Posted on April 6th, 2009 by Barry Collins

Newspapers find a common enemy: Google

Having fought tooth-and-nail against each other for years, the world’s embattled newspaper groups appear suddenly to be brothers-in-arms against a common enemy: Google.

Last week The Guardian led the way with a submission to the Government’s Digital Britain report, claiming that the search giant was effectively pick-pocketing its content. “The argument has traditionally been that search engines and aggregators provide players like guardian.co.uk with traffic in return for the use of our content, and this is enough to make the relationship symbiotic and equal,” the submission stated. “However, there is a vast over-supply in the market of advertising inventory, and yields have come under severe downward pressure. As a result, the value of the traffic generated by search engines and aggregators has reduced significantly.”

That was followed up this Sunday by a rather more angry riposte in The Observer (also part of the Guardian Media Group). Columnist Henry Porter claimed newspapers were effectively being forced to give their content to Google, or face the commercial suicide of not being listed on search engines. “Newspapers can of course remove their content but then their own advertising revenues and profiles decline,” he declared. “In effect they are being held captive and tormented by their executioner, who has the gall to insist that the relationship is mutually beneficial.”

Meanwhile, across the pond, Rupert Murdoch told a group of cable TV executives that: “the question is, should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyright… not steal, but take. Not just them but Yahoo.”

And now Murdoch’s staff are weighing into the debate too, with Wall Street Journal and former Times editor Robert Thompson declaring: “There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet.”

Naming no names, of course. Well, except one. “Google encourages promiscuity – and shamelessly so – and therefore a significant proportion of their users don’t necessarily associate that content with the creator. Therefore revenue that should be associated with the creator is not garnered.”

Are these vitriolic attacks a complete coincidence? Or have the world’s newspapers collectively decided it’s time to get tough with Google? Fetch the popcorn – this one’s going to get nasty.

Tags: Google, newspapers

Posted in: Newsdesk

Permalink | Trackback

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Social Bookmark this article: What is this?

9 Responses to “ Newspapers find a common enemy: Google ”

muck Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Well I for one say great because I hate Google.
Oh but way.. Murdoch? I hate him too.
Ryan Thomas Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“a significant proportion of their [Google's] users don’t necessarily associate that content with the creator. Therefore revenue that should be associated with the creator is not garnered”

Is there actually any evidence for this or is it Robert Thompson’s biased opinion?
Doc Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Publishers have to specifically request to be added to Google News (http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/answer.py?answer=40787&topic=11662). If they don’t like how it works, then they can take their ball and go home.

Their problem isn’t with Google specifically. Their problem is that online newspaper reading is killing paper newspaper reading, and that the wealth of online news sources drowns out their supposedly better content. They want to own this new medium like they owned the last one, and it’s not working for them, and they’re throwing a tantrum because of it.
synaptic_fire Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“They want to own this new medium like they owned the last one, and it’s not working for them, and they’re throwing a tantrum because of it.”

Can anyone say “music industry”?
Steve Cassidy Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
The interesting question, Doc, is – does it work for anybody? Having just spent a day with a client whose entire product range has been ripped off and is offered on Ebay from China, I don’t see any framework for recovery of rights whatsoever. The rule seems to be: get good at what you do, and be prepared not to be paid for it.

Why is this such a good thing? Who decided on it?
bioreit Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Look, let’s apply some logic here:

Newspapers charge money. This is to pay for things like costs, including printing, transportation, wages and yes, making oodles of profit. They also contain adverts in order to generate more revenue. They also use Google (and others, but come on, Google is the main man here) advertising and click-throughs for this too.

If people stop buying the physical paper, the media companies need to switch to selling digital news, relying more on Google click-throughs than before.

But what happens when loads of people realise that they don’t need to pay for the news, but can just browse it on Google instead? The media company loses money and could go under. Now, who writes the news in their stead? Google? A company that merrily restricts content in China because it is paid to do so, preventing citizens from the free access of infomration, while at the same time espousing ‘Do No Evil’. A company which, as owner of You Tube, happily lets users violate copyright infringements countless thousands of times each day, yet then turns round and sues into oblivion anyone who does the same to their content (i.e. downloading and storing of You Tube video through non-approved methods). Or how about the way that You Tube frequently posts videos *recommended by staff* onto its front page that contain full nudity, swearing and drug taking, completely negating the entire concept of flagging inappropriate material – and they block your IP when you do flag one of the staff recommended postings too.

Because that company being in nearly sole charge of the world’s media scares me a hundred times more than Murdoch’s parasitic empire.
John Hind Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I do not get the logic of the newspaper’s argument. If as they say they loose revenue and profits if they de-list from Google then how can they say their relationship with Google is not beneficial?
Dar Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
The aggregators do not contain the entire article. Those of you that think Google is “stealing” the content are mistaken. Google is an extremely effective way for the news organizations to get people to their sites and that is where news organizations will need to make their money.

The real problem is the content has been deteriorating substantially over time. (With a few exceptions) the content of newpapers has become a regurgitation of material handed to them from politicians, businesses, AP, etc.

Lately, I think the Chicago Tribune may have figured this out, but it might be too little, too late.
Joe dos santos Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I think its time that some media companies and msn and yahoo all start working together, we have all seen how greedy and unfair google is, and if google continue with this greed it will make many more businesses go bankrupt, google has turned the internet for the rich to get richer and the poor dont stand a chance anymore, i remember when google was a little sh_t, the internet was a place where anyone could become rich, now you have no chance that is how google wants it, but yahoo at a time was powerful and look what happened to them, so i think there are so many people piss off with google, that its a good time to start working together to bring this google giant down. my pridiction is microsoft will start to grow stronger and the market will shift