Fox Business, etc.
Murdoch: Yeah! We have 140 channels. The growth of cable and satellite and multichannel television is really only beginning in the rest of the world. And we’ll be riding that.

Q: Are more restructuring charges coming? Why isn’t that in guidance?
Devoe: We really don’t know. What it’s going to be, it’s going to be.
Murdoch: We’ll take about $100 million out of the costs of Dow Jones, and we expect it will be another $100 million by this time next year. Like by linking back office of Dow Jones and New York Post. There will be, and I won’t specify it, but there will be “major cost savings at MySpace.”
Devoe: With regard Dow Jones restructuring, important to note that we planned for that in acquisition.

Q: FIM ad revenue down 16 percent. What’s up with that?
Murdoch: Jon Miller has a lot of ideas. We think we’ll have a much more attractive site for people to visit and stay with and just generate a lot more visits. “We are not going for the Facebook model for bringing hundreds and hundreds of millions of people who don’t bring any advertising with them at all.”
Cherin: MySpace Music coming along. Monetization opportunities just beginning. Some signs that things are improving at MySpace ad sales. A lot of this is marketplace-driven.

Q: On management changes: Rupert, can you handle all this reorg and the absence of Chernin?
Murdoch: Duh.

Q: I assume you have money-losing papers beyond the New York Post.
Murdoch: The only paper that’s in loss is the London Times. And that’s always been the case.

Q: You were so bearish at the cable show a month ago. What’s changed?
Murdoch: “Everybody was in shock by the economy and all business was falling of a cliff in the last three months of last year. Including me.” So we saw the results of ads disappearing in January, February and March. But now they’re coming back. “It’s not back to the old levels. Don’t get me wrong.” Retail is back. Chrysler is advertising – $5 million, I believe. There’s a lot of activity. Not back to the boom days, but “at the very least we seem to have hit the floor.”

Missed Q, but here’s Chernin on piracy: “That’s as big as an act of industrial sabotage that we’ve seen.” In terms of fighting it, there are things that can be done and we are doing it. The “Wolverine” leak was isolated incident, but a “good wake-up call.” Best thing to do is build good alternative business model. That’s Hulu, and that’s other things we’re looking at.

Q: Is the idea to add streaming movies or subscription to Hulu?
Chernin: We already stream movies, but not many. We’re looking at everything. Although I don’t think we’re ready to add subscription yet, although you should talk to Jason Kilar.
Murdoch: Let me stress the importance of Hulu. It’s already the third biggest video site in the country and the only one that collects any real revenue. Very happy with it.

Time for press Q&A:
Q: Can you imagine taking The Wall Street Journal online subscription model to other news sites?
Murdoch: “We’re absolutely looking at that.” You’ll see some stuff “within the next 12 months.”

Q: Hey Peter, what are you going to do after you leave?
Chernin: Now news until July or August.
Murdoch: “I’m very confident Peter will be bringing us a couple of big hits.”

Q: Any plans to spend that $6 billion cash on M&A?
Murdoch: “No. Nothing of any size.” Our best products have been stuff we built ourselves.

Q: When are you going to see digital subscription revenue surpass lost print ad revenue?
Murdoch: “A couple of years.” Looking at a couple things. Charging. Use of mobile readers. “We don’t believe in the business Kindle model,” but it’s significant that people are looking at that for news, and looking at their BlackBerries for news. Lots of way to make money from content over and above advertising. Some of the most advanced companies in the world are looking at reading/mobile devices. We may invest a little bit in one of of them, but we’re neutral. “We’re not appliance makers. There are other great ones in the world.”

Some confusion about a New York Post (owned by News Corp.) story today.

Q: Any thoughts about cost-cutting at local stations because they’re getting hammered?
A: Yes. Making our own news instead of syndication, etc. “We also expect a return to television advertising faster than we see it for newspapers.”

Q: How much can you cut from MySpace to get it profitable?
Murdoch: “It is profitable. We wish to make it really profitable, and we think that’s possible.” But not going into details.

Q: What about buying AOL?
“We’ve never really thought about it, to be honest, perhaps because they’ve always talked about such ridiculous prices.”

