Will Google Rule The News Industry? (Yes, But Not The Way You Think It Will)

I recently read a great interview with Google's David Eun over at I Want Media and I thought I'd weigh in on this issue:

Is Google a threat to newspapers?

To which I answer: Yes, but not in the way that you think.

I recently visited Google's New York City headquarters, and I learned a lot about their way of thinking of their role in society. In presentations, employees/reps echoed the public sentiments that they are not interested in originating content, which is what news organizations are worried about, anyway (and proud to assert their place!).

It's my understanding that Google is interested in getting information/content to as many people as possible (which they were quite fervent about at the presentation), no matter what language it's in. That said, it seems all the calls for Google to "back off" news organizations' turf might be misdirected -- it seems they don't want to steal newspapers' thunder to report, but to disseminate what they've reported.

The real worry, I think, is that Google will become the first-stop for information -- even if it's not theirs. It's like a digital monopoly: Google's not stealing newspaper web traffic; it's just redirecting it so it makes money off of it before it gets where it's supposed to go. In that sense, it may be a win-win: this new path increases traffic to newspaper web sites, but also allows Google to make considerable money off the redirection. And all that web expansion that Google is doing just reinforces its stance on top of the Internet mountain, one strong enough that it can't be easily booted off.

Bottom line? News organizations should reevaluate what the working business model is, rather than the one they want it to be. Maybe we shouldn't worry where Google is in the beginning of the publication pipeline, but that it's becoming such a large part of it in the first place.

How Bill Keller's Reading Habits Indicate That Regional Newspapers Dropped The Ball

I Want Media has posted a great interview with Bill Keller, the New York Times' managing editor, on all things Times-related: New building, new organization, new journalistic frontiers. A great piece for sure, but one of the most interesting things in the interview is to see Keller's mind thinking.

Though only an e-mail interview -- those tend to come out guarded and overthought, as any reporter in 2007 knows -- we can still see through the defenses a bit and see that journalism in the digital age keeps Keller up at night just as much as today's front page story on the Middle East. He elaborates on a May comment that we "can't let our reverence for quality become a straitjacket in new media":

The Times is respected not because every story is perfect, but because we have excellent people making their best effort...the Web environment is different in several respects... [readers] bring different expectations to the Web than they bring to print...that does NOT mean the Web is a lawless frontier, or that you cannot aspire to high-quality journalism on the Web. It just means you cannot apply the same formal editorial bureaucracy to the Web that works in print. Because the deadline is constant, more stories will be posted on deadline -- and necessarily be less polished -- but they will be improved more quickly, too.

Well there's a lot there for sure, but the good news is that someone's starting to realize that the web isn't the same beast. All these thoughts seem to be a pastiche of company policy and his own thinking, and it's interesting to watch it being fleshed out on the page. In fact, Keller even admits to reading blogs:

I have a couple of dozen non-Times blogs bookmarked -- media blogs, political blogs, music blogs, food blogs, etc. The lineup changes, and includes a pretty wide spectrum of opinion. (Why read only things that confirm what you already think?)

I visit them less frequently than I did a year ago. In part that is because, surrounded as I am by journalists, I usually hear about anything interesting without having to spend my time browsing. Also, some blogs I used to enjoy seem to have said everything they had to say.

A few interesting points. Sadly, Keller doesn't go into detail as to which blogs he reads. (That's what I want to know -- is he reading the digitalized voice of an established MSM journalist or is he reading some fine citizen journalism or opinion? Sure, it changes often and it's a personal matter, but I feel that Keller's habits may reflect how "with it" he really is when it comes to the "Web environment.")

But you know what? This whole interview isn't about the Times at all. What this is about is every other paper in the nation, and how they've dropped the web-ified ball for their readers.

I know what Keller thinks. The web is a different beast, but we need to close the gap so that readers experience it the same way they read the paper. I can see the fruits of his company's thought on their website. But I continue to see terrible choices -- or worse, a lack of any at all -- regarding existing regional newspapers and the web.

As a part of my day, I regularly bounce from site to site reading our nation's best regional papers. The Dallas Morning News. The Indianapolis Star. The Chicago Tribune. The Philadelphia Inquirer. The Boston Globe. The Miami Herald.

The list goes forever on.

And almost every website I visit looks the same. A bunch of text in an unidentifiable font, a bunch of thumbnail pictures and nary a signature flourish of the printed paper in sight. Hell, half of these papers don't even have their mastheads in the font that they are printed in everyday.

That's like sending the Yankees on the ballfield without the "NY" and pinstripes. Could you imagine watching a ballgame game like that?

My point is, while Keller's dreaming up the finer points of journalism on the web, the rest of the nation hasn't even me any semblance of their paper on the web. Sure, the stories are there, but the packaging isn't. And it's a frustrating read.

I myself can attest that I spend very little time on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website because it's so damn frustrating. I've complained about their city-friendly portal before -- and still don't understand why they don't have their own standalone website that syndicates its stories to the "city" site -- but seeing "Philadelphia Inquirer" in small type trumped by a bigger "Philly.com" on the top isn't helping that paper at all be the national force it used to be.

Philly's not the only one, either: The Miami Herald is missing a real masthead, and has some space management issues. The Dallas Morning News gives its ads more important space than its own content, and is missing a masthead as well. Even with good organization, the San Francisco Chronicle can't even reconcile the fact that it's website operates as a separate entity from the newspaper altogether (SFGate? Ridiculous). The New Haven Register needs to ditch its Web 1.0 look and manage its space better (oh, and put the name of the paper in a size that is at least equal to the smallest ad). Et cetera.

It may sound like I'm whining over details, but many readers only go to the website. For any paper who's trying to extend reach without breaking the bank, all they need to do is find a web format that looks like a newspaper -- and not like a Yahoo! News compilation.

Makes the whole complaining about web-syndicated stories thing seem moot, doesn't it? They're worried about content and meanwhile, the paper's website, the front door and front page of the newspaper, looks like a 12-year-old designed it in Microsoft Frontpage.

I know that budgets are tight. But the nation's pillars of journalism need to look, well, like pillars, and not like driftwood in a sea of many websites.

If I can't differentiate a newspaper's site from a news-aggregate site, how will I trust (and buy) the real thing?

Welcome! (And Thank You!)

Welcome, Poynter, Get Rich Slowly and I Want Media readers, and thanks for coming! Together, nearly 400 of you have visited The Editorialiste in the last three days!

This blog is about the future of journalism - the interplay between citizen journalism and the so-called "mainstream media," and all of the things that affect the industry, from top to bottom, mergers to internships. We usually update twice a week.

This blog came into being almost a year ago, and just last week we received our 1,000th unique visitor. Thank you - please keep reading!

For a quick introduction to the tone of the blog, I invite you to browse recent entries. Here are some of the most popular posts:

Journalism Internships Are A Joke (Financially). Period.

Throw Out Your Syllabi, J-Students

Cattle Branding the Magazine Industry

Mano-E-Mano: The Editorialiste Meets the Editorialist

Steal This Post

When Newsprint Beat Gloss To The Punch

FastCompany Magazine Is More Company Than Magazine

Young Journalists Are Lost. Here's Why.

Additionally, I've noticed some compelling searches by visitors in the last week: "internship hearst magazine," "wage comparison journalism," and "how many unpaid hours per week is an intern supposed to work."

And it got me thinking: what would YOU, readers, like to see on this site?

Would you like more coverage on the young journalist? The MediaBistro trolling, Ed2010 scrolling, I-need-an-internship reader?

Would you prefer coverage of the established business? The new blog-writing, paycheck-got-cut moping, I'd really like to talk about journalism but I'm too old for school reader?

Please comment - I'm open to anything!

Keep on reading,

The Editorialiste.

P.S. - I've begun writing a new satire column on the Ivy League for a small New York City daily. If Gawker's your thing, I think you'll enjoy it. Keep your eyes peeled, link to come soon!

Mano E Mano: The Editorialiste meets "The Editorialist"

Dear Rob Anderson,

We've got to talk. This new blog, "The Editorialist"? I must admit, I'm feeling a little snuffed. I spend my time, my blood, my sweat, and hyperlinks to analyze the grassroots movement and often throw in my opinion - editorializing, so to speak - to fill a niche market and my desire to write when freelancing in New York doesn't pay the bills. But then I read on IWantMedia that you've got better ideas. In fact, your idea is so good, so original, that you're gonna launch it with The Washington Post. Without an "e."

Ouch.

All for an "e," Rob? I'm hurt. This was just Valentine's Day! Where's the saccharine love?

Sure, your blog covers op-eds, and mine covers the components of a changing industry. Sure, I write this on my own unpaid time living below the poverty line and you write this commanding health benefits and a prestigious masthead. But Rob, baby - what's a blogger to do when you hijack his name for use in mainstream media? And nary a link to me in sight!

Robby, you're pushing me ever farther into the fringe media, the netroots, the blogging jungle. And you, that lovely mainstream media, get all the credit for being "cool," "with it," "hip." And most times, I'm with you on that - sometimes you MSM people need to loosen up a little, and I like seeing you walk around with iPod nanos and podcasting and all of that. You're really getting with it; good for you. But why did you have to steal a poor blogger's thunder?

Tell me - was it your editor's idea?

After all, what if the L.A. Times started "DailyDose" or the Chicago Tribune started "Gonzette" or the Philadelphia Inquirer started "Talker" or the Wall Street Journal started "Bizmodo"? Would that be cool?

No. Not cool at all, Robert.

There are plenty of freelancers who get their ideas copped by their editors. But a blog? That's low. Surely WaPo HR has room for a young blogger - who by day is actually is a living, breathing, ethical, hard-working journalist! - who needs a regular paycheck to support his pipe dreams of, you know, life stability in an era where higher education equates with Mercedes-Benz and it takes 40 (yes, 40!) times my $2000 rent to live where I went to school...a block from the projects.

You know, instead of ganking his calling card. I'm running out of PB&J for lunch, you know.

In the face of adversity, Nick Denton would be asking for his acid martinis extra-shaken. But me? Well, let's just say that I'll be writing with a stiff upper lip.

A blogger scorned. It's on, Anderson.