To hear the poobahs of traditional media tell it, Google is to print media what global warming is to the polar caps. At many once-stalwart print publications, profits are melting away.
For several months, leaders at some of the nation's most influential newspapers and periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and the online arm of Forbes magazine have begun blaming Google and similar Web services for at least some of their deepening financial troubles. Google sells ads tied to the news blurbs it "scrapes" from news sites. It links back to the Web sites from which it acquired the content but doesn't share ad revenue with them. This isn't fair, many media execs say.
(Credit:
Forbes.com)
In all the very public bashing of Google, however, few if any of the critics has answered why they don't just cut Google out of the equation by preventing the search engine from indexing their Web pages. The task could be accomplished by inserting a single line of code into their URLs. If Forbes.com added a line such as forbes.com/robots.txt, content from the site would be rendered invisible to Google.
Representatives from the Journal and AP declined to comment for this story, but their Web sites speak volumes for them. None of the companies has severed ties with Google and risked losing access to the search engine's millions of users. Traditional print publications, which have seen ad revenue plummet, mass layoffs, and in some cases the shut down of operations, are now hopelessly dependent on Google to lure readers, says media executives. Jim Brady, the Washington Post's former digital chief, says the question of whether Google is good or bad for print journalism is almost irrelevant at this point. Print publications are helpless to do anything about it.
"Get out a sheet of paper and write down all the things Google does for you," said Brady, former executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, as he offered advice to his former peers in old media. "Google allows your content to be exposed to people who would never see it otherwise. If you're able to code your pages well, then you can get an awful lot of leads from Google. It's up to your site to turn those leads into loyal customers...Google is not going away."
Pointing fingers
That's not exactly how Jim Spanfeller sees it. The CEO of Forbes.com asked the question in an opinion piece he wrote for the blog PaidContent.com, "is Google being disproportionally compensated for what is fundamentally other people's work?" He said the answer appears to be yes. He claimed Google "makes roughly $60 million a year directing folks" to Forbes.com.
So why doesn't Spanfeller prevent the search engine from indexing the magazine's content?
"I don't know that this isn't a bad idea," Spanfeller said in a phone interview with CNET News. "But I think that would be hard to do without everyone's competitors shutting (Google) out as well."
This sounds like an acknowledgment that Forbes needs Google to compete and that the search engine may provide publications like his a valuable service. That's at least what Marissa Mayer, a Google exec, told Congress on Wednesday during a hearing on the future of journalism. Google sends 1 billion page views every month to print publications, Mayer testified during the hearing.
Spanfeller argues, however, that Google does do harm. For example, the blurbs the search engine obtains from news sites often includes enough information to satisfy the major questions about a story. For many people, reading a headline and synopsis about three more people dying of swine flu in Mexico is all some readers want to know. There's little motivation to click on links to the site that actually produced the news. To some in media, this violates copyright law.
Spanfeller says there's also frustration when a news organization pays professional journalists to do original reporting and then see links to stories written by amateurs--or worse, blogs that are little more than flimsy rewrites of their content--with higher visibility on Google than their own.
Spanfeller wants Google to do a better job of showcasing professionally created content, and "cease stepping on or over the line of fair use." This means he wants Google to start providing less information in its news blurbs and crack down on sites that use stories without authorization.
"We show users just enough to make them want to read more," wrote Alexander Macgillivray, Google's associate general counsel, wrote last month. "Even though the Copyright Act does not grant a copyright owner a veto over such uses, it is our policy to allow any rights holder...to remove their content from our index."
The cure?
So what do print execs want from Google? First, the search engine could cure a lot of ills by sharing ad revenue with print companies. After all, it's their content Google is selling ads against. Forget it, not going to happen predicts Brady.
"There was a fair amount of pushing from people at the (Washington Post) news group who said: 'We should make Google pay us for our content,' Brady said. "I told them 'They're never going to do it. They wouldn't give us a dime.' (They responded) 'Well then, we should block it.' I said 'Fine, we can go ahead and do that and that's suicidal.'
"Google built a better mousetrap than the newspapers were able to build," Brady continued. "That's part of the reason they're making the money they're making. At some point I don't know what you can do about that other than to try and work it to your advantage."
There are some media execs looking for new ways to get their content in front of readers without help from Google. Amazon on Wednesday showcased a new large-screen e-reader called the Kindle DX. The device is partly geared toward readers of newspapers, and magazines. Newspaper publishers Hearst Corp., and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. have said they will create their own e-readers designed to deliver their own content.