People familiar with the matter tell me that DeWolfe and News Corp., specifically new digital boss Jon Miller, are discussing a leadership change today. News Corp. (NWS) officials declined to comment. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

Sources tell me Miller hadn’t been planning on getting rid of DeWolfe (pictured above) in the near future, and that until yesterday he was still evaluating his options. News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch had once treated DeWolfe as a favorite and gave him significant autonomy at MySpace. But Murdoch, who brought Miller on earlier this month, has been leaning toward a change as MySpace’s traffic has stagnated and its buzz and momentum have moved to Facebook.

Still, Murdoch had left the decision about the site’s leadership to Miller, his new hire, sources said. One possibility: Elevating DeWolfe to a nonexecutive advisory position.

Those options narrowed last night once TechCrunch ran a story claiming that News Corp. had hired a headhunting firm to “scour for possible replacements” for DeWolfe.

News Corp. hadn’t actually hired a headhunter, I’m told by multiple sources. But I’m also told that the report was enough to spook DeWolfe into calling Miller to ask what his plans were. That conversation led to today’s negotiations, which will likely lead to his stepping down as CEO, although he may remain affiliated with MySpace in some capacity.

Meanwhile, News Corp. has been talking to Van Natta (pictured here) about taking DeWolfe’s place. Van Natta, who had been a highly regarded executive at Facebook, was at one point the leading candidate to head up MySpace Music, which launched last fall, and the two sides held extensive conversations.

But Van Natta, like many other potential hires for that position, bristled at the job’s org chart: Rather than a standalone company, a la Hulu, the site News Corp. set up with GE’s (GE) NBC, MySpace Music is simply a unit of MySpace, reporting to DeWolfe. MTV executive Courtney Holt eventually took the job.

But Van Natta’s fate has remained closely intertwined with MySpace anyway. Project Playlist, the free music-streaming site he took over last fall, has seen traffic plummet after MySpace, along with Facebook, cut off the site’s access to their users, a move prompted by lawsuits from several major music companies.

Van Natta has made some headway at extracting the company from its legal mess, which predated his hiring, and he has hammered out a settlement with EMI Music Group. But Playlist is still being sued by Warner Music Group (WMG) and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, and even music sites that aren’t in legal trouble are struggling to keep their heads above water. Plenty of Silicon Valley watchers wonder why Van Natta landed at Playlist in the first place and think that he has been looking for a way out.

Here’s a video of DeWolfe talking with BoomTown’s Kara Swisher a little more than a year ago when MySpace opened a new office in San Francisco. Below that is a video of Van Natta talking to Swisher in 2007 about Facebook’s ill-fated “Beacon” project.

Yes, says WSJ.com Executive Editor Alan Murray, who alluded to his plans in an interview with Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab. Murray doesn’t go into any level of detail about what he has up his sleeve except to say that he’s thinking about niche products that might focus on energy, or a “news service for chief financial officers.”

In other words, trade newsletters, which have proven to be a very resilient business for the likes of McGraw-Hill (MHP).

The video of the interview is embedded below, and you can see a full transcript here. But here’s the relevant text:

Murray: We’re working on a premium initiative to launch a series of, as you say, niche or narrower information services that we can sell at a premium to smaller groups of subscribers on subjects that they care most about.

Question: What sort of subjects?

Murray: Oh, I mean, there are potentially thousands of them. Energy might be an example. Obviously a lot of our readers are deeply interested in financial subjects. Perhaps some sort of a news service for chief financial officers. There are a lot of ideas that are on the table. We’ve started prioritizing them–got a few that will probably come out first. But I’m not going to break that news on your video.

I’d complain about the Nieman crew not following up on this (and burying the lede, too–what are they teaching over there at Harvard?), but the fact is that Murray has been talking about this stuff internally for a while. So has his boss, WSJ Managing Editor Robert Thomson, so I’m not sure whether this qualifies as new news.

But it is worth noting that News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, who was just forced to take a huge write-down on the Journal, has sounded increasingly disenchanted with advertising-based businesses, period. You may recall that when Murdoch acquired the paper in 2007, he was geared to take down the pay wall surrounding the Web site altogether, as the New York Times (NYT) had done with its flagship site. Now it looks like News Corp. (NWS) is willing to put up even more walls.

Also, while I’m at it, the disclosure: The site you’re reading right now is owned by Dow Jones, which owns The Wall Street Journal. But as far as I know, we’ve got no plans to charge for it. Enjoy, gratis!

Alan Murray of The Wall Street Journal on charging for content from Nieman Journalism Lab on Vimeo.

The Associated Press is fed up with… the Internet, apparently. And it’s going to do… something about it.

At the news-gathering co-op’s annual meeting today, AP chairman Dean Singleton let rip a sort of hellfire-and-brimstone speech in which he announced the AP’s vague plans to stop unnamed scoundrels from making money from their work.

The relevant bit:

“[The AP's board has] unanimously decided to take all actions necessary to protect the content of the Associated Press and the AP Digital Cooperative from misappropriation on the Internet.

The board also unanimously agreed to work with portals and other partners who legally license our content and who reward the cooperative for its vast newsgathering efforts–and to seek legal and legislative remedies against those who don’t.

We believe all of your newspapers will join our battle to protect our content and receive appropriate compensation for it.

AP and its member newspapers and broadcast associate members are the source of most of the news content being created in the world today. We must be paid fully and fairly.”

If this sounds like the AP is riffing off the famous speech from “Network,” that’s not an accident. In fact, Dean Singleton does indeed quote the movie’s Howard Beale in his remarks: “We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories. We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more.”

In theory, Singleton and the AP are talking about a wide range of sites that profit by repurposing someone else’s content, from down-and-dirty “scraping sites” to the much more refined (and useful) Huffington Post, to… I don’t know.

But now it’s become much clearer why News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch singled out Google (GOOG) in remarks he made at a cable industry convention last week: The news guys have decided that the search engine has now become public enemy No. 1. That makes a sort of sense: If you’re going to go after someone, pick the guy with the deepest pockets.

And look. Unlike some of my bloggy colleagues, I don’t think that the people who pay to produce content are insane to complain about getting ripped off by aggregators of all stripes.

The thing is, even if the news guys somehow stopped people from using Google to find information they need, it wouldn’t do anything to solve the essential problems plaguing their business. Such as:

• An overabundance of undifferentiated, commodity information.
• The wholesale evaporation of classified advertising and local retail advertising.
• Investors who paid too much for newspapers and other media assets during the last 10 years, using too much debt.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to hearing more about the AP’s plans, vaguely referred to in this press release as developing “a system to track content distributed online to determine if it is being legally used…” and including “the development of new search pages that point users to the latest and most authoritative sources of breaking news.”

You mean, they’re going to build their own search engine? That can’t be right. But if I hear back from the AP folks, I’ll try to get them to explain.

UPDATE: Thanks to Jim Kennedy VP/director of strategic planning for the AP, for teasing some of this out for me. Here’s what the AP is thinking:

• Kennedy confirmed that some of the AP’s ire is indeed aimed at Google, and that the drum-beating has a purpose. The search engine has a deal with the AP that expires at the end of this year, and the AP is setting the table for upcoming negotiations. Their main contention: Google is already using AP content in ways that aren’t covered by the existing agreement, and the AP wants to be compensated for them. Expect to hear lots more about this in future months.
• The AP’s “stick” approach is aimed at Web aggregators: It plans on “fingerprinting” its content so it can track where its stuff is showing up and how it’s being used. If it’s being misused, it has an array of options that start with a takedown notice and end with legal remedies.
• The AP’s carrot approach is aimed at Web surfers: It will become an aggregator of its own content. Specifically, it plans on building search engine-friendly Web pages built around specific topics — say, “Fargo floods” or “Michelle Obama” — composed of links that direct readers to AP stories. The idea is to get the pages to show up high in a Google search, alongside, or higher than, similar pages from Web aggregators who are doing the same thing — like Wikipedia, Huffington Post, BusinessWeek, Mahalo, and on and on and on. Kennedy says it has built prototypes of the aggregator pages and plans on rolling them out in the second half of this year.

