Want To Know Why Newspapers Are Dying? Maureen Dowd Shows Us
from the physician-heal-thyself dept
In her recent New York Times op-ed, Maureen Dowd takes aim at Google, blaming it for the sorry state of the newspaper industry. Perhaps in hopes of winning people over to the newspapers' side in the argument over how much Google should be profiting from their content, Dowd spends a lot of the article attempting to make the reader fear Google, trying to paint the company as anti-privacy and bent on "world domination."But there is a vaguely ominous Big Brother wall in the lobby of the headquarters here that scrolls real-time Google searches -- porn queries are edited out -- from people around the world. You could probably see your own name if you stayed long enough. In one minute of watching, I saw the Washington association where my sister works, the Delaware beach town where my brother vacations, some Dave Matthews lyrics, calories Panera, females feet, soaps in depth and Douglas Mangum, whoever he is.The uselessness of this statement is hard to overstate. If you stayed long enough you'd see your name? She saw the names of places where her sister works and her brother vacations? Ever look at a phone book or a map, Maureen? All she was seeing was evidence that people are looking for information.
And that is where Google adds value: it helps to connect people with the information they want. If Dowd would just pause the dramatics long enough, maybe she would recognize that this concept sounds very familiar. Just like newspapers have always done, Google tries to find information that its users want, and deliver it to them in a way that is useful -- and news stories are just one example of what people want Google to find for them. Dowd quotes Rupert Murdoch calling what Google does "stealing." But, Google is no more "stealing" the information to which it links than newspapers steal the events on which they report. It does not take much thinking to see the parallels. But hey, why take time to think when you can engage in some juicy fear-mongering and hyperbole?
Like many others, Dowd also makes the mistake of equating the decline of newspapers with the end of journalism, ignoring the evidence that says this is simply not true. We've already pointed out examples of how journalism can not only survive but thrive apart from physical newspapers. Newspapers were valuable when they were the most convenient, useful way to deliver the news. The content itself was always practically free. But the value of the content was used draw eyeballs to ads -- to give advertisers paid access to the community of readers. With the newspaper format now dying, entrepreneurs will find new ways to leverage the still-existent value of the free content to sell something scarce.
Fear-mongering, making misleading statements, ignoring evidence, not understanding your own business -- it's ironic that, while attempting to blame others for the woes of her own industry, Dowd makes so many of the mistakes that are really contributing to its decline.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, journalism, maureen dowd, newspapers
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm still baffled.
Techdirt will never, ever convince these ignorant fools at the NYT they're at fault.
So why continue trying?
On topic: It's clearly evident Dowd is the one with fear. It shows in her write-up.
Pathetic.
Readers of this garbage should demand their subscription money back if this is what they're paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I don't know about everyone else...
They are not mourning the death of journalism...that's a classic 4th Estate-type of lie...they are mourning the death of their status as an elite, and their role as gatekeepers and dictators of opinion, and specially privileged interpreters of The Truth.
Good riddance, sez I.
ps) Dowd is greatly overrated, except as an anti-Coulter. Not as overrated as Naomi Wolfe, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, I don't know about everyone else...
Google didn't kill newspapers... they have killed themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The End
No, but it might be the end of people listening to her sorry butt. That's what she's really worried about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/And you just googled "Douglas Mangum".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the "ick" factor
I certainly hope the query strings are the only information being scrolled. If they're including, say, the origin of the query, there probably *is* an actionable privacy issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the "ick" factor
If Google is killing people then they should definitely be held accountable.
There, see? I can build straw men too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i can haz relavints?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i can haz relavints?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, Petrea...
Maybe you should get all your information from the Times...and pay a pretty penny for it, too.
Lord knows they need the money...bribing politicians to use emminent domain to oust a bunch of "not our kind of people" so they could build a palatial office building befitting their grand self-appointed status was pretty expensive.
Or so I heard on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, Petrea...
"...maybe you should stop using Google,"
No thanks-- I'd have to start again first! Clusty has been giving me way better search results for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poor Maureen
And if I go to Google News, I go off to some site like Upper Michigan news and read an AP story. Maybe Google News should sniff my approximate location and present headlines that come from papers in my area.
