DISQUS

Bob · 2 years ago

Peter Wayner says some good things about the future (or non-future) of investigative and local journalism in a Google world:

The biggest losses will probably be complete surprises. There will be less coverage of the city council meetings and I'm sure that reporters will stop showing up at the zoning board meetings of the towns in the Maryland suburbs of Washington. It will be easier for politicians to come up with clever loopholes and I'm sure there will be an increase in slippery dealings. We'll wake up ten years from now and someone will say, "And it was all legal. We passed it in a meeting soon after the Post laid off 80 reporters." I know that the press is far from all powerful, but sometimes a bit of sunshine can keep the political process a bit cleaner.

Karl · 2 years ago

I read both as well.

Howard Weaver · 2 years ago

Scott's found an intriguing nexus in the contrast between traditional journalism and SEO attractors. And in one very significant sense his conclusion seems accurate, too: AdSense type advertising probably will drive content toward the mean.

But powerful as it is, AdSense isn't everything. Newspapers have traditionally made money aggregating audiences to sell to advertisers; that same avenue is available via banner ads and other, more innovation iterations that still serve a valuable (though diminishing) purpose.

Nobody ever used a search engine to locate a product they don't know exists. AdSense won't serve new product introductions very well. Branding and reputational advertising doesn't work well on a text-only, click-through basis.

Something as old-fashioned as a simple display ad (a banner ad online) placed in front of the right audience works better. And the most recent research shows it still works.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070519-t...

Howard Weaver · 2 years ago

(Sorry about that ars technica link above; I couldn't figure out how to embed a url in the text.)

Holly Brady-Stanford Publishin · 2 years ago

It may be true that investigative journalism doesn't attract advertising like some other kinds of content, but we all need to be very careful not to underestimate its importance. It is, in fact, the foundation of the Fourth Estate in this country, and it has been seriously weakened by the new economics of the Web. If we don't have "diligent, curious and clear " reporting on what's going on in our government --local, state and federal, we put our nation in grave danger of missing the big issues while we sort through the junk on YouTube.

Scott Karp · 2 years ago

Howard,

I absoultely agree. I should have be clearer in that I'm not referring to newspaper ad revenue from AdSense, which I know is a minority of revenue. I was using Google more as an emblatic reference for the web's content marketplace.

And yes, display ads do create real value, as I discussed here using, coincidentally, the same Ars Technica story (I fixed the link in your comment).

The issue for news sites is more around content discovery, because content that isn't found can't be monetized through any means.

Made For AdSense sites are found through arbitragers' AdWords ads that they run on search engines. Without AdSense revenue, there is no incentive to make those sites discoverable in Google.

For newspaper, the issue is whether searchers will discretely seek out the type of journalism that has traditionally come packaged with the newspaper.

Scott Karp · 2 years ago

Holly,

I absolutely agree. But this is not a question of whether the Foruth Estate isn't, in fact, essential. The problem is that Fourth Estate was easier for people to value when it came packaged with the sports page and the cartoons. Disaggregation on the web means that journalism needs to be valued on its own -- that is the challenge presented by the disruption of the news business.

Craig · 2 years ago

Scott,

First let me betray my heritage by saying I'd read Samuelson's column on pulp and ink.

To your point about the airspace between crapland and Pulitizerville:

The "sweet spot" for a lot of sites featuring (on the main stage or as a side act) news is commodity journalism. Wire reporting of the sort you see crawling across the bottom of the screen on Headline News and CNBC. AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, that crowd.

Commodity journalism has brand credibility and a respectable quality floor. It never hits home runs but hits singles and sometimes doubles every day. It is created by huge InfoCorps, so it's priced way cheaper than original content. It is utterly safe and never antagonizes the great powers with a daring idea. We all scan it every day.

Here's the mediascape I see developing:

The vast middle of the news stream is filled by commodity reporting.

The bottom end, with very low production costs and tiny audiences, will be a random mix of frisky-smart boutiques, hammer-stupid storefronts and muttering whackjobs carrying big signs that the world is ending.

The higher end--the places that produce the essential work of truth-squadding public affairs and kicking ass when necessary--is left with no revenue stream to sustain it, and high fixed costs.

Who what becomes of the work that Holly so (justifiably) cherishes?

Either it will fall to Zuckermanesque highbrow vanities, or to any number of digital empires willing to consider world-class news a promotional expense.

Or, my favorite option: They'll be run by public service non-profit foundations, endowed to produce the kind of independent journalism the world needs but cannot be sustained by new economics.

Yes: The most important journalistic work becomes a kind of charity case, funded as a public service alongside anti-tuberculosis campaigns and save-the-whales efforts.