Meanwhile, note to the AP folks: You are aware at Howard Beale gets shot to death at the end of the movie, right?

At a Q&A at the cable industry’s annual show today, Murdoch waxed on about the Kindle’s qualities, then made a reference to investing in a machine that could be even more attractive–one that boasted a large, full-color screen. I was covering the event live [original story below], and these are my notes from the relevant part of his chat. Please bear in mind that this is a very rough paraphrase, from notes I was taking in real time:

We need new models. The first inkling of it is the Kindle. You can get the whole paper there. And you can get the whole of The Wall Street Journal on your BlackBerry. We’re investing in a new device that has a bigger screen, four-color, and you can get everything there. [Did I just hear that correctly?]

After the event, I checked in with a News Corp. spokesperson, who confirmed that I hadn’t been hallucinating: News Corp. is indeed in “exploratory” talks about making an investment in a company working on e-reader technologies.

Who might that be? No guidance there. Plastic Logic, based in Mountain View, Calif., has been working on a reader with a 8.5 by 11-inch screen for several years. But that company has already raised $200 million from investors, including Intel (INTC) and Oak Investment Partners. And its device, scheduled to hit the market in 2010, will feature a black-and-white screen that uses the same E Ink technology that the Kindle and Sony’s (SNE) Reader use.

Another option: Rival publisher Hearst, which has plans for its own Kindle. But Hearst’s unnamed reader will initially be a black-and-white affair as well.

Anyone have any other possibilities? You can reach me directly at peter@allthingsd.com. Or if you want to be completely anonymous, which is understandable but less useful to me (I won’t have any way of reaching you for follow-up) you can use the blind tip box here.

EARLIER:
This year’s cable show seems lightly attended, but folks are are buzzing here about Bob Iger’s comments this morning, where the Disney (DIS) CEO alternately tried to placate and challenge the industry with his online plans. I’ve got high hopes for this one, too, a keynote speech from News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch, who will then take a seat and chat with three fellow CEOs: Time Warner’s (TWX) Jeff Bewkes, Viacom’s (VIA) Philippe Dauman, and Liberty Global’s Michael Fries.

Moderating the discussion: Murdoch employee Neil Cavuto, who does anchor work at both Fox News and Fox Business (and since this Web site is owned by Dow Jones, I’m a Murdoch employee, too).

I’ll be covering the Q&A live, which means that any text you read below is an on-the-fly attempt to paraphrase the speakers on stage–unless it’s in quotes, which represent my best attempt to get the words verbatim.

Starts with Q&A with Murdoch.
NC: Are things getting better?
RM: I think the long-term situation is still extremely dangerous. I’m pessimistic because every family is poorer and they’re going to save more and spend less. Even more dangerous if the government throws too much money at the problem:

NC: What if you’re wrong?
RM: “I pray I am”

NC: Markets are up in reaction to G20 plan. Is that the kind of thing you’re talking about (re too much spending from Congress, etc.)
RM: I’ve never seen any money from the World Bank that’s done much good. Maybe the IMF should be recapitalized. But it doesn’t matter, because none of the money will come back to the U.S. “I would say it’s a bear market still. We’re not going back to the old levels anytime soon. We’re two or three years away.”

NC: What about the economy?
RM: May get better in a year. “I walk around the streets of New York, and all I see is “to let” signs everywhere.” Space we rented for $80 a foot on Sixth Avenue is now $60 a square foot. On our business in general: Advertising is flowing out of the big networks, but our cable advertising is up. “They’re in good shape, and we’re very happy to have a number of them.”

NC: They are rioting in London against capitalism “they’re rioting against success…they don’t like rich people. Are you offended?”
RM: No. There’s only about 4,000 of them. “Makes good television, someone with blood on their face…but it’s greatly overstated.” I have had worse problems when I had strikes 20 years ago.

NC: So you don’t buy this sort of “new global class warfare.”
RM: It’s very dangerous. “We all know in the last two or three years there have been notable headline-grabbing excesses, in this country and in Europe, despite what the Europeans are saying, and we’re paying for that.” But I don’t think we’re going to have class warfare. “We do need an SEC that’s awake,” in part so we don’t have work with the French and their regulators.

