Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Brazilian Newspapers Leave Google News En Masse

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the taking-their-toys-and-going-home dept.

Google 223

Dupple writes "In light of the recent story regarding Google threatening a French media ban after France proposed that search engines should pay for content, it seems a similar thing is happening in Brazil, with numerous papers leaving Google News. The controversy fueled one of the most intense debates during the Inter American Press Association's 68th General Assembly, which took place from Oct. 12 to 16 in São Paulo. On one side of the debate were defenders of news companies' authoring rights, like German attorney Felix Stang, who said, 'platforms like Google's compete directly with newspapers and magazines because they work like home pages and use content from them.' On the other, Google representatives said their platform provides a way to make journalistic content available to more people. According to Marcel Leonardi, the company's public policies director, Google News channels a billion clicks to news sites around the world."

cancel ×

223 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Let them (4, Insightful)

jeffy210 (214759) | about 2 years ago | (#41707845)

They'll see what happens when their visits drop. People can't be expected to remember every paper that there is and go to each individual site when attempting to find a specific story. This will only be to the papers' detriment.

Re:Let them (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#41707869)

Why don't they just put headlines and first paragraphs on one page and set robots.txt to allow search engines to index it, then put the full articles on a different page with indexing not allowed. Google's crawler would get the headline and synopsis and the papers would get advertising from everyone who was interested enough to read more than a few sentences.

Re:Let them (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41707931)

Why don't they just put headlines and first paragraphs on one page and set robots.txt to allow search engines to index it, then put the full articles on a different page with indexing not allowed. Google's crawler would get the headline and synopsis and the papers would get advertising from everyone who was interested enough to read more than a few sentences.

That's basically what Google does already: just puts headlines and 1-2 sentences from the start, with a link to TFA. The newspapers don't even want that much.

Re:Let them (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707955)

Because putting in the effort to find a technical solution is a lot harder than complaining to your politicians.

Re:Let them (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707989)

Why don't they just put headlines and first paragraphs on one page....

Have you actually *been* to news.google.com ??? Didn't think so.

Google News is nothing more than an aggregator for news sites. They provide headline and first sentence and a link to the actual news site.

What the news sites are bitching about is people go to google to look at what is happening instead of their main pages. News sites provide the food but they don't make the menu anymore and that is the problem.

Re:Let them (4, Insightful)

matrim99 (123693) | about 2 years ago | (#41708705)

The "problem" is shifting useage patterns. The solution is to shift the business model accordingly. Blaming Google on user's constantly changing behavior is easier than adjusting a business model.

Re:Let them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708297)

This, unfortunately, wouldn't solve their real problem. The way that news sites used to maintain profitability was through extended browsing of the site. A reader would go to the front page, browse through articles, and stay on the site for some time. With aggregate sites(the most notable being Google, so I'll continue to reference them, but other popular aggregators would have the same effects), readers are much more frequently finding a link to one article, reading it on the content creator's site, and then immediately leaving to find another article with Google. This gives extended views and additional add impressions to Google, but not to the actual content site.

I'm not saying that fault is with Google, or that indexing should require compulsory payments, just putting forward the idea that the problem is more complicated then frequently thought. Aggregate sites do drive viewers to articles, but it may be that they are driving them in a way that is not profitable for the news sites themselves. This could be a problem for us, the consumers, if the content creators have to pare down their reporting staff, do less research, and/or provide less depth in order to cut costs and stay in business.

Re:Let them (2, Insightful)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about 2 years ago | (#41708599)

This could be a problem for us, the consumers, if the content creators have to ... do less research, and/or provide less depth

If we are talking about mainstream media, I doubt that is possible. So we are safe.

Re:Let them (5, Interesting)

dsvick (987919) | about 2 years ago | (#41708689)

Aggregate sites do drive viewers to articles, but it may be that they are driving them in a way that is not profitable for the news sites themselves.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, there is no difference between one person staying on the site and viewing 10 pages vs 10 separate people viewing a single page each. I'd even be willing to bet that the news sites get more out of it than google does. When I go to google news I usually hit the page one time, scroll through it and click on whatever articles interest me. Those sites all open in another tab/window, the google news page doesn't change or refresh so I'm only giving them a single hit, while the news sites are all getting one. I don't see the inequity.

I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of news articles are pretty much the same across news sites anyway and I really don't care (too much) where I'm reading it from, so I don't go out of my way to remember any specific ones. If they are at the top of the pile on google, well then, they're the one that gets clicked. and if they aren't listed, they'll never get my click. If it weren't for google I wouldn't even know they existed, I'd end up at some small number news sites that I could remember and found reasonably unbiased, odds are it would be one of the big name sites, or more than one just to add a little balance. While that is great for the foxnews and cnns of the world, it is not so good for eastNowhereActionnews. But, hey, if they want to go it without google, more power to them, there are probably a couple of dozen people there that know their url and will visit it.

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707905)

Too many people just hit their favorite news site (uol.com.br, yahoo.com.br, g1.com.br, globo.com, etc) and keep refreshing it.

There is a huge fight for users between them, even with TV ads and everything.

Re:Let them (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41708071)

Those people will keep doing what they did before and whatever happens in Google news is of little difference for them. On the other hand the people who used Google News and which are the target of this maneuver won't likely abandon Google News for the other news sites, as they think it will happen.

Re:Let them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708363)

"They'll see what happens when their visits drop"

I was arguing that it won't drop by that much. The average user in Brazil doesn't even know Google News exist.

Re:Let them (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41708751)

Then there is absolutely no motive for the News agencies to boycott it, it being so insignificant and all.

Re:Let them (5, Insightful)

verbatim (18390) | about 2 years ago | (#41707915)

Yep. Google doesn't show the entire article, they show enough content to drive viewers to the article. It's up to the individual sites to retain those visitors, not Google.

Newspapers should be paying Google for the service of indexing and driving customers to them.

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707921)

Seriously. Google should just shut Google News down for a day and let the newspapers see just how fucked they'll be.

Re:Let them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708047)

Seriously. Google should just shut Google News down for a day and let the newspapers see just how fucked they'll be.

Seriously. If Google shut News own for a day, how much revenue would Google loose? They'd never do it, they need people clicking on placed ads. The papers never see any of that money. Google provides the News service for Google.

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708219)

The papers never see any of that money. Google provides the News service for Google.

Perhaps, but all of the traffic that Google funnels their way does provide the papers with income. This sounds like the papers are shooting themselves in the foot.

They'd lose no revenue. No ads on google news. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708263)

Or have you never been on there?

NO ADVERTS.

Google *Search* has adverts. Google *News* doesn't.

So shutting down Google News will not lose ANY clicking on placed ads.

Idiot.

Re:They'd lose no revenue. No ads on google news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708365)

Google *Search* has adverts. Google *News* doesn't.

Dude's right. Unless you count the Editor's Picks as advertising, which it could be.

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708443)

Seriously. If Google shut News own for a day, how much revenue would Google loose? They'd never do it, they need people clicking on placed ads.

Google News has no ads, since it's a service that basically gets content from other sources, they can't profit from it with ads. No idea how they make money there.

Re:Let them (2, Insightful)

chipschap (1444407) | about 2 years ago | (#41708491)

No kidding. And newspapers wonder why they have declining fortunes. Then they fall back on the old answer: let's legislate / litigate a solution instead of tackling the real problem.

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708559)

Why do you assume news sites would be fucked if Google news shut down? Do you really think people can't remember CNN.com, bbc.com, foxnews.com, aljazeera.com, bostonglobe.com, wallstreetjournal.com, washingtonpost.com, etc?

It's pretty damned easy to remember the name of your local paper, and the name of a couple popular national (or even international) agencies as well. People don't need Google to find the news - Google would be more fucked than the news sites.