I'll bet anything that more news is read and passed along than ever before. It's just not on dead trees and soy ink.
That said, I do get the LA Times every day, sucka that I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ps@petrea
You sure you're not actually a Times reporter??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ps@petrea
Okay, I'll bite: how? The column doesn't say anything about whether or not there's other information on that screen, just that the columnist saw queries. IP addresses and suchlike would just be so much digital white noise to her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ps@petrea
It also doesn't say whether or not they're killing people but that's no excuse to speculate that perhaps they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News or information?
Oh, and as far as privacy issues goes, Google told the US Gov to stick it when asked to access user files and websearches in the name of hunting terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess quality of service has nothing to do with it then?
I used to love to use it as a proofreading tool for my students. It has more than enough mistakes on any given day, to keep a student busy and fulfilled. Our local paper also tends to get the news a day to three later than the internet, the local news, and even our local PBS stations! I used to read the news for depth and perspective, but we really have to go out of town for that anymore. There are three basic truths. 1. When a paper buys it's competition out, it is usually next. 2. You cannot convince a monopoly it has to try harder. If you want to stay in business, the least effective model is to alienate your customer base and go cheap! Going cheap is like waving the white flag of surrender.
We can't get the Dallas paper locally, which is a bummer because the coupons were a lot better. Most of the out of town papers that get delivered to our little slice of heaven, don't include the coupons ( a major buying factor for us ) I genuinely enjoy a good paper and took a subscription service for almost fifteen years. When I had to buy Thursday through Sunday papers papers to get an extra Sunday paper, and the delivery person never seemed to get the extra paper in the box (or got the paper in the box but without the coupons) I decided that I could go up to the corner just as easily on the rare occasion that I still wanted one.
It's all about service, reliability, quality, and respect. But like I said, you cannot convince a monopoly that it has to try harder. Just ask the Useless Postal service!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Papers Are Abusing Their Soapbox
Please enjoy the irony of them failing at their mission of fair, unbiased reporting - even as they complain that they are the only ones qualified to do so.
What we are reading and seeing on talk shows is repeated editorializing against Google, but also articles, and "news" about the downfall of Journalism, and Google's supposed role. This is blatant propaganda. They are painting an ugly picture of Google, and posting it on every wall even though it is a Big Lie (is it Godwin's Law if I invoke the memory of Goebbels instead of Hitler or Nazis?) Controlling the press is a nice way of demonizing the opposition.
OK, it's obvious they're not evil like the Nazis. They are just people who are threatened by the influx of some new competition in the arena. The new entrants have a different way of doing business, and a different culture. The papers are suffering some upsetting defeats, and forces outside their control have invoked some tough situations on them. They aren't comfortable with the rapid pace of change, and the tough economic times they are facing, and so they are picking scapegoats out of whatever group seems to be doing well in these troubled times. "Surely if they are doing well, it is at our expense!" But as I said, nothing like the Nazis...but a little like Goebbels.
Really, though, control of the press is power. Power corrupts, and they are abusing that tool to the limit. Shame on them.
In all of this self-aggrandizing whining, there is no rebuttal. The users of content aren't given our chance to sing the praises of the tool that helps us find gems in the Internet dogpile; but most lacking from the discussion is Google. In what edition of the NYT should I look for the space that the editors have offered to Google to state their case? I mean, since the journalists are so clearly unable to offer an unbiased PoV, shouldn't good journalism allow the opposition to reply?
Google, for its part, remains surprisingly silent in this debate. I guess they are busy serving their customers, inventing new tools to improve their offerings, and giving them away for free with advertising to support the business. Bastards!
I know a lot of great journalists, and I wish I could state my opinion without pissing them off. They will surely continue to find a market for their work, because it is of a quality that can compete in an open market. Techdirt writers, for example, can earn money without working for a paper. I can't tell each journalist how they will get paid, or what the model will be. But I can tell you that the journalists that are whining the loudest are fighting the times, the trends, the progress of technology, basic economics, and the will of the people. It won't be a pleasant decade for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Papers Are Abusing Their Soapbox
Too be honest - I'm a bigger fan of Dogpile than Google. They support charitable causes and work with all independent search providers to give a good mix of results.
