I actually agree with it too. Google and Facebook aren't the reason news outlets have cash problems and a free teat to latch on to isn't the answer. News is important, but let's fix the problem in a better way.
Facts are not copyrightable, so the meat of a story spreads quickly and with very little money changing hands. One subscriber to the Los Angeles Times can legally and immediately share the factual essence of an article via social media, personal web site, email, or anything else. From there it can be reshared indefinitely. Only people who really want to read the original reporting in full will pay to subscribe to the LA Times.
There used to be regional/temporal barriers in place before the Web was popular; newspapers had geographically limited distribution and it took time to print a new edition. One newspaper "scooping" another by one day was all it took to get people to buy the one-day-earlier publication. Also, 20th century newspapers collected significant revenue from classified advertising, people buying the paper just to get a weather forecast, and other kinds of information distribution that really didn't have anything to do with investigative news. The Web unbundled all that (weather.gov, Craigslist, etc.) and the only remaining strength of newspapers was producing original reporting. Which, unfortunately, was never all that profitable on its own even before you get to the "facts are not copyrightable" issue that I mentioned in my first paragraph.
Does anyone have any good pages on that which go into how to extract facts without copyright infringement? And for purposes of creating independent, educational works from those facts?
The value proposition in the internet age is too low to demand the price neccessary to support it. This created a race to the bottom in order to keep the lights on. This further degraded the value of the product. This caused people to value it less, and so on.
The end result is reputable news sites became clickbait and eventually people stopped caring.
There is still a market for in depth journalism, and we see a rise in that sort of things. There are plenty of youtube channels doing documentary-like videos on current events. That is journalism.
The journalism that is dying is the stuff concentrating on breaking news. If its shallow its outcompeted by twitter. If its higher quality but still racing to the headline, its outcompeted by wikipedia. The fact is the competitors to breaking news journalism are cheaper and higher quality.
I think a lot of people are willing to pay for journalism, but it has to be journalism above and beyond the basic info that you can get for free online. The basic news is commoditized and freely available online, and that's what a lot of traditional newspapers are competing with. However, paid industry journalism like The Information is something people are willing to pay for - or get their companies to pay for at least.
Also, I think traditional newspapers should position themselves so they're not competing with the lowest common denominator of basic info, however due to cutbacks, most newspapers are in essence not doing very much in depth journalism anymore, which means they are unfortunately positioning themselves as competing with any other source of news.
In simple terms; lots of competition and much of it is free. If you want basic breaking news, it's all over social media (often from the news sites themselves). If you want sports, tech, gaming, music, entertainment, art or other hobby style news, it's literally on two million websites and forums and YouTube channels specifically made for that one topic, and usually done better than in a newspaper.
So while you could say a decent chunk of the replacement content is worse than what traditional news outlets could offer, it's at least free and exists by the bucket load, meaning the incentive for paying for it is nonexistent for most of the population. Meanwhile the more niche stuff is both free and done better elsewhere, so RIP anyone making money off that anymore.
To make things tougher, getting advertisers to pay for it is becoming a lost cause too, since again, they can advertise in places where metrics and tracking options are better. They'll get way more bang for their buck on social media than they will trying to market on a news site or in a classifieds section or what not.
To expand, journalists used to actually investigate which took time which means it took money so that the story released had lots of corroborating sources, scrutinized by editors, and then released as a complete story. That might have meant things like actually interviewing people, requesting documents from places, or visiting the places in question.
Today, it is just a bunch of people collecting tweets of random people on the interwebs. Race to publish before competition means there's no time for editorial review of simple things like grammar and coherent thoughts let alone accuracy, so lots of FUD can be spread very quickly as "news".
Those well thought out articles are also considered too long and boring and get reposted on socials as TL;DR as if it were their own thoughts.
We used to make fun of the microwave generation with "I want it now" type comments. Now, it's I need it in less than 140chars, or I'm scrolling past it.
The death spiral you describe is like a train wreck that you can do nothing about.
The most infuriating thing is that an article can take absolutely any stance on an issue simply by cherry picking tweets to go along with it.
