Rupert Murdoch is mad as hell and it appears he’s not going to take it anymore. The media mogul and News Corp chief is upset at Google, saying the Internet search giant is ruining the newspaper business.

Not one to sit and around and just gripe about things, Murdoch says he might pull News Corp’s news from Google’s Web search results and list the stories on Microsoft’s Bing. The catch is that Microsoft would pay for the service, giving Murdoch a fresh revenue stream.

The problem is that many news organizations are fed their Web audience via Google search. If viewer rates fall, so too, the theory says, will ad dollars.

If it works, however, you can bet big dollars that other publishers and content providers will follow suit.

What do you think? Will Murdoch’s gamble work?  Should search engines pay for the privilege of listing a publisher’s content?

Leave your comments below.

Increasingly vocal calls for taxes on sugary drinks and junk food are fueling a behind- the-scenes battle that public health officials say is reminiscent of America's war on cigarettes.

Fueling the debate are revenue-hungry federal, state and local governments officials who are eying a potential $50 billion windfall from taxes on over 10 years.

Take a look at the New York City Department of Health's ad discouraging people from drinking sugary sodas, and let us know whether you think a junk food tax would be good public policy, or an intrusive step too far by the nanny state.

Is it anybody's business how much money you make?

When it comes to Wall Street and the meltdown that whacked financial markets and emptied investors' pockets, the normal rules of etiquette don't seem to apply.

Wall Street salaries seem to be everybody's business lately. Nevertheless, the Obama administration's pay czar may try to keep a large portion of the compensation plans he is reviewing under wraps.

It's Kenneth Feinberg's job to review salaries at the biggest corporate recipients of government bailout funds.

How much of his report will become public is the multimillion dollar question.

Privacy laws and fears that highly compensated executives will become targets for an angry public argue for limiting disclosure.

"One of my clients makes $25 million a year and drives a Honda," said Steven Eckhaus, of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. "He tries to lead a fairly modest life and he would be horrified if what he makes appeared in the paper. Not only would his neighbors know, but his kids would know, and it would affect his ability to raise his kids. These are people, not a circus sideshow."

Congressman Alan Grayson told Reuters he is unsympathetic to that argument.

"If this is the same top talent that caused their firms to be destroyed and put the entire U.S. economy at risk, I wish they would leave the firms and leave the country," he said.

What's your view?

Should top earners keep their privacy, or does the public have a right to know? Leave your opinion in the comment section below.

More:

• U.S. pay czar says he can "claw back" exec compensation
• Wall Street ponders pay czar's move on clawbacks
• Oil trader under scrutiny for phenomenal success
• AIG chief's salary structured to reflect risk
• 'Pay Czar' Feinberg has tackled tough tasks before

The auto industry's Christmas present from the government -- in the form of a $1 billion loan to General Motors and a $5 billion stake in GMAC -- may have left other industries hoping that the giving season isn't over yet.

The steel industry is pressing President-elect Barack Obama to boost the flagging demand for U.S.-made steel by instituting a "buy American" clause in his infrastructure stimulus package, the New York Times reported.

"As steel production goes — and it is now in collapse — so will go the national economy," writes the New York Times, referencing the maxim once applied to The Big Three automakers.

But why stop at manufacturing industries? Rep. Frank Nicastro of Connecticut and some of his fellow legislators want to save two local papers, The Bristol Press and The Herald, which are hanging by a thread after their publisher said it cannot afford to keep them.

Which companies are really too big to fail? If you were writing the check, who would you bail out?

(Pictured above: Workers secure a steel beam at a construction site on 8th Avenue and 42nd Street in New York, April 21, 2008. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton)

Despite the incessant drumbeat of poor economic data -- consumer confidence fell to a record low in December and the price of single-family homes plunged in October -- the majority of Americans are optimistic about what is in store in 2009.

The Marist College canvassed 1,003 Americans about their expectations for 2009 on December 9 and 10 -- days after the National Bureau of Economic Research confirmed the United States had been mired in a recession since December 2007.

Expectations for a brighter future were higher among younger generations with 64 percent of those under 45 having an optimistic view compared with 52 percent for those 45 or older.

Based on last year's results, those who aim to improve their lives in 2009 will have at least partial success. In 2008, 60 percent kept their self-made promises for at least part of the year.

Are you optimistic about 2009? What resolutions will you make to improve your life in 2009?

November's job losses were the steepest since December 1974, when 602,000 jobs were shed. Analysts polled by Reuters had predicted a reduction of 340,000 jobs.

"This is a clear employment blowout. Firms are reacting as dramatically as they can to make sure they have cost structures they can survive the recession we are in," said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

One reader commenting on the site feels the job losses have not hit bottom. "I predict 30% unemployment by March of 2009. The retailers are gonna tank right after Christmas. Look for some really good deals!" wrote Smacktle.

Not all responses were as dire.

"Well these are pretty bad numbers. This will be a real test to see how much bad news is priced into the markets. Futures are down quite a bit, but I actually expected them to be down a lot more given these terrible recessionary numbers," says Jeff Kleintop, chief market strategist for LPL Financial in Boston.

"It might be hard in future months to get numbers that are any worse. It might be good that we raced to some of the worst numbers we've had because perhaps it can't get incrementally worse."

Some of our readers found the data less shocking.

"This is not a big surprise, really. One has only to observe how many fewer cars are on the road shortly after rush hour, how many empty seats are on the planes into or out of major hubs, how many fewer people are in front of you in any line for services from movie theaters to tire stores, how much more quickly you are seated in a restaurant," writes Jaime Simmons.

What you think about today's unemployment numbers?

(Pictured above: A member of the Laborers Union Local 89 waits outside his local union hall after placing his name on the job list in San Marcos, California November 7, 2008. REUTERS/Mike Blake)