People are too lazy when it comes to search and want it all to be laid out for them in one engine. Problem is, Google, MSN and Yahoo all pick what shows up where.
Research is meant to be RESEARCH - so look around for solid results.
BTW - Dogpile.com just launched a new site called http://www.DoGreatGood.com - and their donating a portion of there revenue to Petfinder and the ASPCA.
Great that theres a way we can help dog adoption programs at no cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is indeed Evil
And there's the rub. Google wants all information to be free for purely selfish reasons. They don't care who else gets hurt in the process. You may not like the Associated Press or New York Times or whoever. But it takes real money to pay the reporters who collect information that you see in the news. No, and before you make the argument, the blogosphere is NOT NEWS. It is primarily about COMMENTARY. The little reporting that does take place is generally done by geekish people who will only go as far as their computers will let them go. If you want to know about Dan Rather's fudging of the purported National Guard papers that claim that Bush went AWOL, the geek bloggers are all over the the scans in Photoshop or MSPaint. Because looking at data that somebody else collected is the easy part. But, if you want them to report the details of a random murder or city hall corruption or police brutality or what's happening in Iraq, that's not going to come from the geek bloggers. They don't leave the comfort of their computer coccoons. That's what real reporters do.
Google is trying to leverage supposedly philanthropic language ("the news should be free") to force the actual providers of content to give them a free ride. I'm sorry, but that's wrong. That's evil. Google can't whine and complain that the media needs to be "more innovative" while they're stealing the media's content. They need to either go get the information themselves -- or pay the content providers.
But, no, that's not what Google wants to do. They'll put a battalion of lawyers on the case to fight off any attempt to get them to pay their fair share. And, along the way, they'll try to leverage every possible source of information -- credit reports, Web browsing metrics, medical records, books, magazines, Web content -- under the guise that the "information should be free." That's what Dowd is complaining about. There's a LOT of information that should NEVER be free. But, with Google, the company is getting so large and so powerful that we are going to have a tough time corking the bottle once the genie has left it...
Wake up, people. Google really is evil. They don't care about you or me. They're simply in it for the buck. Anybody who thinks they're looking out for the greater good is kidding themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is indeed Evil
I would not arrive at a newspaper's site if not directed there to acquire information on a topic of interest THROUGH A SEARCH.
It is beyond ignorant to argue that Google's use of content snippets is not boosting the possible revenue of the information source. You cannot have it both ways... if Google was posting the complete news article and not directing people to the source there could be an argument against that practice, but they are not doing that.
Search hits increase page loads on content creators own websites. This is fact; to argue otherwise is ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is indeed Evil
Pay for the privilege of what? Of making it EASIER to find news sites? Of driving traffic to news sites? Of organizing the info in a way to make it more useful?
Should mapmakers pay points of interest for sending them traffic? Because that appears to be your argument.
Google claims that Fair Use exceptions in U.S. Copyright law give them the right to extract "snippets" of information; however, anyone with an IQ over 90 should realize that this is a grossly inaccurate distortion of Fair Use. Fair Use was intended for primarily non-commercial applications such as education. Google is a commercial enterprise. They're using the snippets to drive traffic to their search portal.
I would think that anyone with an IQ over 90 would actually take the time to understand fair use before claiming what fair use "is intended for." Fair use can absolutely exist within commercial efforts and the courts have said exactly that.
But... why talk about what's true, when you can talk about what you "feel"?
Google wants all information to be free for purely selfish reasons.
No, not for purely selfish reasons. Google knows that if it does a good job providing a service people want it will make money... but people will also get a service they want.
You would prefer everyone be worse off but old business models stick around? Why?
They don't care who else gets hurt in the process.
That's like saying, Ford only builds cars for selfish reasons. They don't care if buggy whip makers get hurt in the process.
Do you see how silly that sounds?