NC: Everyone’s piling on the U.S. What does that mean for the U.S.?
RM: I don’t care what the French say. “But when the Chinese speak, I pay some notice.” The Chinese don’t want us in an inflationary situation, or they won’t lend us money.

NC: President Obama talked about working with the rest of the world. Is Washington saying that “we are this big global powerhouse together”?
RM: It’s very nice for the President to say that, but I don’t think Bush ever did that. He was talking to world leaders every day. He wasn’t as articulate about it as Obama. But “we’re the big boy on the block” so naturally people are jealous, but we better remain “damned sure” that we remain the big boy.

NC: But we owe everyone lots of money.
RM: That’s what worries me. I worry that we’re going to start printing lots of money, we’ll have runaway inflation.

NC: You just said Obama is brilliant. Your companies “have a reputation for being slightly more conservative than he is.”
RM: “We’re fair and balanced.”
NC: “Absolutely.”
RM: The monolithic liberal press complains when they don’t get a corner of the world; “if they want to smear you, or me, that’s fine.” Re Obama: “I’ve had a couple of very charming conversations with him.” He talks about how pragmatic he is. “We’ll see.” So far, a couple of little tests have been disappointing. With regard to Teamsters and school vouchers in Washington.

NC: So you’re saying he has a reputation for being pragmatic, but he isn’t. And he doesn’t seem to like Wall Street either.
RM: “That’s putting it too strongly” I think it offends him to see people making $200 million dollars a year, or whatever it is.

NC: Taxes are going up for the wealthy.
RM: Yes. So “we’ll go live in Texas.” It’s serious. a 60 percent tax rate is going up. Not just the federal taxes, but states, and counties. My Long Island house “is not very big at all” but what Nassau charges for taxes is enormous. The bill has gone up from $3,000 to $7,000 or $8,000. “I’m trying to sell my house.”

NC: You’re a newspaper guy. Newspapers as a physical product are dying. San Francisco may not have a paper at all soon. What do you think of that?
RM: “It’s sad. But let’s face it. San Francisco is a pretty small area. And there’s some pretty good papers in that area,” and they’re not folding. “People are getting used to getting everything on the net for nothing. That’s going to have to change.” Take the New York Times. No matter what you’re going to say about it, it has a very very good Web site. But it’s never going to make enough money to cover what it’s losing on the print side. The question is: “Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights? Just take them? Not just Google but all the aggregators? Yahoo? And I feel that if you have a brand that’s strong enough, like the New York Times, they should be able to go to Google and say ‘no.’” So when you go to search on Google, it doesn’t show up. But there’s only 10 or 15 of those, probably.

We need new models. The first inkling of it is the Kindle. You can get the whole paper there. And you can get the whole of The Wall Street Journal on your BlackBerry. We’re investing in a new device that has a bigger screen, four-color, and you can get everything there. [Did I just hear that correctly?]

[Time to bring on the other panelists]

PD: “If I may, I’d just like to say bon jour to Rupert.”

NC: Philippe Dauman, you said you’re seeing some positivity in your business. Where?

PD: Theater sales are healthy. Cable is OK. Saw some deterioration in ad sales, but in last few weeks, we’re seeing some plateauing. On the kids’ cable channel upfront, we’re starting to do well. “There are some advertisers that are increasing their spend. They’re healthy, and they see an opportunity to expand market share. Advertising works, even for banks.”

Jeff Bewkes: We’re pretty much seeing the same thing. Advertising for print is down, cable is very strong. AOL, “not so strong.” The problem is that outside the U.S., growth rates have come down, and financial problems are much worse. “But I think it’s short-term” so we’re still investing. Invested in Eastern Europe.

Michael Fries: We’re doing OK, too. Cable isn’t immune, but we’re selling products people need. Our Eastern European markets aren’t doing great, but fundamentally we’re still growing. We’re still growing through this. Since we’re not ad-supported, we’re not having down markets or down quarters. In some of our markets, there will be some consolidation, and we can get some of our competitors out of the way.