This kind of effort is fine with Brady. He says this kind of thinking is far more preferable than obsessing about the past.
"We have to ask, 'what's next?'" said Brady who plans to soon open his own consulting business. "That's where everybody needs to get to. Because Google isn't going away and they aren't writing us checks. Let's move on. We're all getting way too hung up on the past, with all the things we should have done 10 years ago, could have done...well, we didn't. Game over. We should be asking 'What are the new rules of this game and how do we best take advantage of them.'"
Could YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen become this generation's version of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the famed newspaper reporters who broke the Watergate scandal?
Probably not, but their site has quickly become a competitor to investigative journalists everywhere. There used to be a time when people with information about corporate misdeeds, government corruption or police brutality would go to CNN, The Washington Post or their local newspaper. Now, who needs traditional media when anyone can just film wrongdoers in action and post it online?
Citizen journalists illustrated their growing power this weekend when a tourist videotaped Patrick Pogan, a New York City policeman, body slamming a bicyclist in what appears to be an unprovoked attack. On Sunday, the videographer posted it to YouTube. Sure there were also eyewitnesses, but the video may prove most damning for it differs dramatically with what the officer said happened in his report.
The policeman has been assigned to desk duty and the department has launched an investigation. Once again, YouTube has handed individual members of the public the ability to challenge a version of events presented by a powerful entity.
When one reflects on the controversies in this country's history that sprang from information obtained by average citizens, it's clear most of them were delivered to the public after first being filtered through a major news organization or government body.
The leaking of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg; the film of President John Kennedy's assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder, the police beating of motorist Rodney King videotaped by George Holliday.
Had those events occurred now, it's possible some of them would have ended up on YouTube. Would the reaction have been the same? For years, Zapruder and some news organizations refused to show the scene of Kennedy's head being blown apart. The public didn't see the films in their entirety until 1975, 12 years after Kennedy's death.
Did that decision spare an already demoralized public even more shock? Or did it rob them of the opportunity to learn everything about the death of their president?
"In the old world, (traditional media) used to be the gatekeepers," said Geneva Overholser, director of the School of Journalism at the University of Southern California and a former Ombudsman at The Washington Post. "The fact is those gates have been torn down...We have to figure out how to use the new tools of new media and how to work with citizens who are producing this kind new journalism."
The video-sharing phenomenon has emerged at a time when much of the public is mistrustful of the information provided by the government and professional news organizations. Some have turned to blogs and message boards for news. But YouTube, like no other site, has earned a reputation for providing citizen journalists with a podium that has the potential to reach millions across the globe.
The rewards of enabling individuals to report the news is easy to see. Corruption, brutality, and injustice have been exposed in situations where members of traditional media weren't around.
Government crackdowns in Burma and Tibet meant foreign journalists were often unable to get footage of the civil unrest in those countries. Sure enough, the world could see what was happening at YouTube, where witnesses posted videos.
A policeman near St. Louis suggested that he could send Brett Darrow, 20, to jail on trumped up charges. While Darrow's car-mounted video camera was rolling, the officer shouted: "Do you want to go to jail for some (expletive) reason I come up with?" And later he added: "I don't really care about your cameras."
It's probably safe to say the officer does now. He was later fired.
But was he right when he said he could he have successfully railroaded Darrow? Would anyone have believed Darrow had he been without the video? Would the police department have been under as much pressure to take action if Darrow had only gone to the local paper or TV station with the video?
The other side of the argument is that someone could misuse the power provided by YouTube and the Internet to distribute false information. Videotape has been tampered with before. And even when it's not, it can still be used to inflict damage.
A young woman on a train in South Korea refuses to clean up her dog's poop. Someone videotapes the event and the woman becomes a figure of contempt on the Web and known as "The Dog Poop Girl." She's stalked and ridiculed by angry Internet users and eventually the public condemnation forces her to quit school and go into hiding.
Providing audiences with verification of stories produced by unknowns could be an important contribution for traditional media, said Overholser.
She said that newspapers and local TV stations can also provide context, gather interviews and flush out stories produced by non professionals. That's what the New York Post did after the body-slamming NYPD video surfaced. The Post was quick to post a report on their Web site that included the officer's name, what he said in his report (that the bicyclist ran him over) and that he was a third-generation policeman.
"I would argue that when something likes this appears on Youtube," Overholser said, "and I see stories about it at Washingtonpost.com or Latimes.com, I would like it to mean that the papers have verified that the videotape is legitimate."
- prev
- 1
- next