But it takes real money to pay the reporters who collect information that you see in the news. No, and before you make the argument, the blogosphere is NOT NEWS.
Um, you must be new here. Try learning a little before spewing. We've pointed to many different examples of journalism businesses that are making plenty of money. It's got nothing to do with Google and everything to do with good business models.
Google is trying to leverage supposedly philanthropic language ("the news should be free") to force the actual providers of content to give them a free ride. I'm sorry, but that's wrong
Wow. You are so wrong, it's almost funny. Google has never said the news should be free. It was the newspapers who put the news up for free. All Google did was figure out a good way TO SEND THEM MORE TRAFFIC.
How can you possibly claim that Google is doing any damage at all to newspapers?
Google can't whine and complain that the media needs to be "more innovative" while they're stealing the media's content.
Uh. Please explain how sending traffic to newspaper websites, which they put up themselves, is "Stealing the media's content." Think carefully about the answer.
Wake up, people. Google really is evil. They don't care about you or me. They're simply in it for the buck. Anybody who thinks they're looking out for the greater good is kidding themselves.
Can you point to where, in this post, we said anything about Google being in it for the greater good. No one has said that. But that doesn't mean they're evil.
Is the NY Times in it "for the greater good"? I can assure you, they're in it to make money. Just like every other for-profit company. That doesn't make them evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is indeed Evil
Seriously Tom, are you really trying to say that I have an IQ below 90 because I see Google point to the "old guard's" own web pages as fair use? Hell the "old guard should thank Google because without it almost no one would stumble to lame crap ridden web sites. This a classic case of biting the hand that is feeding you. The "old guard" offers content, Google brings people to that content, Google makes money off ads on their own page, the "old guard" actually gets eyes on its content. Who is losing here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is indeed Evil
News investigation and critical analysis has vanished; as a result the value these "content creators" receive for the work produced has declined, as evidenced by the shrinking industry. When the industry returns to a business model that is based on content that is of value and a distribution scheme that enables it to recognize the value, the industry will be rewarded.
There are a number of services that distribute information for fees to their customers. The reason they can do so is that their work is distinguished as being worthy of those fees. The fact that most newspapers can not command sufficient fees for the work that they produce is an indication of the lack of perceived value from the customers’ perspective.
Google, AOL, MSN, etc. are not being paid for content; they are being paid for their delivery systems. These delivery systems assemble content efficiently and enable their customers to do the analysis and critical thinking that is sadly absent from the old guard’s reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is indeed Evil
The fact that no newspapers (that I've heard of) are doing this is a tacit acknowledgment that they gain value from Google. They're not willing to give up Google's services, but they're also not willing to accept Google's price (zero) and want to dictate their own price. Fortunately, that is not how a market system operates. They can play ball, or take their ball and go home. I doubt very many people care which one they choose, and that is really where their problem lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is indeed Evil
How about the newspapers compensating the actual creators then? You know, the people who actually make the news. All the papers do is write it up after somebody else has created it. "I'm sorry, but that's wrong."
So, before a newspaper can publish a news article about some event it should have to compensate everyone involved in creating the event first. For example, if the paper wants to publish an article about the gathering of a large crowd somewhere, they should first have to work out compensation deals with the organizers and everyone in the crowd. After all, those were the people who "created" the event in the first place.
And if the story is about something that didn't involve any people, then it should be considered an "act of God". In that case there needs to be some umbrella organization that collects royalties from papers on these kinds of stories and distributes the money (what's left of it after taking their cut) to all the various churches. Kind of like other licensing organizations.
Yep, it's about time that papers quit "stealing" from the news "creators" and started paying up. They shouldn't force the actual providers of content to give them a free ride.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is indeed Evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geeks don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geeks don't get it.
You better check your meds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geeks don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dowd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dowd
Oh, little sammy. Michael Costanza was just kidding! What, you didn't get the joke? Well then, you must be the most humorless dick ever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She does make some quite valid points that do deserve thoughtful consideration, something that is oftentimes missing in techdirt articles and the posted comments to the articles.
The benefits of internet search engines is manifesly clear, though I would be remiss if I did not note that many of the results are merely a website repeating almost verbatim the contents of another website that in turn engages in the same activity. It is particularly frustrating to try and locate both sides of a story, only to discover that diversity of opinion is oftentimes missing in the repetive regurgiation of the same information.
People decry the NYT, calling it a dinosaur, and yet its news reporting is far more varied than what can be found on subject specific websites, more professionally presented, and much more insightful...if only one takes the time to read it and not use much of the tripe appearing on internet sites that somehow believe a very short summary is more than sufficient to timely, comprehensive, and highly informative news. Candidly, I find most of these sites to provide little more than what I consider to be largely useless information.
Now, I am not prepared to call Google a leach. I believe this would be unfair. However, it is not at all difficult to understand why so many of what I term "professional journalists" feel as they do. At the same time, however, I do believe that Google does serve up information to true leeches...sites that do little more than copy news articles for their own economic gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find the tone and tenor of the rest of your comment to be downright arrogant and condescending.
Now, I am not prepared to call Google a leach. I believe this would be unfair. However, it is not at all difficult to understand why so many of what I term "professional journalists" feel as they do. At the same time, however, I do believe that Google does serve up information to true leeches...sites that do little more than copy news articles for their own economic gain.
It sounds to me like what you and your "professional journalists" buddies really want is to become censors to determine what sites Google can and can't link to. You just can't stand the thought of not being gatekeepers of some kind, can you?
You and your kind are a good example of what's wrong with the newspaper industry. It's rotting from the inside out. Sometimes I wonder if we'd be better off just taking the lot of you and dumping you on some remote island. And then maybe nuking the whole thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Papers & The Net
Then Lee Publishing bought our paper, saw no future in being having an ISP that operated also as their crack in-house IT department... so that was the end of that relationship, the ISP was spun off into it's own outfit tribcsp.com ...
And is now going gangbusters, meanwhile the paper that gave them birth, is shrinking both in content, quality, and physical size! The paper's website, instead of being informative and useful, for a time became what could best be described as an ad-whore. Now they have toned down the 75% adspace on their site, but put in a fairly LOUD (audio compression) video ad unit... just what I want when I am in the office, checking my news at lunch (NOT!).
I bemoan the demise of Howard Publications, but as far as the ISP, which I am still with, I couldn't be happier.
This just goes to show that certian people are prone to thinking emotionally and sensationally, and don't belong and can't compete in the realm of critcal thinking. So, as the balloon of hot air runs out, it makes the most noise and moves wildly. Expect alot more of this hyperbole and illogic, as we move out of the era of the printed word, and into the era of the photonic word.
Keeping in mind what I have said, it should be fun for those who can rise above the noise, and watch this. The dying flails of a beast spoiled rotten by isolation, can be fun and educational, in the light of justice and fairness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Papers & The Net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, I only pay for value!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
recommend this to Murdoch
if you and Robert Murdoch feel so strongly about Google stealing your work, why don't you simply stop them from indexing your sites? I'm sure your competitors would love to have more traffic coming to them, and Google will continue to provide traffic to their websites.
Good luck with that business model and see you in the unemployment lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: recommend this to Murdoch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nobody want's free papers either
Care to guess how many people just leave it in the driveway until trash day, and toss it on the can on their way to the curb?
Pretty much all of us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One way to save newspapers
http://nowpossible.com/blog1/2009/04/16/one-way-to-save-newspapers/
Mass media is dead. Long live personal media. Basic elements of personalization strategy have the potential to save the newspaper industry, despite first-quarter revenue declines expected to be in the 20 to 30 percent range...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One way to save newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maureen Dowd is a far left extremist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC hasn't read many actual newspapers apparently.....
When was the last time that anyone read a newspaper article that actually covered both sides of the story and including a 'diversity of opinion' that the authors didn't agree with? Most of the 'crap' (ie. Constantly Regurgitated Associated Press) I've read in newspapers lately includes multiple biases: the newspapers bias, the editors bias, and the writers bias at least (which can be interesting if they aren't all leaning the same way).
I have a hard time understanding how one would think that a static printed article is somehow better at providing a 'diversity of opinion' than a topic search on the internet. Sure there's lots of crap out there on the internet to sort through, but most of the time you can find various points of view, from the right wing conservative GWB good old boy mentality, to the tinfoil wearing conspiracy theory touting nut jobs who continually spout their repetitive theories/lies hoping someone somewhere will believe them (where is Wierd Harold lately anyway? Just kidding, even he doesn't deserve that). He's a perfect example of the 'other point of view' in many of these articles (it's the view sponsored by the **AA's, but it is 'their' point of view, and without him reminding us of where they stand and why, we would all be much worse off).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill the Scoop.
gone down dramatically as bean counters have taken
over newspapers. This has occurred concurrently
with a revolution in communications technology.
Nevermind "Google stealing their content". What they
have to worry about is every gossip on the planet
being empowered by Google Search making their content
completely pointless.
Old media's problem is not "search" or "piracy", it's
the sudden influx of 300M+ new competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers' crisis
Thanks to the diffusion of more and more fast connections and the wide spread of internet all web users can access instantly every kind of news and informations. And moreover this can be done for free, at least from the user’s point of view. The real market is behind the scenes: the huge and intricated world of advertising which is migrating from paper press to its web equivalent. The reader can get informations without paying anything and, at least apparently, the choice and availability of news is much greater. Moreover internet offers an interactive approach not available through standard newspaper.
The advantages seem many….which are the drawbacks?
One possible drawback could be found in the web organization itself maybe, intrinsic in all internet facilities. While reading an article the reader finds (almost stubs its toe on) a great amount of links one after the other. This is the web with its hypertext structure. It offers new hints and open one’s own point of view but can also divert from a complete, relaxing and focused reading.
The new freedom offered by the web always depends on our own intelligent usage. For the standard reader the kind of fruition offered by the web is more difficult than the one offered earlier on the traditional papers. Maybe…
The interactiveness may indicate more freedom of expression but also more ways to be deceived.
Who is now the warrantor of the news?
The users can’t make directly the questions to all degrees of people at all levels. This is the task of professional journalists and reporters and this is the reason why I hope a way of cohabitation of classical and new media will be reached.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misses the point. . .
What google is doing is making broadcast distribution of news, either print or electronic, obsolete. Yet, it does so slowly without effectively replacing it completely. Google's Schmidt frankly admits that they cannot replace the editorial function with clever algorithms. Packaging the news, or compiling a newslist, to target audiences is an art form. This is right brain stuff. Computer searches are left brain. What the Dowds of the world have not yet figured out is that the target audiences are no longer the general masses, but now niche groupings. Niche members now go to places like googlenews and package together for themselves the news they seek ala carte. Word and phrase searches, while having more robust results than scanning a newspaper, are still too stupid, and get by on their novelty. The signal to noise ratio is still far too high. One still has to sort through far too much extraneous, repetitive junk to get to the good stuff. So there is still a crying need for trusted editorial news packaging function. The fading mass media so far is failing to adapt to the new media, the internet and user, to pick up where the nerd gods of Google cannot tread. There is a need, and a growing vacuum waiting to be filled. (hint: the business model is niche publishing -- it works for me.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Reasons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
media crybabys
But that's not the problem they don't want to be ignored by Google they want to be paid by Google. There are a million sites that create content and would pay Google for the attention they give to the newspaper sites.
You shouldn't get subsidized for falling behind. It's a new world and the giant news corporations are not going to control it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misplaced blame
I never click to the NYT, however, as I used to see a registration page. If other people see value in that brand, then more power to 'em - apparently that is not usually the case. I'd prefer if they'd just opt-out though. You won't be seen, all your hard earned news can be private. See if anybody notices. What they do instead is show up in Google and have a barrier to entry when you get there (if you're not the googlebot). So, who is really using whom?
She makes one mention of the real thing that is burying newspapers: craigslist. No point in that. They're not stealing anything. You can't even attribute an evil motive to them. Who are we going to blame now?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]