backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by jimhsu.. on May 10 at 2:57 PM

Google is ready to step in to fill the shoes of dying print news publications

These days, many of the largest print news publications are either moving entirely online or dying altogether.  This bleak outlook really comes into focus as advertisers increasingly funnel their ad revenue online.  This trend has forced the publishers of several large city newspaper chains to close their doors.  Among the losses have been the Tribune Co., Philadelphia Newspapers, Vancouver, Washington's The Columbian, and Denver's Rocky Mountain News.  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, meanwhile, has moved entirely online, while The Boston Globe only narrowly escaped bankruptcy in past months.

However, while the print news business may appear a dying breed, the online news business is flourishing.  And when it comes to online news, perhaps the biggest player is not a news site itself, but rather Google News, a news aggregator site from Google.  Many major news providers including The New York Times, The Associated Press, CNET, and more are published on Google News.

In a special meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet this Wednesday, newspaper representatives met with Congress about the ailing state of the print business according to Information Week.  Some like David Simon, noted author and the creator of HBO's The Wire, complained that online news and news aggregators are killing the business.

He states, "High-end journalism is dying and it won't be reborn anywhere else without a new model.  The parasite is slowly killing the host.  High-end journalism is a profession."

He dismisses bloggers, stating, "
A neighbor with a garden hose is not a firefighter."

He acknowledged, though that his industry perpetrated the move online, stating, "
My industry butchered itself and it did so at the behest of Wall Street."

Others, however, don't share Mr. Simon's views of the journalist as erudite minority elite.  Among those who take the opposite stance is Google, whose
VP of search products and user experience, Marissa Mayer, delivered comments.  Ms. Mayer pointed out that Google delivers over 1 billion clicks to print publications a month, while allowing newspapers to block it from crawling their articles.  She points out that many of the sites featured on Google News practice a respectable brand of journalism that is akin to their proudest offline competitors.  She goes on to suggest that competition in the online sphere leads to even better articles than those available offline

She states, "Today, in online news, publishers frequently publish several articles on the same topic, sometimes with identical or closely related content, each at their own URL.  The result is parallel Web pages that compete against each other in terms of authority, and in terms of placement in links and search results."

She adds, "
Much like Amazon.com suggests related products and YouTube makes it easy to play another video, publications should provide obvious and engaging next steps for users.  Today, there are still many publications that don't fully take advantage of the numerous tools that keep their readers engaged and on their site."

Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, a liberal aggregated weblog that help launched the aggregation movement, concurs.  She states, "The future of journalism is not dependent on the future of newspapers."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Welcome to the digital age
By Bateluer on 5/8/2009 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 5
Technology moves forward and people want to take advantage of it. Printed media had its time, but its now passed. Time to move forward rather than preserve a dying technology.




RE: Welcome to the digital age
By Radnor on 5/8/2009 9:30:14 AM , Rating: 5
"The future of journalism is not dependent on the future of newspapers."


Oh God, that is so true.

Like everything else, evolve or be extinct.


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By reader1 on 5/8/2009 4:38:29 PM , Rating: 4
That's true, but it's the news web sites that have to adapt. Currently, online news is just a network of freeloaders sponging off of legitimate news organizations. They change just enough of the content to avoid plagiarism then make money off of ads. It's just another form of piracy. This is not a sustainable business model because they're killing off their own source of income, just as file sharing sites do. News sites will have to become more self-sufficient and charge for service.


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By Jackattak on 5/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: Welcome to the digital age
By reader1 on 5/8/2009 5:28:44 PM , Rating: 1
Furthermore, it's inevitable that all web content will be filtered, including news sites. Any news site that is simply leeching off of other sites will not be accessible to customers. This will significantly increase competition and quality while increasing profits.


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By Motoman on 5/8/2009 6:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
You keep track of that theory for, oh, ten years or so, and let us know how it worked out, k?


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By invidious on 5/8/2009 9:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
Ya seriously. If enough people cared about print news then it wouldn't be dying. But we don't, so it is, who cares?


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By DigitalFreak on 5/8/2009 9:50:07 AM , Rating: 3
I care. Not about print news dying, but about them possibly asking for government handouts to save their asses. We've already flushed too much money down the toilet.


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By Bateluer on 5/8/2009 9:50:26 AM , Rating: 5
This is true, its only a matter of time before they start begging the tax payers for money.

And make no mistake about this, it is tax payer money, not government money. Call it what it is. The government does not generate revenue, it fleeces it from its populace.


