Newspapers Reconsidering Google News

News.com ran an article earlier in the week talking about the somewhat strained relationship between newspapers and Google. Google's stance is firm: 'We don't pay to index news content.' Just the same, newspapers with an online presence are starting to reconsider their relationship with Google, the value of linking, and the realities of internet economics. Talk of paying for content, as well as ongoing court cases, has observers considering both sides of the issue: "While some in newspaper circles point to the Belgium court ruling and the content deals with AP and AFP as a sign Google may be willing to pay for content, Google fans and bloggers interpreted the news quite differently. To them, it was obvious that the Belgium group had agreed to settle--even after winning its court case--because they discovered that they needed Google's traffic more than the fees that could be generated from news snippets. Observers note that with newspapers receiving about 25 percent of their traffic from search engines, losing Google's traffic had to sting."

Comments

Not a big concern.

[Khaed]

It more bugs me how many sites in google news are exact copies of the same thing. Makes finding more than one story somewhat of a bitch.

Re:Not a big concern.

[Gorshkov]

It more bugs me how many sites in google news are exact copies of the same thing. Makes finding more than one story somewhat of a bitch.

What's even worse, as far as I'm concerned, is clicking on wildly different headlines in different major newspapers .... and finding the exact same AP (or other wireservice) story.

Kinda makes you wonder about the "journalism is hard" comment in the article.

Re:Not a big concern.

[larry bagina]

It makes me wonder why google doesn't partner with AP/UPI/Knight Ridder/Reuters, etc and cut out the middleman. Or how long it will be until they do.

Re:Not a big concern.

[iminplaya]

No, actually AP and UPI are fine. The problem is that so many rely on them. It's very economical for the papers not to have to hire reporters. I personally don't care for it because I want as many takes on a story as possible, but now even the papers from China and Al Jazeera are just using them sometimes. Maybe so they can get the Google hits also. I guess the bloggers will have to fill in the gaps. But I still have a thing, justified or not, about regular reporters being a bit more leashed in by real professional editors and stuff. I kind of like to have a local paper's take. Something about familiarity with people you "know". Call me old fashioned, I supposed, but that's what I grew up with. I still suffer from conditioned reflex like everybody else. Don't take to mean I wish the bloggers to go away. They are very necessary, a bit more so with all the corporate consolidation happening now. It's just that there's so many of them. Separating the wheat from the chaff just became my job all of a sudden. Life's too short for this. It says a lot about Google that AP and UPI get most of the top hits. That's where the money is.

Re:Not a big concern.

[Jenna555]

In my experience as a journalist (a while back) its amazing to find out how much newspapers rely on PR wire services and direct contact with spokespeople. There is one paradigm shift that can impact newspapers massively in this regard. Blogs that cover news (and blog owners that are finding alternative uses for their on line properties) get ever more dominant.

Re:Not a big concern.

[JonathanR]

And Slashdot will ensure you get to read it, if you missed it the first time...

Re:Not a big concern.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Kinda makes you wonder about the "journalism is hard" comment in the article.

Oh I'm sure that real journalism is quite hard. There's just not very many real journalists.

Re:Not a big concern.

[Hal_Porter]

I guess you think your civilization is perfect and should be implemented worldwide at any cost, disrespecting any local traditions or cultures by supplanting your own views

No, I just think that China would be improved if it had free elections. And all those Islamic countries would be improved if they had a culture which respected the rights of people other than rich, straight men - probably expecting a Jeffersonian democracy there is wishful thinking at this point. More to the point, not only would these changes be better for the Chinese and Arabs, they would make the world a safer place for the US and its allies.

Incidentally, don't you see the irony of arguing anonymously on the internet that local traditions like secret police torturing people for discussing politics should be respected? The only reason that you're free to do it is because your ancestors were willing to kill and die to stamp out those sorts of traditions.

I think you should re-read 1984 and consider what part the Ministry of Truth played.