News has become a weird kind of curation market. And the funny thing about this payment arrangement that publishers want is that they are not paying any of those tweeters who may be breaking the news or themselves curating the info.
If I see tweets in any article other than tweets from the people that the article is about, I will throw that news site in the dust bin. Using tweets as evidence or as anything important tells me that news site is definitely in a death spiral. I think the only place I put up with it is on the local news and even then I'm gritting my teeth.
Why would you pay someone for a tweet? They posted it for free. Collecting tweets isn't journalism. Asking the user for more than 140 chars about what they are witnessing along with multiple others would then be closer to journalism. Tweets are just people self identifying who journalists could be interviewing. The interview allows for follow up to the tweet.
> To expand, journalists used to actually investigate which took time which means it took money so that the story released had lots of corroborating sources, scrutinized by editors, and then released as a complete story. That might have meant things like actually interviewing people, requesting documents from places, or visiting the places in question.
This was only desired and seen as useful and interesting when people had nothing else to do.
Yeah lots of people don't really want to just read the news, they want to discuss it. Most people on reddit have stopped opening news article links entirely since there's always a comment or two that summarize it without having to wade through the sludge of ads and autoplaying videos, or worse, wasting your time reading the first sentence and then getting hit by a paywall. News sites are one of the most user hostile places on the internet.
I think very few people ever "paid for news" -- the newsroom of most publications have always been highly subsidized by advertising and classifieds, and perhaps newstand sales. Google (and others) and Craigslist (and others) quickly dominated advertising and classifieds in the early 2000s, and I can't remember the last time I saw someone reading a newspaper on a train
The circulation subscriptions were a substantial part of their revenue, however you're right that ads were even larger. I don't think it's fair to say few people ever paid for it though. Subscriptions were important too.
Back when newspapers were healthy, basically there was all this stuff that was bundled with the actual news that was of more immediate utility to people: classifieds, movie reviews, comics, coupons. And there was less competition for people's leisure time.
News is now in a very competitive leisure time landscape and is debundled from stuff that's of high value, and most people just don't care that much about news. They'll read it when it's around but they won't pay for it. The ones who are willing to pay for it mostly just subscribe to the New York Times because in a nationalized news environment why not go for the biggest producer.
> most people just don't care that much about news
I stopped caring about what was happening on the world stage in 2022, and it has been sublime. I hear about the big things from friends and random folks, and it gives some instant conversation starters (“oh no, I hadn’t heard about that”). The only news I actually care about is local news, and I skim the newsletter my (small) city publishes on Fridays.
Given that, there is zero value provided to me by traditional media publishers. I say this as someone who gets NYT, WSJ, WaPo, and FT for free through work. I don’t use them, because I’d rather spend my time doing something else.
No judgement here though—if reading the paper is your thing and you like staying informed, that’s great and I fully support it. Just offering my perspective.
I think that is a part of it, but its not just that.
News provied two services in the old days: access and filtering.
Back in the day you couldn't easily get things straight from the horses mouth, now you can just go to their website.
If you did have direct access in the old days, it was all way too much. There was no way to filter to 10-minutes worth of top goings on. Now a days you can just look at what is upvoted and stop once you have read enough.
Completely agree with all this, though my take away is that there's a big vicious cycle of adblockers and paywalls where they keep getting worse. I can't afford to subscribe to every newspaper I read. All the local (and smaller national) papers should unionize and make one subscription for something like $20 a month
There is everything wrong with that if that wasn’t the deal to begin with. You’re paying for information and they’re deliberately injecting noise in the signal. It’s degrading the quality of what you’re paying for without a commensurate adjustment in the rate.
I’m not sure I agree that news is more competitive now within its own business? (I’m not sure what the Danish branche is in English), but rather that there are just so many things competing for people’s attention in general. With SoMe being actively designed to be addictive through various algorithms I think it’s only natural that people spend more of their time on Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or even HackerNews. I think that is time that a lot of people would’ve otherwise spend on news.
