Yet Another Journalism Professor Gets Nearly Every Fact Wrong In Saying Google Needs To Pay
from the facts?-who-needs-them? dept
With all the journalists declaring that Google needs to pay newspapers, it's amazing how often their arguments are based on simply incorrect statements -- the sort of thing that is the real problem newspapers face. When they make an argument based on entirely incorrect information, no one trust them. For example, reader David Muir points us to Joel Brinkley's article in the San Francisco Chronicle, where he compares the newspaper industry to the recording industry and gets nearly everything wrong. Brinkley is a former NY Times' reporter and a journalism professor at Stanford. This is the sort of person who shouldn't fall prey to getting stories backwards, but he does. First, he claims that Google is using newspapers content "without compensation."This is wrong. Google is indexing and linking to newspaper content. They're providing a service to those newspapers, by sending them more traffic. If those newspapers don't want that service, it's quite easy to opt-out. The fact that very few do so suggests they do, in fact, value that service, and thus they feel they are getting compensated.
Then, amusingly, he compares the newspaper business to the recording industry, suggesting Google is like what Napster was a decade ago -- and questions where would the recording industry be if it hadn't shut down Napster. Rather than talk to an unbiased party, he goes straight to the RIAA, who of course talks up what a wonderful victory Napster was, and says, without having shut down Napster: "We would be in a world with thousands of pirates."
Um. I hate to break it to both Brinkley and the RIAA... but we're in a world with millions of (what they falsely define as) "pirates." In fact, I'd imagine that the recording industry would actually consider it a real victory if there were only "thousands." But does Brinkley point this out? Does he note that the legal effort to shut down Napster not only failed to stop "piracy," but actually helped advertise it, make it more prevalent, and drive it further underground to sites and communities that were much more difficult to work with?
Of course not. Because why would a super journalist like Brinkley bother with reality in making his case?
Also, it's worth pointing out that the situation with Napster was also entirely different in that it didn't involve the musicians/labels putting the content up themselves, and didn't involve Napster offering up an easy tool for them to remove that content. When it comes to newspapers and Google, both things are true.
This is the sort of stuff anyone familiar with what they were talking about would know. But Brinkley is a journalism expert, so why should he bother to understand what he's talking about before writing an entire column on it?
He then goes on to (falsely) claim that "without newspaper journalism, the nation would have little original journalism left" extrapolating out (incorrectly) the idea that because most journalism originates from newspapers today, it must continue to do so in the future. We're already seeing that's false, as new operations spring up to take over where newspapers are faltering (such as in putting forth bogus opinion pieces comparing Google to Napster).
Then (because he's not done being wrong yet), Brinkley tries (and fails) to respond to the "information wants to be free" line (which he falsely states "information should be free" -- the distinction is important, but Brinkley doesn't bother to even notice) by saying:
Wouldn't that be nice. Wouldn't it be nice if metropolitan newspapers didn't have to pay millions of dollars a year for their reporting staffs? Wouldn't it be nice if Keller's paper didn't have to pay $2 million a year to maintain its Baghdad bureau? Newspapers provide an expensive product. They deserve to be paid for it.We've debunked this argument probably 50 times in the last year alone, but since Brinkley apparently doesn't do any research, let's debunk it one more time. No one is saying that because information is offered to consumers for free that it means that you don't make money or you don't pay your reporting staff. Brinkley is setting up a bogus strawman (the sort of thing reporters shouldn't do). What they are saying is that they need to come up with better business models (which we've pointed out do exist) that leverage (rather than deny) the basic economics of content, and do so in a way that makes a more valuable product.
Brinkley, of course, never bothers to explain how to make the product any more valuable (hint: it's not by writing columns that are entirely based on incorrect statements) or why people would want to pay for such rubbish. He just insists they "deserve to be paid for it." But if Brinkley's writing is an example of the type of quality found in papers today, is it any wonder people don't find it worth paying for?
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: copyright, joel brinkley, journalism, newspapers, recording industry
Companies: google, napster
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say "bye bye" to your credibility, Mr. Brinkley!
But thanks for the belly laugh. You can find your way out, can't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SFGate Comments
Read the comments writers, the people are not with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In America, the news media don't take financial aid from the government, even when it's indirect."
Now, I'm not entirely sure, but shouldn't that be 'doesn't'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medium%5B1%5D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammar vs. usage
Hence "the media doesn't" would have been the more correct construction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Media is plural
By embedding journalists with troops in Iraq, the news media took direct financial aid from the government.
Those troops took time to protect embedded journalists. Protecting your life might provide some bias to your reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the future
sorry for the wall of text folks, if you want the point it's this.
it can all be summed up with my favorite quote from the movie No Country For Old Men
"deserve's got nothing to do with it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who do not learn from history, are deemed to repeat it.
There is the same amount of Ad space on any web page as there is in any printed newspaper (could argue infinitely more). I suggest you leverage it and move forward.
Now that you do not have to worry about cutting down a million trees just to print a daily paper... you should also be able to make even more money on each ad now that you can prove that an eyeball saw the ad, deliver actionable call to action within the ad, all while tracking its success with metrics like Click Trough Rate (CTR), and Impressions.
Try that with a printed paper ad.
You need to adapt, and monetize.
Google has actually kept you afloat longer than you should have been ...
The game has changed on so many levels and it is you that needs to evolve; we no longer need a giant press to print our papers and a fleet of trucks to deliver them... we just publish ...
You no longer have a monopoly on information, or entertainment.
Evolve, Adapt, or Die!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those who do not learn from history, are deemed to repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those who do not learn from history, are deemed to repeat it.
Nobody i know does, it's too slow. Get DC++ instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Those who do not learn from history, are deemed to repeat it.
Bittorrent is pretty easy to use these days. No more 30 minute Ubuntu direct downloads!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those who do not learn from history, are deemed to repeat it.
Your choices seem reasonable, but you have been buying at least some portion of your music all crapped-up with DRM. I don't see that as more convenient to bittorrent in the long run.
I haven't got one cent that I would give for a DRM song. Thankfully, that boondoggle is going away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another journalism professor..... How old is this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yikes, Prof.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are in Trouble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For some background on the author
http://communication.stanford.edu/faculty/brinkley.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bronstein too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gosh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's another one
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090504/moran
Cheers, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb article, but newspapers and Google do have relationship issues
The question is whether / how they should try to prove their independence. I've been debating this with Mathew Ingram at The Nieman Journalism Lab.
http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/04/20/mathew-ingram-google-helps-newspapers/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb article, but newspapers and Google do have relationship issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb article, but newspapers and Google do have relationship issues
If a newspaper is not getting anything from Google, which they claim, then Google is nothing but a pariah. The first paper to bail actually benefits by dropping those "stealing" from them; staying with Google hurts their competition.
The only way there is a dilemma is if the newspaper in fact believes there IS a benefit to remaining in the Google index. In which case...what is it they are arguing about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quit trusting "journalist" a long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shirky does it better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalism?
I think it is appropriate to point out another difference. In WWII, reporters like Ernie Pyle wrote whatever they wanted to, and went to the front lines to get their info (that is how Ernie died, I believe).
Currently "journalists" in, say, Iraq feed back what the military tells them to say ("National Security"). So why are they there? They could just ask the military here what they should say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Journalism?
Because that would look bad. Actually going to Iraq gives the (false) appearance of objectivity and independence. It's all about "image".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]