You realise that Orwell actually worked for the IRD and other propaganda bodies which did exactly what I suggested, right? Both against the Fascists in WWII and the Communists in the Cold War. Incidentally 1984 is set in hellish world where people allowed totalitarian movements to take over everywhere so it shouldn't be entirely unexpected that he would do this, if you actually understand what it is about.

Maybe you should read this

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/eng lish/e_patw

Re:Not a big concern.

[Ajehals]

First off, here is the correct link Volkischer Beobachter. It should be noted that that particular paper was the newspaper of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, i.e. the Nazi party, whilst Al-Jazeera isn't and has never been related to either the Baath Party in Iraq, or Al-Qa'ida.

Al-Jazeera is a Doha based organisation, Doha being the capital of Qatar, and Qatar being an apparently key US ally in the middle east, along with Saudi Arabia. It tends to carry news aimed at middle eastern readers/viewers.

Al-Jazeera isn't significantly anti-western, or pro Al-Qa'ida. The stories it carries and even the opinions offered are often similar to what you might see on the BBC, ITN and CNN.

The only thing that makes Al-Jazeera different from the mainly western news agencies out there is that it has the capability of being on the ground in the midst of things and then reports what it sees, often including the views and opinions of people in the region. Unfortunately this sometimes doesn't fit with the general media picture coming out of the middle east, well it mostly does if you watch Euro-centric news, but not if you compare it to news for US consumption.

As for Al-Jazeera encouraging attacks on US troops, I'd like to see where that reference comes from, as I certainly haven't seen anything of the sort.

I would go so far as to suggest that the US Governments actions (I wouldn't blame the US military, they have enough problems at the moment and at least have the excuse of following orders that seem legitimate) in carrying out attacks (accidental or otherwise) against journalists of all types in the middle east is despicable, I would go so far as to say that it is criminal, but sadly understandable. If I were a commander on the ground I would prefer that the country I was occupying did not get information about what was going on, or find out about the mistakes that have been made. I would prefer that all media in country were controlled by friendly organisations so that the battle for "hearts and minds" would be easier to win, this would be doubly the case if I didn't understand what Al-Jazeera was. Sadly in a 24/7 news cycle and global coverage, those days are long gone.

Its funny how we see the US demanding democratic reform, and press freedom in many areas of the world, and then carrying out attacks and propaganda campaigns against one of the few organisations that makes use of that press freedom,after all the freedom to publish the facts as you see them is curtailed if you are likely to be killed in the process.

So in short, your apparent comparison is flawed and moreover does not give the credit to the Al-Jazeera and other (non embedded) journalists in trouble spots, doing an important, difficult and dangerous job, nor does it show any compassion for those innocent reporters killed without good cause.

Re:Not a big concern.

[bberens]

It's getting better though. The problem is that people will turn to news aggregators before the problem fixes itself, I fear. I know it's largely a problem of matter of perspective but I view the news aggregators as forcing news sources to improve the quality of their material. If you have the best material you'll likely be on the front page at the news aggregator site/feed. If I like your material enough I may just RSS feed your news stories to my personal aggregator or my Google home page. I may even give up the news aggregators (google news) and just come straight to you. However, I would've never found you without the aggregator.

Do no evil, despite a monopoly?

[Opportunist]

This actually offers an interesting question: Can you dare to sue google if you depend on page visits? Can you actually survive it when Google decides to "zero" you, to make you nonexistant in their searches? Google is, after all, THE way people use when trying to find something. Sure, there are other search engines, but Google is pretty much the dominating factor in internet search.

Not being listed in Google means that your competitor gets all the hits you might have gotten.

Can you then dare to stand up against Google? What if Google decides to take the stance of "play by our rules or we'll make sure nobody finds you anymore"?

Not really a comforting thought, when someone can dictate how the internet has to run...

Re:Do no evil, despite a monopoly?

[suv4x4]

This actually offers an interesting question: Can you dare to sue google if you depend on page visits? Can you actually survive it when Google decides to "zero" you, to make you nonexistant in their searches?

This is the reason why I do believe it'll be nice to see Yahoo and Microsoft work (or merge?) together better, so they can compete better against Google.

I do use Google today, it has the best search results, undeniably. But it also has a huge market share, which makes content producers very nervous, for a good reason.

Google may delist you overnight, after an algorithm tweak, for something completely innocent, and not SEO related at all, that you did on your site. It's unavoidable, even if Google was run by shiny white angels with halo above their heads, an algorithm for a search engine isn't an exact science, and so anybody in any moment can end up as an edge case that Google doesn't handle properly.

If we have 2-3 major search engines with equal market share, we gain the following benefits:

1. Spammers will have hard time scamming all engines at once, as they use wildly different backend processing, and as a result receive less traffic (i.e. if half the traffic comes from Live, and half from Google, cheating one of them gets you half the possible traffic, not all of it).

2. If you happen to be an edge case on either search engine after an algorithm tweak, it's much less likely both engines did the same tweak at the same time, so while your traffic will decrease, the other search engines on the market will still provide enough traffic for you until this is sorted.

3. When either search engine does something inappropriate, or questionable (ok, for the simple folk out there: "evil"), people will have easier time going to court to defend their rights, because if the search engine provider becomes abusive and threatens blacklisting, that'll have much smaller effect if the engine isn't a monopolist (in this case they'll mostly hurt themselves).

4. Innovation, innovation, innovation. Just imagine the kind of innovation we'll see from both Yahoo/Microsoft and Google if they had equal market share. Microsoft would have much bigger revenue and thus much bigger incentive to support their position on the market. Google, likewise.

I mean, what's the best we saw of Google as of late? A week ago they changed the layout of their home page which made it JavaScript dependent and harder to work with. That's not innovation, that's regression. As for the rest of their new offerings, they mostly come from companies they bought recently.

Yahoo's holding on to their "portal" strategy since this is where the most of their income comes from so their search acceptable but certainly not good enough or innovative. They can't risk spending too much money on search R&D alone.

As for Microsoft Live, they're apparently trying to come up with interesting interfaces for search, but they are quite young on that one market, their search results aren't really good, and need the experience of Yahoo to give them a boost and incentive to spend more research in the area.

So, bottom line: monopoly is never good, even when it's supposedly "not evil".

Re:Do no evil, despite a monopoly?

[WindBourne]

Yahoo working with MS would be a total disaster to Yahoo. EVERY company that MS has partnered with, where MS is the junior partner has always resulted in MS using that to slingshot themselves past that company while taking them down. In terms of a merger, that would actually be detrimental to the industry. It is far better that both companies keep on their paths to enable multiple search paths (so to speak).

As to some of your following rational, let me take a shot at it.:

1. Right now, Google is aware of scams because so many attempts are made. It is far easier for Google to see it, when they are bearing the brunt of it. The interesting thing, is that spammers will now be able to make even more use of them. MS has a long history of poor security and will almost certainly miss what Google has done with this. MS will try to copy such items as the cache, and it will be used by spammers.
2. Good point, but you assume that you are high in all. Chances are that if you take a hit in Google (you were almost certainly on a edge in the first place), then you were probably not at the top on the others.
3. I doubt that Google would de-list you because you sue them. That would invite a looksy by the feds.
4. Google is already extremely innovative. In fact, Yahoo was as well ( a decade ago). Sadly, MS is not. To be nice, they are copiers of other people's work with a one-off. If you want innovation, then keep all 3 companies seperate.

As to Google's innovation, not all of it is visible. Wait. I have no doubt that Google has some interesting things coming. They have been hiring true best and brightess, not wanna-be's. As it is, you point to search as being their innovation, when in reality, it is data mining for their ads that they are true experts at.
Yahoo is also interesting in that they are moving towards changing their infrastructure to make it easier to change. They are hoping to have the nimbalness of Google, as well as the ability to control their ad space.
MS is throwing more than 10x the money that both of the other company combined are currently throwing at it. Give MS time.