Add to this the introduction of terrible news media. The spam and click bait media, where you get the articles for free but the articles you get are basically worse than what you’d find anywhere else because they are most there to generate revenue from advertising. Stuff that gives “traditional” news media a very bad image. Further add the media platforms which are now straight up political propaganda, which some always where, but now they are owned by very few people and push very divisive agendas which is a little different from the past where they were more inline with each other and the “general” aristocracy rather than a few billionaires/oligarchs and you gain the general media perception even more. Both are rightfully so.
In a sense you get what you pay for though. If you’re not paying you’re not getting quality news. You can see this in Danish news very clearly, where only a handful of news papers still do actual critical journalism and the rest mainly do opinions or click-bait articles on current events that you might as well read on Facebook. Not because Facebook does anything particularly in that department but because the contractors who sell stories and pictures to the “free” news media typically also post their content elsewhere for increased revenue on their part.
As far as going to the “biggest” most “cultural” news media I totally agree with you. In my country people read Weekend Avisen, and then add one of the more politically inclined subscription papers based on their views. But basically it boils down to thee papers, one that is slightly more conservative (which in Scandinavian/American optics would make it almost socialist), one that is left-leaning (again, very socialist in American optics) and one that is based on Christianity (but extremely moderate, as in pro abortion and gay marriage).
Aside from that there are two “localised” papers which either focus heavily on Copenhagen or the part of our country which is called Jylland.
Almost none of these papers would be alive without government subsidies. Because the only two papers which actually makes money are Weekendavisen (our NYT) and the Christian paper which doesn’t actually make money but is subsidised by various Christian groups.
Many people are willing to pay for news. Enough that it will keep coming in excess. Just not enough to sustain the scale and production values of yesteryear.
Plenty of independent journalists are out there doing just fine and even some of the big outlets have adjusted effectively. But in the internet age we don't need hundreds of outlets all reporting on the same stories 24/7 - especially when most of those stories have no impact on the viewers/readers.
The market is simply adjusting and the old establishment is going down kicking and screaming.
I don't think the issue is that people aren't willing to pay for it. The problem is, there aren't currently good options for paying for it. If I go to a news site and it is paywalled, I just leave. I am not going to subscribe to every single newspaper. If I could easily pay for today's paper (not an individual news story or a full subscription) without giving up all my persona info, I would probably buy 2 - 3 papers a day from various sources.
And if you want the best news you have to pay for more than WaPo.
Besides, if you actually like to read why would you be buying washington post? People who like to read usually aren't going into 5 minute long shallow articles, they are getting a book on the topic.
What exactly is being "monetized" when a search result is displayed for a news article that will bring the users to news site where they'll earn ad money to the news outlet?
The news outlet can use robots.txt to prevent indexing. If Google doesn't bring them value, there's the easy answer.
>but that's not what this is about, this is about charging for linking to news articles.
Sure, but these things are directly related. It's the scraping that generates the links in question and ultimately earns Google ad revenue. And, if they did pay on the scraping side, then charging for linking would be less relevant. As it is, they're collecting the content, but not paying on either end.
So, it seems if you agree they should pay for the scraping (but they are not), then you wouldn't be opposed to them paying on the other end. In fact, this might be fairer to Google b/c it's pay for performance.
But, more to the point, I was responding to OP's specific-claim that the news sites were attempting to "latch on to a free teat".
"scraping" usually refers to unauthorized access for the purposes of using that content for something else. what google does to generate search result pages is usually called "indexing", and websites go out of their way to encourage google to do more of it.
Understood. I use the term "scraping" loosely and, admittedly, purposely. I think it's illustrative of the broader point I was attempting to make.
But, if you really want to be precise, what Google actually does is more commonly (and euphemistically) referred to as "crawling". And, it is more accurate to say that they are crawling for the purpose of indexing what they've crawled. Crawling is essentially the front end of an overall process which ends with indexed results.
Whatever the nomenclature you prefer, the effect is the same, and so is my point.
>websites go out of their way to encourage google
I understand that some websites "encourage" Google, and that intersects with the alternative point of view I've been suggesting. That is, that Google is monopolistic in its traffic ownership and the content owners have little choice but to offer their content to be freely monetized by Google. It's also worth pointing out that there are some businesses which are built around SEO from the ground up while others—like news outlets—pre-existed Google but now rely on them to survive. These are different.
