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."

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...

Google and Xinhua

[MisterCookie]

I refuse to use Google News ever since I noticed that they use Xinhua(The PRC's state newspaper agency) as a source. Ya, I'm real sure the journalism of a totalitarian state that is responsible for the deaths of 3000+ people(then reporting only a handful were injured) will be real accurate.

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.

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

[Nymz]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If a webpage is published online, and Google doesn't index it, does it still get found?

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...

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 [yedda.com] for their on line properties) get ever more dominant.

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:"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: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 [orwell.ru]

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.

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...

What about Drudge?

[krygny]

Like Google News, the Drudge Report [drudgereport.com] 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.