[Missed a section on broadband and infrastructure outside the U.S. Apologies]

NC: You have great content but on the Web, but many people don’t pay for it. What can you do about that? Do you have to do deals with the likes of Hulu, and get pennies on the dollar instead of giving it away?

PD: There’s a middle ground we’re trying to follow. Consumer behavior changes, revenue models have to change, too. We put a lot of content on line, we also do a lot “windowing.” Some content like news goes online right away, and the “Daily Show.” That’s on Hulu. But you do get incremental monetization “if you do it right.” “Daily Show” ratings are up since we went on Hulu. We have to experiment and see what we can do to enhance the experience.

MF: Content doesn’t follow eyeballs. Content follows money. Content providers want first and foremost to get paid. Consumers want random access to content. They want high-quality content. I like the idea [i.e., to put all their stuff online] that Time Warner and Comcast is promoting “is a no-brainer.” Online now has a negligible impact on TV, so right now it’s something we can get a hold off.

RM: It varies from show to show. A good show can get improved ratings over time, via the DVR. Like “24.” A lot of stuff that’s DVR’d is played that evening. “There’s no loyalty to audiences at all. There’s loyalty to certain shows.”

NC: Journalists are moving to the Web, but they’re not going to get paid as much on the Web [yup]. Point being: Aren’t authors and artists who produce work for the Web, or the Kindle, going to get screwed?

PD: No. You can charge lower prices but you have lower costs. If you have a secure download-to-own business, you can protect revenues for everyone.

NC: But generally, don’t all content creators have to realize that their content is worth less?

JB: This is the cable convention. Rupert’s right about not having loyalty to broadcast networks. But there is, or at least different identities, on cable. The broadcast business has its challenges, as we know. But the cable channels have the most value and the most future….This industry can now deliver all our great stuff on broadband, and over mobile. [Rambling here but basically Bewkes is repitching his "TV everywhere" idea] “We’re not trying to make the Internet not free. We’re just saying that if you use it for free, you ought to get what you have in your home….Look how slow we’re being. We’re all being too slow to put all these channels and put them broadband….We ought to do it, and we ought to do it now….Put it on the Hulus and YouTubes if you need too, but only if people are subscribing to the cable plans. You can’t just blow up the financial structure….We ought to be taking the advertising model from cable networks and moving it over to broadband.”

NC: That isn’t what I was asking about. What about us content creators?

PD: “We treat creators of content really well.”

JB: “Yeah.”

PD: Back to Bewkes’s plan. People get the advertising model.

RM: People are used to the free content being free, and “the fact is that nobody’s making money with the free content on the Web, except for search.” We’ve got to find a way to charge.

MF: This notion that we’ll figure out how to pay for something, someday, is wrong. There’s value in aggregators and editors, and people go to Fox News because they know what they’re getting. “We have a generation below this lost generation that we can capture and retain, if this industry does it right.”

JB: Hey, want to see what that looks like? [Now it's time for Bewkes to run a promo, literally for HBO. "HBO GO." The "coolest way to watch HBO on your computer....If you have the key, it's free." I am assuming that this is a mock ad for a product that Bewkes would like to exist--HBO OnDemand, online.

JB: I apologize for running a commercial.

PD: That works well for pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime and our new channel. Not sure about other channels.

NC: Let's say our recession/depression lingers for a while "a real protracted type of a deal." What then for entertainment?

JB: It will hold up.

NC: What about advertising?

JB: Less.

PD: It will be slow, but we'll get through it. We have to plan for the possibility that it will be bad for a long time. You spend less, you have to be careful about not spending on things that aren't you core brands, and acquisitions, and that can be self-defeating. We're dependent on Washington in some ways, but what we really need are the credit markets to work again.

MF: Bingo.

NC: How has recession affected you personally? Do you change the way you display your wealth, or your own personal behavior?

JB: [Sitting next to Murdoch] “I tend to sit next to people who are richer than me.”

PD: Hotel managers are beside themselves because no one has business meetings, and then they have to fire working class people. But I think this “populist surge” about abuses will pass. “We’re going through an extreme period, and this is a country that still values entrepreneurial behavior.”

[Panel is over.]