1) Why has Google led to the decline of the newspaper industry?
Google critics note how much advertising money has disappeared from the newspaper business over the past decade or so — more than $40 billion, or about 60 percent of the ad revenue the industry generated at its peak in 2000, according to figures from the Newspaper Association of America — and they draw a direct line connecting that with the in advertising revenue that Google brings in every year from AdWords.
2) Do you personally think Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs? Why?
To some degree, potentially Google could be to blame as there’s no question that the massive growth of on-line advertising has had considerable impact on the traditional print media industry. To the extent that brands have chosen to spend pennies on AdWords and other programmatic tools and services, instead of thousands of dollars on display advertising in newspapers, there has clearly been a shift of spending from one place to another.
However, overall, Google shouldn't be to blame because Google stumbled on an opportunity — one that was also open to newspapers and other media outlets — and pursued it. Blaming Google for their decline is like blaming Henry Ford for the decline of the buggy-whip manufacturing industry, or blaming the manufacturers of a submarine because your boat sank beneath the waves. Google has prospered because it was an early adopter of a new form of algorithm-driven advertising, one that served the needs of many advertisers as well or better than much more expensive forms of marketing.
3) Read the comments below the article. Pick one comment you agree with and one you disagree with and justify your opinions in detail.
AGREE:
"The irony is that Google is probably more of a savior than a killer of journalism and editorial content. How many thousands of blogs, fan sites, writers, startup outlets, etc., have been discovered by Google’s search algorithms? How many talented artists and great stories have found a launching pad on YouTube and other Google outlets? How much content has been spread into new languages due to Google translate?
Google has forced journalistic outlets to innovate and search for new ways of doing things. It has made information dissemination more efficient. While at times that has been bad for the average journalist trying to make a buck, from a big picture perspective, it has been good for helping people get access to information, and that includes journalism."
I Agree with the fact that Google has provided the public with so much more and has actually pushed journalists to find out different ways of expanding their target audience. Despite the fact, it may have decreased the amount of popularity for journalists and the newspaper industry, in a nutshell, it has helped people get access to different information.
DISAGREE:
"Matt always sides with the internet guys in his editorial missives. If you follow him, you’ll notice that he even takes the side of internet pirates who out and out steal content. His thesis is that it’s not theft but probably advertising. He is assigned to comparing horse and buggies to Ferrari’s, and every time the Ferrari’s win. Big surprise.
My opinion is that Om has Matt writing these pro-fremmium editorials to help massage the minds of the youthful readership that this publication may have. Read this publication long enough and you can see thru it’s editorial bias.
These editorials are just filler between the real news that you might find under other pen names."
I Disagree with this statement. I don't think the article is biased as it seems to me that they considered both sides to the story and came up with a reasonable conclusion.
