Google Planning To Serve "High Quality News" Passively 72
krou writes "The Wrap has an interesting interview with Eric Schmidt on Google's new plan for news. Google is apparently planning on rolling out 'high-quality news' to users who are not actively searching for news. It's expected to launch in approximately six months' time, and the first two news organizations to be involved will be The New York Times and The Washington Post. 'Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google's page. The latest algorithms apply ever more sophisticated filtering — based on search words, user choices, purchases, a whole host of cues — to determine what the reader is looking for without knowing they're looking for it. And on this basis, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content.' Although Schmidt said that companies like the New York Times won't get any of this ad revenue, he commented that it will push stories to users who want them, drive up traffic to those stories, and in turn bring higher advertising rates for those stories."
As VentureBeat points out, Google hasn't officially confirmed any of this, and with no ad revenue going to the other companies, it only partially addresses complaints that Google is profiting unfairly from the work of news publications.
Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Haw. (Score:2, Insightful)
umm, yeah, uh, like the propaganda spread by news agencies anywhere outside north america is any less population pacifying propaganda and advertisments than the Washington Post or National Enquirer.
My favorite example is perhaps Englands "The Sun"
Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Grammar aside, this is downright scary:
If I'm not actively searching for news it's probably because I'm not interested in news at that particular moment, whether they are high quality, sponsored or not.
It seems Google is actively trying to find exciting new ways to become annoying.
Re:Haw. (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you expect it to cover? Tracking an infectious disease actually seems like a good use of the media to me. Would you rather read about The presidents new Dog, or the fact the a lot of people doesn't like the presidents view or a lot of people who does. Do you want to fucus on everything that is wrong with the world and make you feel more depressed or all the good things so you get cavities. Do you want to read transcripts of the entire debates that goes on in the House of Representatives.
There is a lot of stuff that goes on in the world, that can be covered. And almost anything that goes on is of interest to someone. News outlets need to balance importance and popularity of such venues.
The problem I see with Google News is that it will give news that people want to see, not necessary news that will broaden their views.
I want to see news that makes the Republicans look like a bunch of whinny babies when they are in the minority, however if the republicans are in charge I want the democrat minority look like brave people standing up for our rights.
Re:So Much for the "Passive" Exposure (Score:1, Insightful)
Now who can I actively pay *not* to be exposed to stories from the NY Times or the Washington Post?
Just don't use Google. Seriously. They are not here to be your friend. They want to mine your data and direct you to their sponsors.
I think, therefore I am a Google profile (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, let's say I am a person that believes that the dark ages were good and the world is flat. Will information to the contrary ever come my way if I am identified as a backward person? How would I ever become enlightened to opposing view points if I am always presented with affirming information on my world perspective.
Porn (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not really that interested in pornography or nudism related news. Topics of interests and what current events I follow aren't always the same.
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)
"No actively searching for news" probably means that someone is doing a Google search on the normal Google home page but the search terms match up with some news story. For example, I'm going to Disney World soon, so when I heard about a possible Swine Flu case in Orlando/Disney, I was interested. I searched Google for "Swine Flu Orlando [google.com]". Along with the search results were Google News results. I wasn't actively looking for news, but the Google News links were welcome additions to the search results.