By foolsgambit11 on 5/9/2009 4:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt the government will bail them out. First, there is the issue of bailout fatigue, which you are obviously suffering from. (If you were in better bailout shape you wouldn't get fatigued so soon!) But more importantly, I don't think the newspapers will be able to put together an argument that they could do anything with the money. More funding won't turn their operations profitable. They have no business plan to become profitable. This has been a prerequisite of all federal bailout funds thus far, and I have no reason to believe they'll change their minds. (Okay, the banks got their money without a new plan, because it's generally accepted that the old business model will work again once the crisis is over, but there isn't the same faith in newspapers' business model.)


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By artemicion on 5/8/2009 7:01:42 PM , Rating: 5
It's not just about print vs. electronic. It's about electronic being so fast and easy that it spawned news aggregators that can regurgitate the hard work of other news sites.

Back in print, news aggregation was infeasible because time was of the essence. You would have to read the story in another paper and get it re-printed in your own and the process would take at least a day. People dislike news conglomerates like the AP because they only provide one viewpoint. And it's a fair criticism. But at the same time, they came to existence to protect the workproduct of journalists so that they could reap the benefits of their own work. So there's good along with the bad.

Now with electronic news, Information Week can post a story at 9:00 am, Jason Mick can read it and regurgitate it in 30 minutes or less and have the same story essentially posted on DailyTech at 9:30 am. Poor guy at Information Week did all that work and DailyTech gets to eat at their table for 30 minutes of work.

Not that I'm bashing DailyTech or Jason Mick. I love news aggregators. They do all the work of finding the interesting stories so I don't have to. The problem is though, since it's so easy for other companies to profit from the stories prepared by the ground-level journalists, the ground-level journalists have less incentive to investigate and write the stories. Result? Crappier ground-level journalism.

And maybe we're already seeing the results. Lazy journalism. A swine flu that gripped the nation for a week before a smart journalist finally asked the right question: is this swine flu actually life-threatening? (it wasn't, at least no more so than the seasonal flu) Pirates in Somalia! What does Miss California think about gay marriage? Susan Boyle shocks on Britain's got talent! President Obama eats at a hamburger joint in NYC - and waits in line like a normal person!


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By Spivonious on 5/8/2009 10:14:04 AM , Rating: 3
So you're saying that the newspaper industry shouldn't be bailed out by the government? Personally, I wonder why the newspapers are talking to the Senate at all.


RE: Welcome to the digital age
By AlexWade on 5/8/2009 11:29:45 AM , Rating: 4
Adapt or die. Why should I care that a deprecated dinosaur is crying? We still have freedom of the press, it just now the press is dot com.

I'll tell you why I get all my news from the internet. If I get a newspaper, I get news that happened yesterday. I already saw it on TV or read about it online. Why pay for stuff that happened yesterday? Okay, so some newspapers have investigative journals. Problem is, the newspapers that have that are never non-partisan. The big newspapers push their political agenda, either overtly or covertly. Why pay for that?

So my options are now TV news or internet news. Well, TV news is also a political diatribe: Fox News on the far right, MSNBC on the far left, and everyone else slightly left. Add to that since several are on 24 hours a day, they rather fill it up hype and hysteria than repeat news. I've seen CNN spend 30 minutes talking about a severe thunderstorm in Atlanta. With TV news, I get selective news.

That leaves me with the internet news. News crawlers capture it all, so I can better get the whole picture. No "Obama is a commie" from Fox News; no "It is all Bush's fault" from MSNBC; no "Global warming is real nevermind we can't prove it" from CNN. I can get more relevant and factual quicker news from the internet.

Adapt or die. Newspapers are not just deprecated, they are obsolete. You can try to fight against the inevitable, but you will lose.


The key problem here is...
By Motoman on 5/8/2009 11:23:38 AM , Rating: 4
...the fundamental democratization of information that the internet provides.

Pre-internet, normal people had not the slightest access to information outside of their local area, and had to rely on print/radio/TV media to find out what was going on in either the next county, or the other side of the world.

Now, though, the internet provides instantaneous access to all information, everywhere (unless you were unlucky enough to be born Chinese or North Korean, etc.). And, it's easy enough for *anyone* to post information on the net that the requirement to have "proper" journalists involved has all but died.

Yes, you need to take anything you read in some asshat's blog with a huge grain of salt. But the point is that, completely ignoring any formal news websites, essentially every person in the world with a computer can post their local news up for all the world to see, in realtime or close thereto.

