Comments on: Google's Schmidt: Brands to clean up Internet 'cesspool'

If people are willing to pay $4.99 for six hamburger buns or $3.50 for a simple cup of coffee, why aren't they willing to pay for content they value?

[Republic512]

He is absolutely wrong. The Internet is the base for the Information Age. To me the Internet can fuffil an amazing human leap, that is, connecting every human on earth to the Internet. The goal should not be, "We want to make more money so let's limit the amount of people giving information and increases the price, therefore less information is being provided and now at a cost which leaves people to get information at a price. Google is using artificial scarcity to make more money. Google is becoming more and more sick as it goes along. Google's moves are always towards the billions and it's said to see such brilliant minds lost away in the dollar.

Google listen! We look at Google as a service. Things are free because we decided to use Google over others The Internet must be a free, open, and plentiful place for information to be following.

[doconn7]

I don't think I have ever seen a good well researched story. It's just a catchy head line and a hundred ads! Once you click the head line they have your click through so the content doesn't matter. Why pay for that?
It's like paying for wikipedia??? Totally non factual info. . . . 99% junk and 1% myth construed to be fact.

[kennethpdavis]

I'd love to have sites with conscienciously vetted, researched, edited content and I will (and do) happily pay when such content is available.

Most sources these days are giving their content away for free. Then they lay off reporters, editors, and other staff because they can no longer afford them, causing content to suffer. It's a death spiral.

Instead they should be raising prices to the point where they are sustainable. If they can't do that, then they are no more dead than they would be through the other strategy.

[stonneflute]

The last bastion of free speech. Let's make 'em pay for it. Power corrupts, Mr. Schmidt. Who is the final arbiter of the "truthiness" of anything? Who will you be hiring to do the vetting in this cesspool? I hope that, likeWatergate" we do without the plumbers.

[drenullyn]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you made the analogy on hamburger buns and coffee. However, I think that since we Americans have a shrinking middle-class which is constantly struggling to afford bills and groceries, then constantly gouged by the more luxurious commodities of Starbucks coffee and restaurant prices, that we simply don't find a higher value (or even have a budget for...) having those daily newspapers thrown on our doorsteps.

[kflak]

Google Addwords is one of the main drivers behind the Internet 'cesspool' Schmidt is complaining about. Dan, with 25 years of experience you should be able to write a better story.

[oypingppei]

Who would pay $4.99 for brand name hamburger buns if the generic buns were being offered for free a few feet away on the same shelf?

[SteveW928]

A few point....
1) Why would paying for news make it more reliable? Certainly, that is a cynical question, but I think makes a valid point. To get more accurate, objective news, takes both good research AND enough ethics to actually attempt to be objective. The first you might be able to address with money if the media industry were structured to reward careful research and reporting. The second has more to do with how broken our society is... money isn't going to fix bankrupt ethics.
2) It is super easy to give McD's or Starbucks your $5 bill and get your food/drink. To pay news agencies on the Internet, you have to sign up for an account and have yet another billing thing to track on your credit card, etc. If there were some easy way to pay any internet source small amounts of money... I suppose people would be more likely to pay for such good information (if it were really good)... AND
3) This assumes that there is some good information which is better than the free stuff out there to buy. Being in academics, I do realized the value of properly researched and peer-reviewed material. The problem is that very little of this exists in the general news media that the average person consumes. I suppose some people have always paid for things like the National Enquirer, etc. but I never have. I tend to take my free glance at the cover while walking to the checkout.... laugh a bit... and move on. The same is true these days for a good majority of the media. It really isn't worth any more than to me than being exposed to some advertising in order to get it.
Having said this.... I DO subscribe to a few information sources in areas where I need well written, accurate and honest information. I just don't see much of this in the main-stream media worth paying for.

[Don Key]

Last time I checked, I wasn't required to enter in my sensitive bank accounting information to buy a cup of coffee. I take a 5 out of my pocket and I'm on my way.

[HintonBR2]

I think another thing to be considered is that the Internet has changed the way we consume the information. In times past there were a limited number of information sources and so there was a need for them to be good. The Internet has exponentially increased the number of information providers so I balance what I hear by reading from multiple sources which are more readily available that in times past. That is one of the benefits of the Internet - Multiple sourcing or better yet crowd sourcing. I still believe there is a place for journalism, etc..., but I doubt the business model is going to be to take how things were done with the print business and convert it to the web.

[svetzy02]

"One can only assume that people are willing to settle for content of generally less value that is free of charge--or that hamburger buns are more essential to life than a good, well-researched story."

The problem is, we have no guarantees as consumers that the mainstream media is reporting information that is any more reliable than anything else we read online (anyone who has ever been mis-quoted or misrepresented in a newspaper will understand). And since we can get most things online for free (which is a good thing), then we are not willing to pay to read information that we are not sure is any better.

And besides, food satisfies a fundamental need, whereas news GENERALLY does not.

[pescado]

The Internet is a cesspool?

What about cable news networks?all of them from CNN to MSNBC and Fox News?that only report the portion of the story they want you to know?

I agree that the Internet is full of false information, but who is going to decide whether or not something is presented "the right way"? I'm in the journalism industry, and trust me, the amount of power the editor wields is frightening. Any story can be spun however the editor sees fit.

[pescado]

Those question marks in the second paragraph are supposed to be dashes. I guess that's what I get for posting on a Mac. ;-)

[hoodphil]

Hello! Despite the foregoing criticism of MSM, what we have here is a binary decision. There is either ad-supported media (network TV, over-the-air radio, newspapers, magazines, Google) or customer-supported media (video games, movies, books, etc.). There is no third option. If you want journalism of the quality of Atlantic Monthly, Le Monde, Wall Street Journal, Toronto Globe & Mail, you're going to have to fund it with advertising or subscriptions. I just read half a dozen top blogs this morning. It's ludicrous to suggest they do as good a job as our nation's newspapers. Just as it's ludicrous of Schmidt to suggest that nonprofits will fill this role.