If you want true innovation, then disallow such a merger/partnership. MS has never used a merger for information. It has always been market share that they want. In addition, MS already has a monster monopoly that they can (and apparently are ) using to help themselves. They would use this to shut out Google, not compete against them.

The "communications revolution" goes on

[Whuffo]

As the current equivalents of buggy whip and button hook manufacturers, media companies that deliver their product as a physical artifact are dying. They won't go quickly or easily, and they'll fight in every way they can to hold on to their past glories.

But the world turns and the new replaces the old. Such is how it always has been and always will be; try to feel just a little sorry (if you can) for those who become irrelevant in tomorrow's world. One day, it'll be your own chosen career or industry that slips below the horizon.

Even the (rightfully) hated RIAA and MPAA are simply trying every angle they can in hopes of propping up their dying organizations for a little longer. The damage they do as they thrash around in their death throes will take years to clean up - but they will die, and the mess will be cleaned up.

Against this background, why be surprised that some newspapers think that Google should pay them for the privelege of indexing their web pages? If they could make that pig fly, they could compensate for the loss in subscription revenues for - maybe another year or so. Google chooses not to pay, and chooses rightly. These companies are doomed and there's nothing for Google or anyone else to gain by delaying their demise.

Re:The "communications revolution" goes on

[Dan Ost]

The newspapers that actually produce content will do fine. It's the newspapers that regurgitate the AP stories that are screwed.

If anything, Google is encouraging variety in reporting.

They should be paying Google

[EzInKy]

Look, like most I just don't have time to visit a couple of hundred sites to keep up on things. I want headlines and leads with enough information to let me know whether or not it is worth the effort to visit the news source. They should be thanking Google for providing the opportunity to garner more readers and subsequently increase their ad revenue.

Re:They should be paying Google

[suv4x4]

[They should be paying Google]

Look, like most I just don't have time to visit a couple of hundred sites to keep up on things. I want headlines and leads with enough information to let me know whether or not it is worth the effort to visit the news source. They should be thanking Google for providing the opportunity to garner more readers and subsequently increase their ad revenue.

You're biased. They should be paying Google just as much as Google should pay them.

Google isn't a charity organisation, there's no need for anyone to thank them. They are in this business to profit from other people's content. If there's no content, there's no Google. If there aren't search engines, the content can't be found.

The balance in this relationship is closer to the middle than strongly going on either side.

Re:If a tree falls, but Google doesn't index it...

[Opportunist]

I don't know the answer to the first one. But not being indexed by Google means your page impressions will suffer. Certainly people will still find you. Google is not a 100% monopoly. And nobody could keep me from displaying the link to my buddies and tell them "look, Google doesn't want you to see that".

But overall, I'd guess the hit would be considerable. Unless of course it becomes public enough that Google doesn't want you to see X's page, 'cause then pretty much every media outlet will cover the story and link you that way...

Think about what you are saying.

[WindBourne]

Why would you sue Google in the first place? Perhaps because you are not as high up in the rankings as you believe that you should be? That is pretty much the ONLY reason why you would sue. So, assume that you then sue and Google de-lists you? So what? You are no worse off. However, to the best of my knowledge, Google has not de-listed anybody for suing them. OTH, if you sue them AND INSIST on being paid or Google not using your content, well, you are going to be de-listed. After all, Google can not pay everybody for doing their work for them. That is essentially what is happening with these companies. Then they find out that Google was HELPING them, not hurting them. Personally, I hope that Google will tell these companies to bugger off. Let them perish. To Google's credit, they have not been evil (just me in my thought).

And as far as being able to dictate, I fear Google far less than I do MS. Google has done no evil, where MS has been nothing but. The real issue is that Google can be toppled MUCH easier than MS will be. MS is losing ground on their OS-Office monopoly, but that is a very hard one to break. Even now, it will take Sun (and the OSS community) to do more work on OO to break the MS monopoly. As it is, Apple, Linux, and even Solaris (way to go schwartz) are making in-roads on the desktop.

Re:Think about what you are saying.

[suv4x4]

Google has done no evil, where MS has been nothing but.

Hm, what a black-white stance. Oh wait, I get it, it's because of the slogan, right?
Heh. Kids. When will you grow up.

Google is so huge right now, you'll find people with all sorts of agenda inside. And the funny things is, many of them, at all levels, worked at Microsoft at some point. Some of them worked in Apple. Some of the people in Apple worked in Google. Some of the people in Microsoft worked in Apple or Google.

A corporation has no face. But, if it makes you feel better, you can keep putting faces on it. It makes it all so much simpler...

Re:Think about what you are saying.

[DrEldarion]

How about 2 other reasons: First of all, the one that the news agency appearantly saw, i.e. that Google is "stealing" their content. Robots.txt

And second, how about you not enjoying the idea of Google keeping your outdated pages in Cache? Robots.txt

If you want to be listed in Google, you play by their rules. If you don't agree to those rules, you block them. It's simple.

Re:Think about what you are saying.

[Alt321]

"And as far as being able to dictate, I fear Google far less than I do MS. Google has done no evil, where MS has been nothing but."

With respect, I think that's short-sighted. While MS has done some shitty things ... I know where I stand with them. With Google, they present this rosy vision to all - and almost all fall before them.

What concerns me is that Google has far more potential to do "evil" now than MS. I fear that. Now, while this might sound alarmist, history suggests otherwise.

When everything is benign, customers/humanity has allowed things to happen as long as said customers/humanity are benefiting. And right now, we are. But things change. And when they do, they will have set the framework up in their favour.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that Google is nothing more than just another corporate entity is in for a surprise. Google and MS may as well be blood brothers.

Re:Think about what you are saying.

[xtracto]

How about 2 other reasons: First of all, the one that the news agency appearantly saw, i.e. that Google is "stealing" their content.
Robots.txt

LoL *chuckle*... Everytime someone comes up with that "the search engine is stealing my content" thing I cant help but laugh really hard... this "web page" content stealing is akin to someone paying $10,000 to put one of these huge ads panels in the street containing their "content" and then bitching because people *can* see it.

If you do not want your content to be seen then for gods sake do not put it in the internet...

Failing to adapt

[sufehmi]

The only constant is change. Apparently, some still doesn't know this.

The old media who fail to adapt will be driven to extinction. The traffic driver now is Google, in the future it may be something else, and so on.

There's a good example here of a new mass media company in Indonesia. They provide the news for free, with RSS feeds and so on. But instead of just that, as many old media company trying to move into Internet --- they also have a web store, ad-service via SMS, resell their incoming traffic, sell web-development & consultancy services,
sell exclusive contents paid by simple premium SMS, successfully built an online community AND capitalize on it to make their Web 2.0 websites successful, and many other creative inventions.

The old media on Internet have very high "hit-and-run" traffic. People came, read the news, and went away.
The new media company I mentioned above, however, is able to capitalize on their incoming traffic; people will linger on for longer, actually do transactions with them; bottom line, more revenue streams.

Again, this is not the fault of Google. The fault is at those who fail to adapt.

"Wall Street Journal" is the right model.

[reporter]

The conflict between the newspapers and Google is due to financial issues. With nearly 100% of news being free, newspaper revenue is declining rapidly. The newspaper companies just want Google to pay them for the free news.

However, Google has no legal obligation to do so. Google is not causing the newspapers to lose money. Google is just a pointer to the news. The news organizations are the ones who actually provide the news -- for free.

So, the solution is obvious. The "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) has already implemented the solution: charge for news. The readership of the WSJ has declined little since the start of the Internet Age. Revenue has also been relatively stable.

Now, look at the "Los Angeles Times". Every bit of news and opinion at the "Times" is free. Why would anyone subscribe to the "Times" when she can get the news for free?

Re:"Wall Street Journal" is the right model.

[Kadin2048]

So, the solution is obvious. The "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) has already implemented the solution: charge for news. The readership of the WSJ has declined little since the start of the Internet Age. Revenue has also been relatively stable.

Now, look at the "Los Angeles Times". Every bit of news and opinion at the "Times" is free. Why would anyone subscribe to the "Times" when she can get the news for free?

Bingo. I think you've also touched, indirectly, on the bigger issue: original content. If you don't have any original content, then you can't well charge admission! Papers that basically just re-run the same wire service reports as everyone else, can't adopt the WSJ's business model, because there are lots of other, cheaper (free) sources for the same thing.

What we are about to see, is a big contraction in the newspaper market. Honestly I don't think this is a bad thing. It's been a long time in coming. Most newspapers -- and I'm not talking about the LA Times here (I don't have a clue about them) -- have long been a 'news dissemination' service, and not a real 'news reporting' service. They don't really make any content themselves, beyond pretty basic local stuff that a smart highschool Junior could write up. Everything else is just wire service stuff. These are the papers that aren't going to make it, or are going to have to radically change shape in order to survive.

The Internet makes the dissemination of information relatively cheap and easy. What it doesn't do is change the cost of creating the material originally (well, in some cases it might, but not as dramatically as it affects the distribution side). If you're nothing but an information distributor, you're in trouble. But if you're an information creator, then you still have something you can market.

Everyone talks about newspapers going under, but you never hear anyone (seriously) talking about the AP or UPI going under. They're not going to, and neither are the big papers that actually do some serious reporting and content-creation -- although they might have to become more like wire services themselves, less "newspapers" and more 'information brokers' or 'content assemblers' (taking lots of raw data and presenting it in a format that people find pleasing and useful, and are incidentally willing to pay for).

There's no shortage of demand for news, and that means there's always going to be money for the people who are really in the core of the business. It's the ancillary stuff that's going to go down, and well it should.

Re:"Wall Street Journal" is the right model.

[value_added]

The conflict between the newspapers and Google is due to financial issues. With nearly 100% of news being free, newspaper revenue is declining rapidly.

Whether (or how) the online presence of newspapers generates profits is the subject of the article. It's a separate and distinct issue from the declining revenues of newspapers, which, for the most part, are a decline in classifieds revenue. Declining circulations play a role, but to a far less extent than you'd like to believe. Newspapers are still very very profitable (more so than most businesses), but lack the increasing revenues that Wall Street demands. Hardly surprising that the LA Times, for example, is now reverting to being privately held.

The newspaper companies just want Google to pay them for the free news.

Vaguely correct for ambiguous values of correct. You're talking about "access" to news stories. News isn't free. It comes from reporters who are paid to investigate, research and write stories. Most reporting is still done by newspapers. Even broadcast (television) news is a product of newspaper reporting. If newspapers can't afford to pay their reporting and editorial staff, everyone suffers. In the extreme cases, you either end up with "local reporting" (consisting mostly of puff pieces on insignicant issues), or recyled headlines from wire services (who are also under similar budgetary concerns).

If you can't see where this is heading, I'd suggest watching a few hours of celebrity news programming (consisting mostly of stock footage) on TV and asking yourself whether you feel informed about the world you live in. Or, if you're up to it, ask the Really Big Question of how a democracy can function without an informed electorate.

As to the subject of whether the newspapers deserve some cut from Google's advertising revenues, well, no. I don't think they do. If that was your point, then we're in agreement.

Re:"Wall Street Journal" is the right model.

[UnanimousCoward]

Maybe I'm being a luddite, but I want my kids to have access to a physical newspaper at the breakfast table w/o having them having to go online. So, even though I can get the NYT for free online, I'll pay for it to have the tree-killing version too. The non-luddite in me also reaps the benefits of access to NYT historical content which is available to me since I take the tree-killing version...

Re:"Wall Street Journal" is the right model.

[yelvington]

Everyone talks about newspapers going under, but you never hear anyone (seriously) talking about the AP or UPI going under.

UPI went bankrupt years ago and has changed hands several times. The company that now owns the UPI brand actually is an agent of the Unification Church (also known as "the Moonies"). Hardly any newspapers use UPI these days.

The Associated Press is a cooperative owned and controlled by American newspapers. The AP has gone through a massive restructuring over the last several years as it scrambles to adjust to the realities of news distribution in an age when distribution is near-free. Demand for its core services from its owner-members is declining as those newspapers themselves shift from global to local content focus. Many editors of smaller newspapers are contemplating dropping the AP entirely. They're not ready to do that, but they're thinking about it.

As for the Wall Street Journal's economic model, it's not relevant to a discussion of general-circulation newspapers.

WSJ sells essential business information to subscribers who don't pay with their own money (they typically use company expense accounts). No general-interest local newspaper anywhere in the world has been able to make such a model work in its own market. Local civic news may be essential to the function of a democracy, but that doesn't mean anybody wants to pay for it.

Old models and old assumptions -- such as those advocated by "reporter" -- do not work today. Newspapers that do not change their fundamental approach to coverage are losing audience to other media choices that didn't exist 20 years ago. Attempting to charge for content only accelerates that loss.

I don't mean that newspapers are doomed, but those that fail to change and adapt to the new environment are doomed. The ones that adapt can thrive. But the necessary changes are not small and a lot of people -- including many older subscribers -- aren't going to like those changes.

Large newspapers are at highest risk, as they are unable for economic and cultural reasons to cover the kind of hyperlocal news that might rescue their falling readership numbers. As their circulations sag they become perilously close to catastrophic failure of their mass-media business model. You can't run a mass medium if you don't have mass.

Small newspapers, neighborhood-level newspapers, are extraordinarily strong. And there's significant growth in free-circulation newspapers both in the U.S. and international markets.
So this is not a problem of print versus electronic distribution. Print still works. But old assumptions about content and business models do not work.

I do this for a living. I'm a strategist for a newspaper company, and I do not advocate blocking Google from spidering local content. I do advocate blocking the spiders from wire feeds, which we have done for years using a robots.txt directive.

Re:"Wall Street Journal" is the right model.

[The Warlock]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it "rotting your brain on the Internet" if you're reading the same exact article, with the same words and everything, that's in the print edition?

It's not like Magic Stupid Rays get emitted straight from the Internet and into your brain, despite what the BBC may say.

Excuse me?

[16K Ram Pack]

This is just short-sighted. "You're making money off our content, so we want a piece of that".

I had a reasonably high-ranking UK blogger link to a blog entry of mine. He even cited a bit of it. So, he entertained some readers a little. At the same time, the hyperlink saw my traffic (and my tiny adwords revenue) double for about a week after.

What I could have done is taken the same stupid attitude as the papers "stop using my content" and sat back in the satisfaction that he wouldn't be leeching off my content. He'd have maybe had less to interest his readers. But I would have lost some revenue.

Don't these people get this?

Corporations DO have faces and souls

[WindBourne]

The problem is that so many of you kids today do not work in companies which want to show them. Over the decades, I have worked at various companies because I was a contract coder. I have worked at USWest Advanced Tech., Bell labs (later Avaya), IBM Watson, NASA, and HP. Prior to that, I had a different career (microbio/geneticists) in which I worked at some interesting places including C.D.C.. I can tell you that ALL of these companies/gov. had faces and souls. While it is normally tied to the top ppl, that is not always true. For example, USWest was purely a RBOC mentality until they were taken over by qwest. Likewise, My place at Bell labs became Lucent and then Avaya. As bell Labs, it had some of the best and brightest. Over time, they left. Watson labs was interesting as I started there shortly after Uncle Lou took over. ppl were nervous, but excited about a chance to get back on track. And yes, they all had a face. That was due to the TOP managment's morals. Sadly, look at HP and IBM today and you can see why so many of the top execs are keeping quiet.

Now, as to the ppl at Google coming from MS, yes, some did. Hell, some of them came from Iraq. How much influence do any of them have? NOT MUCH. The do no evil is a top down mandate. Likewise, the MS approach to win at all costs is a top down approach. That is why e-mail gets "lost". Likewise, you see MS slaes throw their weight around (still) by telling re-sellers that they will do what MS wants. MS also tells politicians that if they bring in Linux or OO, that the next policitian will be from the opposite party. That is EVIL.
Does Google do any of that? Nope. Not at this time. But if the top execs change (or perhops does not change), then they will slowly become "evil".

I disagree...

[freedom_india]

Print media may not be "hip" with latest information, but the views matter.
I subscribe to print editions of TIME and Economist purely for the joy of reading the views.
The way in which it is presented also matters, not just the bland headline stating "Lohan arrested for DUI".
I guess that's why FOX news is popular than ABC or PBS.
Secondly, a paper magazine allows me to lie down on couch or bed and read at lesuire.
Thirdly, a paper magazine has readers letters, opinion, etc., all concise in 48-pages.
Magazines may not provide latest information.
But they do present an in-depth analysis absent in news.google.com

Re:Google and Xinhua

[zCyl]

I refuse to use Google News ever since I noticed that they use Xinhua(The PRC's state newspaper agency) as a source.

So don't click on it if it offends your sensibilities so greatly. Personally I like being able to see a variety of perspectives, even propaganda laced ones. You have to pay attention to propaganda so you know what information other people are being fed.

Google news does not present you with truth. It presents you with a distribution of news.

Google home page, javascript dependant?

[Secrity]

I just verified that my javascript was turned off and went to google.com. I didn't find that anything required javascript.

What about Drudge?

[krygny]

Like Google News, the Drudge Report is a news "agragator", simply linking to news sources. It's one of the most visited sites on the web, even for those who don't care for Matt Drudge's political bend. They get scoops and breaking stories posted before anyone else because visitors submit stories. Many news organization have a love-hate relationship with the site. Love the traffic, hate the politics. I used to work at the New York Times and passing through the Editorial/Journalism floors, it was not uncommon to see the Drudge Report displayed on a monitor.

if it was opt in.

[segfault_0]

If google had started this as an opt in system where you had to pay to play, these same newspapers would be signing up without a complaint and the money would be going the other way. While I agree their participation should be optional - they should consider themselves lucky to have a site boosting hits on their site by those kind of numbers for free - in any other circumstances you'd have to pay for that kind of help. Is there anything more painful to watch that old school news businesses trying to figure out the internet?

What a moron

[SEE]

"If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?" Sam Zell, the new owner of the Tribune Company, asked reporters during a speech at Stanford University last month. The Tribune Company operates the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.

Zell didn't wait for the reporters to reply, according to The Washington Post. "Not very," he said.

Uh-huh.

Mr. Zell, have you ever looked at Google News? You'll notice something -- it doesn't run any ads. Not one. How, then, do you think Google is making money off "stealing" your content?

You're a moron, sir.

(Okay, technicality people, yes, now Google is adding news results to their "universal search". Do you really think that Google would take a major revenue hit if it reverted to the business model it had back three weeks ago?)

Now it is more difficult to not get indexed

[anandsr]

Before newspapers could ask Google to remove their entry only from Google News. But now with it merged with the normal search, it will be a much worse choice. Asking Google to not index your website is now equivalent of committing hara-kiri on the net.