Hence, information has been democratized. Traditional media no longer has a monopoly position on information. In fact, traditional media is now crippled by their own model...send a person to, say, Abu Dhabi, and you can report on stuff happening in Abu Dhabi. But you can't have a person in every town in every country in the world. Which is what the internet does, automatically and for free, for every person with internet access.

All the world is a news center. We are all reporters. The revolution skipped being televised, and went straight to YouTube.




RE: The key problem here is...
By reader1 on 5/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: The key problem here is...
By Motoman on 5/8/2009 1:24:14 PM , Rating: 5
First I started trying to think about how to rebut your moronic post...then I saw the user name, and realized there's not actually any point. No feeding trolls.


RE: The key problem here is...
By Jackattak on 5/8/2009 1:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
+1 but I ran out of votes, sorry. :)


RE: The key problem here is...
By bodar on 5/8/2009 5:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
Psst... posting negates all votes previously cast for that article. :)


RE: The key problem here is...
By Shmak on 5/8/2009 3:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call it a problem. Asshats at established publications and news outlets hide behind the reputation of their company. Those companies push the agenda of the highest bidder. It has once required and always will require scrutiny from the information recipient to pry the useful news from the crap, regardless of the source.

Now that the free-for-all is actually understood (or come to light through the hindsight we now have), the world is a better place.


RE: The key problem here is...
By Motoman on 5/8/2009 4:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yes, in my eyes it is also not a problem - I'm just fine with it. I guess it's a problem from the standpoint of the journo who started this.

As for some of your other bias, though, I'm not sure the world is quite that crappy...


RE: The key problem here is...
By jimhsu on 5/10/2009 2:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'll do nothing to save the newspapers, but to be devil's advocate: If we see the demise of paid news - newspapers - and advance into a world of blog posts and aggregators, who will be out there to do the actual reporting? To give an informed analysis of the situation? Does an informed opinion matter any more? Who is the "informed" - the guy with the journalism degree who doesn't experience the event but writes an article about it, or the guy who experiences the event directly and writes up a first-person account of it, including his emotions and biases?


Advertising and journalism
By WoWCow on 5/8/2009 10:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Much like Amazon.com suggests related products and YouTube makes it easy to play another video, publications should provide obvious and engaging next steps for users. Today, there are still many publications that don't fully take advantage of the numerous tools that keep their readers engaged and on their site."


Yes yes! By having a blue text linked to another website! Brilliant! I must say those links always bring new and wonderful joy to me as I go through each ads one by one.
/sarcasm

Seriously though, I don't care what kind of TV, paper, web news, or blogs you read, there will always be advertising. The Ads are what is keeping the Journalism profession/business alive in addition to plain old readership.

Other than that, googlenews is merely granting the freedom of information (Is that a right in the US?) to people who have internet connection

Using Faux News Slogan: Fair & Balanced. We Report. You Decide!




By foolsgambit11 on 5/9/2009 3:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom of Information - in the sense of breaking news stories - is decidedly not a right in the United States. See the Supreme Court case International Press Service v. AP (1918). Although I'll assume that some of the nuances of this case have been modified in the ensuing years, the principle stands. A news service doesn't have rights to the information itself, but to appropriate that information in a way which competes with the news service is unfair competition under tort law.


Love Google News but...
By Jackattak on 5/8/2009 1:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
I am still awaiting the day when I can block certain news sites. I understand that this day might never come (would hurt Google's ad revenue/marketing model, I'm sure).

On topic, I can't believe the pro journalists even went to the Senate to whine. Looks like a blatant handout request in my eyes, but I might be missing something (wouldn't be the first time).

The industry is changing. Adapt or die, as others have said here.




By desertrat200 on 5/8/2009 2:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
I am constantly amused at the "elite journalistic" Paracletes of the keyboard who insist that none of us are competent to perceive and write properly. What utter nonsense! He merely confirms what we have known for some time, that many of these people are just dumb. Yes, I can spell dumb. If I were Mr. Simon, I would worry about my day job just like elevator operators once did.




Tribune co. closed their doors?
By noxipoo on 5/8/2009 3:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked they were still in business.




By phxfreddy on 5/9/2009 3:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
I have to remind myself by visiting google news that

-1- they can ONLY be helping the original content provider get more readers

-2- They pretty only link to the original article on the content providers page.

The whiner in question in this article can only validate his case if people would read his article WITHOUT having ever seeing it on google. Quite unlikely.....unless the article was linked on Drudge.....
.........which is exactly the same thing ...links to original content.

Must be a union member. Limited intelligence and willing to tell bald faced lies in the hope they can either fool us or intimidate us Teamster style with a rock through the windshield.




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki