RSS
Google's Moral Obligation To Newspapers: Help Both Sides Be Better Off
from the it's-called-capitalism dept
Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about a reporter insisting that Google had some sort of moral obligation to help prop up journalism. As we noted at the time, this seemed ridiculous. Journalism's problem wasn't Google, but an unwillingness to adapt in a changing marketplace. In fact, it seemed as though Google should be looked on as a friend. It helped drive traffic to newspaper websites while also providing a very efficient ad platform for monetizing. Yet, the reporter seemed to think that because Google was raking in billions and newspapers (while still incredibly profitable) were seeing their markets shrink, Google should simply hand over money out of a moral obligation to fund journalism.
So, at first I was surprised to see reports coming out that Google CEO Eric Schmidt had gone on record claiming that Google does, in fact, have a moral obligation to help journalism -- but as you read the details, you see that he means in exactly the way we were talking about. He means that the moral obligation isn't to give them money, but to give them the tools by which they can make more money. I still don't see that as a "moral obligation," but simply good business for everyone involved (including consumers of the news).
13 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Nothing Scales Like Stupidity
- French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
- If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash
- Newspaper Boss Says Newspapers Need More Money... Because New Media Steals & May 'Destroy Civil Society'
- People Rushing To Give Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In Just Hours For Brand New Adventure Game
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
We're bombarded with stories that aren't newsworthy, and people want to seek out a variety of opinions online - it's the right way to go.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The US UK contrast
The writing (in the press and/or sub-titled on tv) is all based on pandering to the American people, who are mostly religous zealots or to cowardly to step up and force government action to comply with common sense.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I have a Google Homepage, on it is; Hack A Day, Extreme Tech, Engadget, Wired, a generalized "Technology" section, as well as a Top Stories section, and a generalized "News" section. Theres also a calender and other crap, doesn't matter for this. Also, at the top, taking up more area than anything else on the page, is a Google search bar. Google wants us to read those news stories, and then search on Google for more information. Its how they make their money, people looking for more information. Google doesn't write all those stories, someone else does. For instance, right now for technology.. its BBC, The Register, Washington Post. News is.. NECN, Chicago Tribune, RTE, CNN, Harold Tribune. Lots of major news companies is where they get those generalized headlines from. Why? Because news outlets do the best job of compiling a large cross section of several types of news into easy to digest bite sized chunks. Its the entire reason those news outlets exist. If those news outlets die, people aren't going to be reading those headlines on their google homepage, google will instead have to expend resources for an in house staff that vets and goes through all the different things going on in the world and pick a small cross section of them that are usable to the largest number of people.. instead of just grabbing a random sampling from people who've already done all the vet and packaging work for them. Thats why Google cares. Its cheaper to drag News Outlets kicking and screaming into the 21st century, than it is to build their own media empire.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We currently don't have a free press, we have a corporate oligopoly of infotainment. This is a problem that needs a solution if other problems are to have informed, public action.
So, perhaps getting this issue right isn't a "moral" concern, but it's at least a "democratic" concern tied closely to concerns about freedom and liberty.
This is why I say we can't just let economic models and technology answer all the questions. Not everything that's good for business is good for "the commons," and vice versa. Not every technology automatically leads to improvements. Informed action through public debate based on the will of the people is the only way to maintain a truly democratic nation. This depends on effective education and a free press, at minimum. We currently have neither.
So ... yeah, we should give a sh*t.
(Please note: I'm not taking a stand on how this particular Google v. journalism issue should be resolved, just saying that the underlying principles are vitally important.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
US vs. UK ... again....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The US UK contrast
I think the British in general are more skeptical and less sensationalist (certainly on the religious zealotry) which is reflected in our media too, but that's a different argument.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
making money and tools
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Journalism and Google
It will not be long that print journalism will have to say goodbye and move online, we have seen several newspapers and magazines do that already(though it will take longer to some countries like those in Asia .)
I agree that Google's role here is not to promote Journalism, but just to provide tools for Journalists.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment