Let's see here...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| techiem2 Nov 24, 2009 2:14 PM EDT |
Big news corps remove themselves from Google and make deals with MS to make sure they are high in search results.
People continue using Google to search for news.
People end up going to more independent news sources and sites that link to the big new corps.
Independent news sources and other site flourish.
Big news corps lose hits due to people finding independent sources or not clicking through to original article from other sites.
People become (more) suspicious of Bing because of the altering of search results due to payments.
MS continues trying to figure out why people don't like Bing as much as Google.
Big news corps continue to whine about everyone "stealing" (i.e. using the fair use laws) their content and about people linking to them ("Oh noes they're giving us more hits!" - I still don't get this one...). so.. MS probably loses (less trust in Bing, possibly less users) Big news corps lose (less hits) Google sits in their office laughing at both of them and continues to roll in dough. Consumers either aren't affected at all, or maybe even become more informed by reading news from a more diverse set of sources. Of course, I'm completely ignoring the whole issue of the big news corps wanting everyone to pay for the news... |
| bigg Nov 24, 2009 2:45 PM EDT |
> Google sits in their office laughing at both of them and continues to roll in dough. This is the equivalent of paying one person not to buy a classified ad in the local newspaper. |
| Ridcully Nov 24, 2009 6:50 PM EDT |
I pretty much agree with your hypothesis techiem2, but I'd add a couple more snippets to the info list. 1. Murdoch is now showing that in his approach to problems in 2010, he remains locked onto a sales and marketing vision that worked in the 1970's and 80's, but became progressively inappropriate as the internet grew into its current form. He appears to be trying to force an outdated model onto a modern structure; an action which strongly, in my opinion, resembles what happened with music and the music distributors/companies. It took some time but public opinion, the power of their wallets, and their sheer defiance of DRM restrictions that they considered unfair or unworkable, finally forced a new marketing situation. Similarly, Murdoch is taking the first move: fight the new situation by using all available power. But, I think if he continues this war, he will eventually do more damage to his empire than he can imagine; he might care to take advice from the music companies and re-draft his marketing concepts to a more modern approach. 2. The suggestion that he makes his sites available to "pay-only" users would have only one effect on me: remove them from my browser bookmarks. I purchase a very good daily newspaper which happens to be part of the Murdoch press but I look on the internet news sites as breaking news precis items, not "filling the articles out completely". 3. Microsoft and Murdoch ? I think I hear the rumbles of the Jurassic period, but I could be wrong. Whatever, this is pure mischief making aimed at Google where Microsoft is concerned but the desire of a billionaire to get more money, in my perception, where Murdoch is concerned. It's very early days. It may come to nothing, but ultimately, it is the users of the internet who will decide whether Microsoft and Murdoch are allowed to dictate the terms on which the internet operates. From where I stand, my concept is that internet users demand absolute freedom to come, go, look, use and choose. I think both Microsoft and Murdoch would be well advised to consider that freedom and its conditions. 4. And finally, I'd imagine Murdoch's reporters all enjoy the fact that the internet does give them the freedoms I have noted in 3 above so that one aspect contributing to present success of Murdoch's papers is the internet's ability to collate and transmit data to Murdoch's newspaper HQ's......looked at this way, Murdoch's actions actually seem to be the case of a person cutting off his nose to spite his face.....don't they ? |
| hkwint Nov 24, 2009 7:14 PM EDT |
Mark: That's what I thought at first too, but there's more to it.Quoting:or maybe even become more informed by reading news from a more diverse set of sources. Don't agree, and here's why: When using Google to read / search for 'news', all you get is 100 of the same stories. There's only 1 source, and lots of times that source was created 'outside the internet'. When you're out of luck, maybe those 100 stories are all based on some Twitter 'message' (is that called a twit?) Same with the newspapers in this country nowadays: In the 'free' and cheap ones you read exactly the same message, word for word. Normally, these are copies of the very same press release, unedited, not checked, not filtered for 'spam' / shameless business advertisements. Not seen by some critical eye. Or, otherwise: "Just news. No questions asked". As somebody in my 'local' forum said: News is free. Journalism isn't. So if paid news dies, so does journalism. With a bit of bad luck, pluralism also dies, except for Twitter-pluralism meaning 1million people with 1million different opinions. Because probably finally blogs will be just a resonator, those 1million opinions might converge to six useful opinions, called 'pillarization' in my country. But with a bit of bad luck, those 1million opinions will converge to only 1 opinion - a 'one fits all' opinion, and if it doesn't fit you, you're out. Theoretically, it could be possible you would be 'more informed', in an Utopian world given more resources. What I suspect (and what is happening right now!) is that when your neighbour 'blogs' an UFO landed on his Twitter