Comments on: Newspapers find a common enemy: Google

By: Lily Trawick

Lily Trawick — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:37:24 +0000

I like to require breaks throughout the my working day and look through some blogs to find out what folks are saying. This blog appeared in my searches and i couldn’t aid but clicking on it. I’m glad I did due to the fact it had been a incredibly fulfilling study.

By: YouTube Comments Poster

YouTube Comments Poster — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:52:28 +0000

YouTube Comments Poster…

Discover new methods of product promotion in social media for maximum earnings….

By: Joe dos santos

Joe dos santos — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:52:47 +0000

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

By: Dar

Dar — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:07:49 +0000

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.

By: John Hind

John Hind — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:45:43 +0000

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?

By: bioreit

bioreit — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:51:47 +0000

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.

By: Steve Cassidy

Steve Cassidy — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:19:02 +0000

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?

By: synaptic_fire

synaptic_fire — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:18:29 +0000

“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”?

By: Doc

Doc — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:22:07 +0000

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.

By: Ryan Thomas

Ryan Thomas — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:37:59 +0000

“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?