Re:Let them (1, Insightful)

radiumsoup (741987) | about 2 years ago | (#41707937)

Well, we certainly don't want fewer sources of opinion, so having them disappear entirely would not necessarily better for everyone... I think their effort is a good way to kick Google in the balls and encourage them to start paying the folks who make them legitimate in the first place.

After all, if it weren't for the news outlets, Google would have nothing to link to (as far as news, anyway)

Re:Let them (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708091)

They should start paying website owners and creators too. If we didn't make websites, they would have nothing to link in their main search either. It is not like there is some mutual relationship that benefits both otherwise...

Re:Let them (3, Interesting)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 2 years ago | (#41708675)

Google should pay the newspapers for the content, and the newspapers should pay Google for indexing and pointing people to the content. And the cost for both should be equal.
Ohh, that's how it is right now? ok
If they want to shoot themselves in the foot let them. They'll come crawling back.

Re:Let them (3, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about 2 years ago | (#41708677)

They should start paying website owners and creators too. If we didn't make websites, they would have nothing to link in their main search either.

There are basically two types of websites: Free and paywalled.

If your website is free, you're publishing it for people to read without any expectation of payment (except perhaps from ads run on your site). Why should Google have to pay you for viewing your site when nobody else does?

If you website is paywalled, then Google can't index it, so it's not going to show up in their search results and you have nothing to complain about.

And if you're one of those people with a free website but still don't want Google to index it, then just drop a robots.txt file in it.

It is not like there is some mutual relationship that benefits both otherwise...

There is a mutual relationship that benefits both. It's just that the "both" aren't the people you think it is. Google's relationship is with the person searching the web. The person gets the benefit of finding stuff on the web more easily, and Google gets the benefit of advertising dollars. Once Google delivers the viewer to your site, what you do with him and how you monetize it is entire up to you. Google has no relationship with the content provider beyond what a regular viewer has (they read the content).

Re:Let them (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41708155)

no Google should not pay. Google just show a headline and the first bit. The reader then clicks and goes to the website.
Google is driving people to the site. If I had a business that could double your reader, you would gladly pay me.

Google does it for free.

Re:Let them (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#41708761)

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the situation through omission of key facts, aka lie of omission. Google's core operating principle is to define each person and his/her interests and then serve ads based on these interests.

The amount of information they get from knowing what news each person follows and in what way is enormously valuable to google.

Re:Let them (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708243)

we certainly don't want fewer sources of opinion

I do. They can shove their opinions, just give me the facts and I'll make up my own opinions.

Re:Let them (3, Interesting)

luncheon (1121123) | about 2 years ago | (#41708655)

This. The IAPA is just a CIA-funded lobby organization formed by all the Latin American right wing print media owners (that 1300 newspaper thing on the Wikipedia article is misleading, since it represents just a couple of monopolic media groups per country). They are the Fox News of Latin America, operating from the US. I think that their biggest fear apart from the supposed traffic (and revenue) loss is the archival capacity of Google, since with an external site linking to their news content it's harder for them to control the way they show the news (and the possibility of modifying archive media).

Re:Let them (3, Informative)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41708337)

They should pay Google on a per-click-through basis for the advertising, surely? After all, Google just provides a thumbnail, a headline and the first sentence.

So.... (2)

gosand (234100) | about 2 years ago | (#41708347)

I suppose Slashdot should pay someone for bringing us this story then?

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708349)

Are you serious? Searching for news content is less than 5% of google's bandwidth usage. They make more money off of ads for penis enlargement than they do off redirecting people to news articles. The newspapers need google infinitesimally more than google needs them.

Re:Let them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708465)

Do you search for news? I don't. I end up on news sites because I search a topic and they have relevant information. I find it on Google. If not for Google most News sites, except a few local ones, would never be visited by me. The news organizations should PAY Google for the advertising.

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708547)

You talk like google is a monopoly that we HAVE to deal with.

Guess what. They're not. People use google because they WANT to.

People like to use google services. Theres billions of them. And in todays media that mass of users is worth a ton.
These companies should be PAYING search engines to index them. Just for the chance at getting some of those users to visit their crap little local news sites once and maybe comming back someday.

Personally if i were in charge of google. I'd instantly and completely delist any company that whined like this. They all need google far more than google needs them. They just don't seem to have a big enough clue to know it.
"oh well without those sites google wont have anything to index!" bullshit! there have always been plenty of sites who are NOT interested in the money and ad revenue. And always have been.

If all these greedy control freak sites don't want to be listed. FINE. Get rid of them. Most of the world will not fucking notice or care! In fact we might get a little bit better signal to noise ratio on the net if some of the greedy fucks who are on the net only for money..... were gone.

Delist them. Forget them. And don't let them back in without a large payment.

Re:Let them watch television. (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 2 years ago | (#41707953)

I use the favorites button on my browser, so I don't have to remember anything. If I want to be bold, I can open up the home pages of all my news sites at once.
An outlier like myself means nothing to these corporations, OTOH, and hardly anybody seems willfully informed by the web anyway.

Re:Let them watch television. (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 2 years ago | (#41708403)

And how did you initially find all these favorite news sites?

My bet would be something like what happened with me. I click on stories from a few news sites through news.google.com and find myself returning to these sites enough that I eventually just bookmark them.

Re:Let them (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41708001)

They'll see what happens when their visits drop. People can't be expected to remember every paper that there is and go to each individual site when attempting to find a specific story. This will only be to the papers' detriment.

I suspect that, just as everyone is above average and thinks that their children are atypically cute, all the newspapers harbor the dream that they will beat the odds and get to be a 'Portal' for all those precious consumer eyeballs, just like Yahoo or AOL sometime before the turn of the millennium, rather than bleeding subscribers or contributing a sentence or two of scrapings to people's search results...

Re:Let them (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 2 years ago | (#41708005)

It's funny they don't see search engines as a form of advertising.

Or maybe they are clever and thinking "Hey! Let's have our advertisers pay us!"

Honestly, let the papers do this. Those who don't will get more business and those that do can fuck off out of business, which seems win-win to me.

That's not the reason to let them. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708075)

That's not the reason to let them. If they block Google, then that is their right. At least they're not demanding Google pay to link.

Block Google, enter a robots.txt, make ignoring robots.txt a copyright offence, whatever.

They're entitled to do so.

They're not entitled to rework the entire internet because they don't like how it operates.

Re:Let them (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41708141)

To me, the whole thing to me sounds really arrogant. "Our paper is so popular that we don't need Google!" Yeah, famous last words. If you're not on Google these days, you had may as well be invisible.

Re:Let them (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 2 years ago | (#41708307)

Particularly when you boil the situation down to the most basic premise - people are still visiting their site. They're literally made at Google for making it too easy for people to find what they actually WANT from that site. They want the users to have to wade through their own poor interface for a given amount of time - seeing their ads - before they finally find the content.

Forcing your customers into a more difficult path for your own benefit with no incentive to them will not work well. Never has, never will.

Re:Let them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708699)

Humorously Google's news interface sucks. Yahoo!'s older version was good. I don't read Yahoo! news now though since they've been bought and paid for by Microsoft and since removed the Linux section-or at least reduced its presense. That pissed me off. I wasn't using Yahoo! for search already since they moved to Bing. And I got rid of my Yahoo! email 10 years ago. Yahoo! pretty much sucks at everything these days.

Re:Let them (2)

pmontra (738736) | about 2 years ago | (#41708261)

Actually I think that big newspapers with recognized brands will get more page hits because they'll be the hubs people go to read news. Small news sites will suffer. On my country's google news page there are articles of sites I never heard about and I'll never remember if they get out of google news. But they are linked there and I click them as often as big news sites.

Re:Let them (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41708355)

If the small sites stay on Google they will actually do better than before.

Re:Let them (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 2 years ago | (#41708269)

Indeed. To a large degree I don't even CARE what site news comes from. I'm just looking for some general info. Google News lets me find that via a search and that's all that matters. No matter how many leave, there will likely always be enough to provide what I need. That's part of the problem with news agencies anyways - aside from very local news they're all repeating the same information. There's WAY too much redundancy there to maintain in this day and age.

Re:Let them (2)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#41708649)

They'll see what happens when their visits drop.

That actually won't happen. None of the sites mentioned are actually blocking Google from indexing their sites. They may have stopped providing nicely formatted headlines to Google News, but they haven't dared blocking Google to those same articles with a robots.txt through their online sites (which essentially contains the same newspaper content, plus some extra blog content which does not normally appear in the official version of their newspapers).

Essentially, they're hoping to lead a Worldwide revolt, hoping that others will jump into the fray and finish the suicidal charge they've just started, but they themselves are keeping their options opened and their page rank mostly intact, just in case the revolt doesn't work out.

Brazil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707851)

Brazillians are a bunch of stinky mayates anyway. Nothing of value is lost.

Re:Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708461)

Brazillians are a bunch of stinky mayates anyway.

"Mayate [wikipedia.org] is a small town and rural commune in El Kelâat Es-Sraghna Province of the Marrakesh-Tensift-El Haouz region of Morocco."

What does this have to do with the price of eggs?!

My god! (5, Funny)

grnbrg (140964) | about 2 years ago | (#41707859)

How many is a brazilian?!

Re:My god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707985)

And is it bigger or smaller than a Google?

Re:My god! (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | about 2 years ago | (#41708069)

My understanding is that it's only about a Library of Congress in size.

Re:My god! (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41708129)

Think of it as a multiple of Library of Congress stuffed with Kim Kardashian's butt cheeks . . .

Re:My god! (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 2 years ago | (#41708139)

It's a triangular shaped topiary.

Re:My god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708179)

One metric assload.

Re:My god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708333)

A Brazilian is actually a category of a numbers and not a specific value. An integer is a Brazilian if it is the sum of the integers on any given row of Pascal's Triangle.

Re:My god! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708395)

its full of stars.

News Corp already tried this and failed. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707941)

Rupert Murdoch blasted Google in the past for featuring his news sites and had them removed. Yet recently, he reversed his decision: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9566353/Rupert-Murdoch-backs-down-in-war-with-parasite-Google.html

there's an available solution (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707959)

Robots.txt. You can prohibit google or any reputable search engine from indexing your content.

The POINT of the HTTP protocol is to serve data, but if you don't wanna, it's your machine that gives the data over. It doesn't have to do that. You have full control over that via several different means, from robots.txt to a paywall. There are blacklists and whitelists - what gets given out is under the control of the serving system. It seems a bit insane to voluntarily reply to a request for data, and then get mad that the other side saw the data. If you don't want them to see it, don't offer it up via a protocol whose entire purpose is to transfer data from a server to a requesting machine.

The internet could never have grown as it did if in the beginning everyone was going to subvert the intent of the technical aspects of it.

Re:there's an available solution (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41708151)

Ah, but Robots.txt doesn't allow you to have it both ways.

For, um, totally reasonable reasons that I don't feel obliged to articulate right now, I deserve both the exposure of being listed by Google and payment from Google for listing me!

Sure, I could tell my server nerd to make the changes necessary to stop my content from being 'stolen' in about 30 seconds; but that would deny me the exposure that is my natural right...

Re:there's an available solution (0)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41708545)

Robots.txt. You can prohibit google or any reputable search engine from indexing your content.

I presume that's an exclusive "or".

No wonder they lost, twice. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41707963)

German attorney Felix Stang, who said, 'platforms like Google's compete directly with newspapers and magazines because they work like home pages and use content from them.

Stupid Nazi faggot. By the same logic, tourist information kiosks steal content from museums.

Just a billion? (1)

blakecraw (1235302) | about 2 years ago | (#41707973)

According to Marcel Leonardi, the company's public policies director, Google News channels a billion clicks to news sites around the world.

Let me know when you can channel a brazillion clicks to news sites, then we'll talk.

It is a curious problem (1, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#41707991)

Google is clearly in the right - it would break the internet if you couldn't link to articles on another site. That being said, the newspapers are correct in that they are losing traffic to their homepage - people are less likely than ever to bother checking cnn.com vs going directly to google news. What the newspapers fail to see is:
1. They gain far more traffic to article pages than they lose from their homepage.
2. Their homepages are not as inviting as google's - learn from that. Figure out why. Is it just choice, or is there more to it?
3. If they succeed, then sites that currently link to articles and drive traffic - not just google - would delist them. All that traffic coming from reddit, buzzfeed, blogspot, wordpress, facebook, twitter, etc - GONE.

The only way to see the newspaper's side is if you imagine someone make a faux cnn homepage - listing only cnn articles and putting up advertising. That would seem fishy, wouldn't it? But to make that side count - to give it the same weight as google's, you'd need to discount that google is a search engine, displays multiple pages, and gives far more than it takes. You'd need to ignore that enforcement only becomes possible if you end up hurting more than just google - and the impact that would have on the web would be devastating.

Re:It is a curious problem (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41708195)

"people are less likely than ever to bother checking cnn.com vs going directly to google news. "
false. Google news doesn't give you the whole story only a headline and a sentence or two.

Have you ever been to google news?
https://news.google.com/ [google.com]

"The only way to see the newspaper's side is if you imagine someone make a faux cnn homepage - listing only cnn articles and putting up advertising. That would seem fishy, wouldn't it?"
yes, but that's not happening here, so it isn't relevant.

Re:It is a curious problem (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#41708475)

I should clarify, when I say checking cnn.com, I don't mean the article pages. I mean their homepage. "people are less likely than ever to bother checking the cnn.com homepage vs going directly to google news.". I had thought that was clear from the context, but it never hurts to spell things out.

"The only way to see the newspaper's side is if you imagine someone make a faux cnn homepage - listing only cnn articles and putting up advertising. That would seem fishy, wouldn't it?" yes, but that's not happening here, so it isn't relevant.

Hahaha, sure it is. I'm pointing out a possible fear the newspapers have, and the one situation in which you could see their side of the story. I then proceed to explain why EVEN THAT scenario ends up being on google's side anyway.

I think you just missed my arguments.

Re:It is a curious problem (1)

nwf (25607) | about 2 years ago | (#41708717)

2. Their homepages are not as inviting as google's - learn from that. Figure out why. Is it just choice, or is there more to it?

This is the big one. I like to read news online, though I'm in the US. Every so-called new site I've looked, except Google News, is basically worthless. ABC News, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, newspapers, etc. are useless to me. I wan to see, at a glance, a decent number of stories covering a rather broad set of topics. Most sites show you like 10 headlines and tons of other crap. I can't even figure out how to get real news on these sites. Interestingly, most of these sites' mobile versions are far more informative, so I usually end up reading them on my iPhone. So for me, if your paper is on Google News and you aren't one of the 3 I read on my phone, I'll never see your articles and I don't even care.

And this is what'll happen (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about 2 years ago | (#41708023)

1. New media sites that were born and bred online will fill in most of the gap.

2. Bloggers who quote the MSM will fill in the rest and be the main venue by which these papers even get back into Google in some capacity.

Let me see if I've got this right... (3, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 years ago | (#41708035)

The newspapers believe that they have a right to force me to pay for telling someone else that their paper carries a story and what page it's on? I... can't think of a single bit of law supporting that position, anywhere. They certainly have the right to keep me from photocopying their story and handing it out to people, but "the right to be the only entity who can tell others the work exists" isn't something I find anywhere in copyright law.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708191)

Are you PRO-corporation or against profits? If you're against profits, you will be dealt with, Indian style.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41708455)

Those who want less profits are those who are seeking less profits. They don't quite know that what they want is less profits, but that will be the result of the actions they want to take.

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708719)

Stupid old person.

It's all Gangham style now!

Re:Let me see if I've got this right... (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#41708541)

They are very well aware that you are able to get your news elsewhere. They just want money if they are the source.

And even if it isn't a law now, it could be in the future. For better or for worse.

Some things that were allowed in the past are not now (e.g. Soft drugs/Slavery)
Some things that were forbidden in the past are allowed now (Find your own examples)

Just because something is allowed/forbidden now does not mean it should always be that way.

Maybe this is what we need (2)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#41708037)

Maybe this will prompt someone to come up with a better way to collect and distribute the news to people without charge. We should not need to pay to find out what is going on in the world around us.

Re:Maybe this is what we need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708065)

"We should not need to pay to find out what is going on in the world around us." Read it again, wait 5sec and see if you still agree.

Re:Maybe this is what we need (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41708535)

I agree, information should be freely accessible.

We may disagree though on how that should be accomplished.

Re:Maybe this is what we need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708783)

Kind of reminds me of the WinXP days when people would say Windows was cheaper, and others would respond with Only if your time is worthless.

Re:Maybe this is what we need (1)

Chemisor (97276) | about 2 years ago | (#41708587)

The usual way to do so is called "gossip".

Re:Maybe this is what we need (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#41708669)

Really? Because the REAL journalists, not retarded bloggers, don't need to eat and have a home?

Paying one way or another for services rendered is standard and entirely acceptable. Stop being such a fucking leech.

There are biased news everywhere, anyhow (2)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 2 years ago | (#41708049)

look at this article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57535804/confrontation-may-loom-in-waters-off-israel/ [cbsnews.com]

and check how many American news sites report on it via Google:
http://www.google.com/news?q=Ship+to+Gaza+Estelle&lr=English&hl=en [google.com]

Very very few. So, maybe the Brazilian news sites have something to hide? Filtered news is this news?

It's not a bad system IMO (2)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about 2 years ago | (#41708085)

Google provides FREE news search feature to consumers, funds and profits from it via ads on search page.
Newspaper gets worldwide exposure which drives (increases) existing ad revenue/views

News companies should be elated about this service, they are basically getting exposure and increased revenue from google's search product without having to pay Google a dime.

Re:It's not a bad system IMO (1, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41708173)

I disagree.

It seems odd to me that the bulk of the money in the NEWS business would go to news aggregators, as opposed to those who are reporting the news in the first place. I think we would get higher quality news, including more exposes, etc. if we could figure out how to fix this oddity.

Re:It's not a bad system IMO (1)

glop (181086) | about 2 years ago | (#41708319)

What makes you think the bulk of the money is going to aggregators?
The only money the aggregator makes is the one from people who click on the ads on the aggregation page.
If the aggregated stories are interesting you expect people will click on the stories instead of the ads (after all it's not an Ad aggregation page...).
And then they are on the newspaper's website and if they click on ads there the aggregator doesn't make a dime.
So basically the only way the aggregator makes the bulk of the money is if the articles are shallow and uninteresting.

Note that there was a very enlightening discussion on what makes people click through on TheRegister's podcast years ago.
And basically the guy explained you get more clicks if you tell a bogus Apple or Google story than with an interesting piece with actual content.

So I would say that we get the news we deserve by clicking or not clicking and aggregators are not really the issue.

Re:It's not a bad system IMO (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41708477)

I go to googles news page, I see a story headline, I click the little arrow to find who all is reporting the story, and I then follow links directly to the news sites story.

How is this not saving the news companies money?

Re:It's not a bad system IMO (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708483)

Stop funding it thru advertising.

Re:It's not a bad system IMO (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 years ago | (#41708679)

The news aggregators in general have provided us with higher quality news where the newspapers themselves have failed. Aggregators take into account who is clicking what to weight what they have. The end result is that in general the move viewed articles get top billing.

hey google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708087)

we hackers will post on our website all the news ....you can make ads and send traffic and maybe if you let me have some ad money fo rmy traffic ill put one add somewhere for advertisers...the way it should be.

to these other corproate shills get ready your relevance just evaporated.

Google Earnings (0)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41708199)

I wonder if all this news silliness is starting to affect their bottom line.

Personally, I gave up on Google News, given that any story even remotely connected to US politics always has an incendiary, right-leaning headline from Fox 'news', Newsmax, Drudge, or other GOP propagandists. I doubt Google is conspiring, but if they can't be bothered to guard their algorithms from obvious manipulation, eff em.

Re:Google Earnings (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41708411)

Maybe Google figured out that for you it makes you more likely to click through if they show you right wing headlines?

co3k (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708209)

member. GNNA (gAY Itself backwards,

what's really being asked for (1)

kipsate (314423) | about 2 years ago | (#41708241)

Since any site has the ability to prevent to be indexed by means of a simple robots.txt, the request to ban Google from indexing news sites changes its meaning. The news sites are not asking: "please stop indexing our site" but: "please stop indexing the sites of our competitors" by outlawing it.

robots.txt (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#41708283)

If you don't like it then stop whining and pull yourselves from google. You have the power don't pretend you don't or don't know that you do.

What is the point of whining when a few lines added to a single text file will solve *all* of your problems?

Re:robots.txt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708623)

Business owners don't know how to configure web servers, and don't know these things exist. Plebs that know this stuff aren't in communication with executives.

Re:robots.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708709)

Simple. Whining might get some politicians to give them handouts at the expense of a large, profitable business, thus allowing their broken business model to keep limping along for a while. Adding a few lines to a single text file won't.

wax my newspaper ?!? (1)

bigpickle (2647701) | about 2 years ago | (#41708289)

I don't think so

Opt-in (1)

goldieswx (869251) | about 2 years ago | (#41708401)

Should google news become opt-in, all the (crappy) sources not willing to evolve from their old dying business will just disappear from there. I am sure there will be plenty of other (probably more) interesting stuff willing to take a share of the visibility.

Tortious Interference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708561)

According to Marcel Leonardi, the company's public policies director, Google News channels a billion clicks to news sites around the world.

Yes, Google provides real alternatives when the only other option is, "we'll channel a billion clicks to everyone else's site."

They didn't build that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41708595)

Google: Their newspaper -- they didn't build that!

Traditional jounalism still out of touch (1)

jd.schmidt (919212) | about 2 years ago | (#41708673)

The entire news business is having trouble because their previous position as the gatekeepers to news is and will now always be lost to them. More or less every rule and instinct they have learned during their careers is now out of sync with the reality of how the Internet works. They aren't bad, they just don't understand the way forward. That is why they wrongly attack the search engines, they understand their gatekeeper position is lost, but they don't really know how to cope yet. To an extent search engines really are the successors to a newspaper. A newspaper was an attempt to put information "valuable" to the public in a form that could be distributed. Because of time and paper limitations it was necessary for actual people to make decisions about the best way to distribute this information.

But today, any entity or person, business or private, can now easily communicate directly to the public in a way they choose. We don't really need reporters to tell us "today the President’s spokesman said..." when we can read it ourselves online on www.whitehouse.gov. The public is now in control of what information they want to learn more about AND everyone now has an option of providing their own story in their own words (biased or not!). This did not exist before in any practical or sensible way, other than in "small towns" where everyone knew everyone's business anyway.

There is, and will probably always be, a need for ethically trained people to attempt to disentangle truth from fiction. For example the moderator at the second presidential debate and fact checking sites are the most simple examples. I am afraid I don’t have the answers, but I know why we can’t go back.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>