account, in the future all those 'different news sources' will carry the item without doing any research or journalism, and Google will label it as news. But I am only one, and not all people care about journalism. Too be honest, I don't pay for journalism when it comes to newspapers either; I rather spend the money elsewhere. From what I understood about pluralistic journalism it's worse in the US than over here, but it's degrading quickly here too. There's some hugely popular blog over here, which has populism-ridden stories and I'm pretty sure the writers don't take it serious themselves. Problem is, lots of readers on the other hand do, and they think "This is the thruth". Even when a quick Google-search shows the blog is wrong, or only resonates some 'business paid' report, presenting it as 'facts'. Pretty much the same as Get The Facts. So when Mircosoft twitters about "Get the facts" immense flocks of people could not distinguish this from 'news'. Anyway, probably most people don't give a %^*(&^ about journalism and just want free content, and you're right, the old pluralistic news imperia wil die. But I don't think society gains from it. I'd have to the above would only be true for 'background articles' / editorials / arguments / considerations (sadly I don't know the English words for what I'm trying to describe, but basically some article where the journalist did research and also researched / contemplated different pro / con statements). When it comes to breaking news, internet surely outpaces 'old media' by lightyears. But not when it comes to well considered articles. |
| montezuma Nov 24, 2009 10:09 PM EDT |
Hans, There is a model in the US that gives hope for the bleak situation you are painting. Many PBS stations have been forced to raise money from the public for many years after the Federal government here withdrew subsidies. Quite a few have survived basically in my opinion because people are willing to pay for quality in journalism. A local example here in New York which has prospered under this model is WNYC which has some of the highest quality programs I have heard anywhere in the world. I pay them $10 a month and am very happy with my investment. Check them out on the web sometime: http://www.wnyc.org/ This of course doesn't answer who provides foreign correspondents and investigative journalism. In the first case I think that government funded independent organizations like the BBC have a major role. In the second case I think this will only occur in the future through quality magazines like the New Yorker or Atlantic Monthly. |
| jdixon Nov 24, 2009 11:12 PM EDT |
> Anyway, probably most people don't give a %^*(&^ about journalism.... Some people used to, back when being a journalist didn't mean you were a paid shill or a party mouthpiece. Now that it's obvious that's what it means, no so much so. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 25, 2009 4:01 AM EDT |
Quoting:This of course doesn't answer who provides foreign correspondents and investigative journalism. I think that decoupling journalism and publishing may work here. A bit like how AP works. Independant journalists or associations of journalists write the stories and sell/license them to publishers. Publishers aggregate, combine and filter news from various sources (journalists, the community, press releases) into an easily digestible format. |
| hkwint Nov 25, 2009 5:16 AM EDT |
Montezuma: Thanks, that's interesting. Note here in the Netherlands, the "PBS" is made up of several independent associations. You may pay twice for "our" PBS: Once via the "normal" taxes (this goes to all associations), and you can voluntarily become a member of one or more associations. The more members an association has, the more time they will receive to broadcast their programs. A weird and bureaucratic system, because there's even more to it than just mentioned. But it's interesting to see this brings a bit of democracy to TV: The more people like a broadcasting association, the more money they earn and the the programs they are able to make. While thinking about it, I think it might also be a good idea to "decouple" news and opinions / background stories. Maybe a 'newspaper' without news but just opinion, discussions, backgrounds and explanations of the news would be interesting. Because at the time it arrives in the paper or the net edition of the paper, it's probably not news anymore. |
| number6x Nov 25, 2009 10:54 AM EDT |
What, if anything, does this have to do with Mark Cuban's suggestion last week that Microsoft simply pay web sites $1 Million each to not be indexed by Google? http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/03/14/mark-cuban-google-ma... Was Millionaire Cuban prescient, or did he let some insider info slip on his blog? |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 25, 2009 11:19 AM EDT |
#6, Don't let the insider info worry you. Cuban got off carrying off the loot knowing the stock was about to tank without consequences to him. Inside information, what inside information? It's all a myth to sully the reputation of our astute billionaires. YBT |
| jsusanka Nov 25, 2009 11:53 AM EDT |
I hates those internets tubes. now i can't get my news from fox and friends on the internets tubes. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 25, 2009 12:15 PM EDT |
jsusanka, Fear NOT. You can get your Murdoch fix by simply changing the tubes you plug into. Just loosen the sewer pipe's valve a bit and the News Corp will flow in all its glory. YBT P.S. It's a restricted entry access, so if you are not an authorized plumber you could find yourself in a messy clog. But if you can resist the smell all the News is there. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!