Back in February, in our piece What’s New with Newspapers Online? we discussed the decline of the newspaper industry and explored some of the ways that traditional print media outlets such as the New York Times have been trying to stay afloat in the search-driven era of Web 2.0. When it has become so easy to just “Google” what you’re looking for and be met with hundreds if not thousands of news results, it’s no wonder that newspaper execs are salty.

Les Hinton, Dow Jones Chief Executive and publisher of the Wallstreet Journal, had less than flattering things to say about Google during a recent keynote speech:

“There is a charitable view of the history of Google. [It] didn’t actually begin life in a cave as a digital vampire per se. The charitable view of Google is that the news business itself fed Google’s taste for this kind of blood. [Free web content] gave Google’s fangs a great place to bite. We will never know what might have happened had newspapers taken a different approach.”

The Backlash

Not surprisingly, Hinton’s “digital vampire” remark fueled instant online debate, particularly between bloggers and so-called real journalists. And it quickly became clear that a very big rift exits between the forward lookers who feel newspapers are a thing of the past and the staunch newspaper supporters (as well as stockholders) who are still waiting, in vain, for this whole Internet fad to be over with. Many of the heated arguments were ugly, and very revealing of the generation gap that seems to exist between old and new media. Some took a more humorous approach, comparing the argument to “save” newspapers as something akin to saving obsolete rotary telephones.

But is Google really the enemy, or does its status as the world’s best search engine—with a 72.11% market share in the United States alone—make the search giant a convenient scapegoat? After all, Google’s mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” By most accounts (and to the detriment of newspapers), Google’s mission is already accomplished. They’ve figured out a way to scour the bottomless pit that is the Internet and deliver answers to your questions in a matter of miliseconds. More than just answers, Google delivers choices. You can click, or not.

Newspapers Need Search Engines

Once upon a time, newspapers were the most convenient way for people to get the news. But times they are a changin’. The truth is, newspapers need search engines like Google. And in return Google needs content. How useful would Google News be if there were no articles to read? Likewise, what good is a newspaper article that nobody can find? It seems too convenient for newspapers to blame Google—who has the deepest pockets—for their troubles when in reality it’s the entirety of new and emerging media that’s changing the game for news. Where are the fingers pointed at Craigslist for dominating the classifieds market, or at Twitter for breaking news first at its source? These sites, as well as the thousands of blogs, job directories, and discussion boards, would exist whether Google does or not.

Before Google, and even now, there are plenty of ways for people to get the news online. The difference is we now have more choices, and most importantly, more convenience. Failing newspapers should be asking themselves: what can we do to keep up?

Comments(0)

»

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website