I think that's "Google Didn’t *Destroy* The Newspaper Business, The Web Did" ;)
Scott Karp
· 2 years ago
Thanks, Tony. Google didn't destroy the copyediting business either, but it's on the decline as well.
Emmanuel
· 2 years ago
Good point here but in the same time Google is about distribution. Google has now a huge responsability on how people find information. Much more than any discussion about search engine technology. I m not sure Google News index gives a good overview of the best of journalism.
Its time to clean up their index and database to select news sources based on professionnal standards (which doesn't mean only traditionnal press industry). SEO isn't the way to build democracy
gzino
· 2 years ago
Excellent post, Scott. I do think the traditional newspapers have a tough interim challenge to deal with because many of their traditional advertisers have not yet made the online advertising transition themselves. But the newspapers that evolve quickly and intelligently, and help enable their advertisers to transition as well will be fine, and both news and journalists will be in better shape liberated from dead trees, and enabled by the living, interactive, accretive nature of the web.
Steve Boriss
· 2 years ago
Suggesting that Google News should pay newspapers for displaying their headlines, synopses, and links to the papers’ sites makes as much sense as asking the Yellow Pages to pay those with listings. I’ve written more about this on my post here: http://thefutureofnews.com/2007/05/23/newspaper...
i cope
· 2 years ago
The minute I started hearing this, "Google is killing newspapers" stuff, it struck me as completely upside down. According to Sitemeter, Google generates a significant ammount of traffic for the blog I write for my paper. If I take that as a snapshot, I daresay newspaper websites would probably experience a significant decline in their precious hits if Google stopped listing them. So, who's hurting who? While there is a good argument to be made for Google to take a more active role in supporting journalism, an argument you make very well, what papers really need to be thinking about is how to make their websites compelling enough that the people who find them through Google will keep coming back.
ANP
· 2 years ago
All of this suggests that democracy is overrated. Transparent mass markets lubricate a race to the middle and disintegrate into a giant Casual Encounters Craigslist debacle; 2.0's allure is its ability to elite-ize the web by filtering content through your social network (read: keep the hoi polloi away).
Those of us who demand high quality content are going to have to go the way of the private school. Pay for it.
It surely is no worse than media monopolies. But to be fair, even the WSJ offers search spam threadwatch.org/node/14652
Craig
· 2 years ago
If you put all the original journalism a newspaper does that has an impact on the democratic process, or even informs the citizenry on important matters, you'd have maybe 25 percent of what's in the paper. A business model that preserves that amount of quality information is not unimaginable. A lot of what newspapers deliver, and which keep costs of people and pulp so high, are things like comics, sports scores, stock market charts, Ask Amy, crime reports, recipes for herb-crusted lamb chops, etc. All fine things, but hardly contributors to a healthy democracy--or worth private subsidy.
Hashim
· 2 years ago
Here's my fear - Google is a media company, with the ethics of a technology company.
Consider this mission statement by the NY Times: "The Company's core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment."
Compare that with Google's agnostic mission: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Nothing in there about enhance society or quality. And that's the core problem. Google's "circle of influence" is larger than it's "circle of concern".
Mike Schinkel
· 2 years ago
I agree there is a *HUGE* need to get back to real journalism and be able to differentiate between those who only blog to support their own ideologies.
It seems to me that a professional journalist was expected to follow a code of ethics and exhibit a high degree of professionalism or they were not respected.
In the past, people believed the news organizations that had established credibility however those institutions are crumbling with the FCC removing barriers to joint-ownership and with profit becoming the driver. What's needed is a new vehicle for journalists to establish credibility.
Since the free market has proven that by itself journalism takes a back seat to profit, it seems that what needs to happen is for real internet journalists to band together to create an membership association that sponsors a "Professional Blogjournalists" designation and that sets a high-standard and offers peer review.
I think with the right PR campaign, assuming there was real substance to it, a blogger with such a designation could demand a much larger income because readers would know they write to a much higher standard than the rest of the mostly loud-mouth bloggers on the web and because such a group of blogjournalists would have considerable political clout.
Frankly, I think something like this is imperative if we want our society to continue to be free.
Thoughts?
Mike Schinkel
· 2 years ago
Sorry, I should have said "It seems to me that IN THE PAST WHEN NEWSPAPERS RULED, a professional journalist was expected to follow a code of ethics and exhibit a high degree of professionalism or they were not respected."
M. Ernest
· 1 year ago
The problem really comes down to something much deeper. I mean it's not like journalists were ever paid well before the Internet came along. Journalists, like school teachers (who incidentally make much more on the average due to a better union) provide knowledge. Neither produce capital. In our society knowledge is not valued much. In fact, for some it is more profitable to have a stupid public.
All Comments
Its time to clean up their index and database to select news sources based on professionnal standards (which doesn't mean only traditionnal press industry). SEO isn't the way to build democracy
Those of us who demand high quality content are going to have to go the way of the private school. Pay for it.
See also:
http://xoxoanp.com/zine/reiki/451
It surely is no worse than media monopolies. But to be fair, even the WSJ offers search spam
threadwatch.org/node/14652
Consider this mission statement by the NY Times: "The Company's core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment."
Compare that with Google's agnostic mission: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Nothing in there about enhance society or quality. And that's the core problem. Google's "circle of influence" is larger than it's "circle of concern".
It seems to me that a professional journalist was expected to follow a code of ethics and exhibit a high degree of professionalism or they were not respected.
In the past, people believed the news organizations that had established credibility however those institutions are crumbling with the FCC removing barriers to joint-ownership and with profit becoming the driver. What's needed is a new vehicle for journalists to establish credibility.
Since the free market has proven that by itself journalism takes a back seat to profit, it seems that what needs to happen is for real internet journalists to band together to create an membership association that sponsors a "Professional Blogjournalists" designation and that sets a high-standard and offers peer review.
I think with the right PR campaign, assuming there was real substance to it, a blogger with such a designation could demand a much larger income because readers would know they write to a much higher standard than the rest of the mostly loud-mouth bloggers on the web and because such a group of blogjournalists would have considerable political clout.
Frankly, I think something like this is imperative if we want our society to continue to be free.
Thoughts?