To further close the loop, my suggestion was that the original topic of this thread might also be seen as somewhat of a remedy for that effect. And, frankly, it's strange to me that you will allow that Google should be paying sites for their scraping or crawling or whatever, but don't seem to be connecting it to my point, when it really could be viewed as an alternative remedy to the problem I'm describing.
Overall, I believe mine is a more interesting and accurate way to look at the problem than to simply accept that Google has intermediated so many content sites and their consumers as some natural and universally right state of affairs.
In any case, I don't think Google's search business model or that SEO is a thing, etc. is lost on anyone on HN. And, thought I might encounter more interesting discussion here around my view. But it seems most people here have accepted that Google just owns the traffic and everybody must play along. Further, that it's really for their own good. I suppose it's become harder to imagine a world where content producers own their content and are not coerced into giving it away for need of traffic from a single monopolistic source without whom their business might not survive.
But, it's somewhat surprising when I zoom out and think about the spirit of "hacking" and the audience that used to more predominantly frequent HN. Thinking back to staunch support of folks like Aaron Swartz and other topics. Maybe I'm the only one who sees these as somewhere along the same continuum. And that's fine.
Nonetheless, I find this discussion tedious and boring by now, as I'm sure others do my "alternative perspective". So, let's just agree to disagree, rather than have these pedantic restatements of definitions and Google's well-known search business model as if these are somehow dispositive.
Let's stop trying to pick a side here... Maybe it's more of a symbiotic relationship. Google gets a useful news page, the news media get links to their articles.
I honestly could care less about either of them. I think they should just fight it out on their own and keep our legal system and tax payers time and money out of it.
>Let's stop trying to pick a side here... Maybe it's more of a symbiotic relationship.
There's definitely some symbiosis here, but it's ultimately Google that's dependent on the news (and other) sites' content, which it gets for free. That is, the news sites (and other content providers) could exist without Google. But, Google could not exist without their content.
At least that's my observation. So, I wasn't picking a side as much as earnestly asking how OP concluded that its the news sites wanting something free from Google versus the other way around.
Those sites rely on sites like Facebook and Google linking to their content to lead readers in. With the ban on Canada their public campaign has made that obvious.
>Those sites rely on sites like Facebook and Google linking to their content to lead readers in
Of course, that's the way it is. But, is it a good thing that they've intermediated all of the world's content?
It's easy to argue that the problem is exactly that a relative handful of sites have a monopoly on traffic and, what's more, they've gained that monopoly for free.
30 seconds of serious thought would tell you that your observation is wrong.
Again, a news organization can just change their robots.txt to block google from indexing their site.
They don't do that because that would instantly kill all their search traffic... and most likely kill their business.
If CNN changed their robots.txt to stop being indexed by Google, Google would literally lose 0 users.
> I wasn't picking a side as much as earnestly asking how OP concluded that its the news sites wanting something free from Google versus the other way around.
It's been explained to you several times. Instead you're more interested in acting self-righteous (it's honestly pretty cringeworthy).
>30 seconds of serious thought would tell you that your observation is wrong.
Or, maybe I just have a different opinion.
>news organization can just change their robots.txt to block google from indexing their site
You don't seem to have thought beyond this superficial robots.txt "solution". Yes, we all know that option is available. But, as I've self-righteously offered for consideration, Google is one of a few sites that essentially monopolizes traffic generation, so they've positioned themselves to make it untenable for sites to block Google's crawling (and free monetization) of their content.
Cory Doctorow has (another) recent Twitter thread on how tech monopolies have grown virtually unchecked and now abuse the ecosystems in which they operate, increasingly clawing back more value for themselves at the expense of others. IMO this fits the pattern. Look it up. You might find it interesting. Or not.
>They don't do that because that would instantly kill all their search traffic...and most likely kill their business.
And there you've just stated exactly the problem I'm referencing, with apparently zero awareness of how someone could find it problematic. I mean, you just said "they could solve the problem by blocking Google via robots.txt, but that would kill their business".
So, not exactly a solution then, right?
It's baffling that you can say this but still angrily scream that "It's robots.txt! Case closed!"
>It's been explained to you several times. