AP, Yahoo Negotiate Fee for News

The Associated Press and Yahoo are in the midst of negotiating restrictions and payment for wire stories that appear on the search engine’s news site. This appears to be the latest step toward charging for online news. Similar talks with Google have prompted the company to temporarily stop posting AP contest on its news site. In a Jan. 14 Wall Street Journal article, an AP representative says the current deal with online portals “helped make AP material ubiquitous … also diluted the value of the AP’s news offerings by not limiting availability or distinguishing articles that were unique.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703672104574654741484604838.html?mod=djemMM)

I think this article relates to a number of interesting issues. The first is AP’s assertion that portals like Yahoo and Google News do not distinguish between the quality of articles. In aggregating news, all news is created equal. How can a media company make its material stand out when it is an algorithm that determines its placement on a news search? Popularity may be a factor in that equation but popularity is not the same as objective, accurate reporting and writing. (In “Googled,” Ken Auletta describes the creation of Google News. “The placement and selection of stories is made, Google announced, by ‘computer algorithms, without human intervention.’ … It would, Google said, broaden newspaper readership, and allow newspapers to sell advertising once a user clicked on the newspaper’s link. … However, newspapers didn’t all jump up and down with glee.”)

I think that aggregate news sites only hurt online news sources. Let’s say a Google News search directs a consumer to a Chicago Tribune article on the earthquake in Haiti. While that is one more hit on the Tribune’s site, there is a slim chance the consumer will stay on the page or click through the rest of the Web site. I predict the consumer will click out of the site and search for more articles on the earthquake (that is, search through Google News). What can news organizations do to keep consumers on the newspapers’ page? I think it starts by conditioning consumers to go directly to the original site for news and bypassing aggregation sites all together.

Setting aside the issue of quality and access, the Wall Street Journal article explores another important topic – payment. The owner of the WSJ, News Corp., is in talks to eliminate its excerpted content from Google’s search but allow it to remain on Microsoft properties. The Wall Street Journal is one of the few publications to charge for online content and as a result, executives do not want to see any of its work given away for free through an aggregated site. I agree. I strongly believe that consumers should have to pay for online news in some way. It is pragmatic – news organizations need to make money – and it forces the consumer to have some skin in the game. It is easy for a consumer to think, why should I have to pay for content when I can go to Yahoo or Google?

I think people are so overwhelmed with content that they do not even realize how much news, entertainment, music, television programming, blogs, movies and so on they actually consume. Faced with the option of paying $50 a month for a bundled package of the previously mentioned media or a complete shutout of content, consumers will pay.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010).

Google, India and Freedom of Speech

Google, which does not create original content, is being asked to exercise editorial control over the information its search engine and affiliated sites make available to Internet users in India. An article in the Jan. 4, 2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal explores the issue of free speech inside the world’s largest democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239086161213013.html?mod=djemMM). According to Indian officials quoted in the article, censoring potentially libelous or inflammatory Web sites and articles is intended to prevent violent outbursts from religious and political groups.

This is an example of how new media companies, including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, need to adapt to cultural norms and laws overseas. In the United States, Google will not remove material from its search results regardless of its defamatory or offensive nature unless it violates the company’s user agreement. This was evident in November when the top result for a search of “Michelle Obama” pulled up a photograph that depicted the first lady as a monkey. Users complained to Google and the company posted this statement above the photo: “Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree.” The Web site was eventually removed from Google’s search because it contained a virus, which is against the company’s policy. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/6737933.html).

India seems to be somewhat of a balancing act for Internet companies. On the one hand, it is a democracy that allows its citizens the right to free speech. On the other hand, speech in India can be restricted to maintain “public order, decency or morality.” Is Google at the mercy of Indian authorities? Material is preemptively removed because of what may happen, not what has happened.

From a business perspective I can understand why Google would work with Indian officials to censor information but I think it can be a slippery slope. Google is setting a precedent that it will remove any Web page, article or blog flagged by users and government officials – without argument. There is a potential for abuse there. Google’s attorney in India, Gitanjali Duggal, points out that the company’s does have a standard. “Saying ‘I hate Shiv Sena’ is one thing, but saying ‘I Hate Shiv Sena because they hate Muslims’ is another thing … (it) brings in the concept of religion.” I think that distinction is somewhat irrelevant. What other qualifiers are out there?

What responsibility does Google have to steer clear of the country’s religious and ethnic struggles? Perhaps a social one. Perhaps a financial one, should the company wish to continue business in India (and with an estimated 52 million Web users, why wouldn’t it?). I question how long Internet companies can limit information before savvy users find more and more ways to go around filters. I think this just the latest example of new media finding its way through a world that has yet to catch up.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010)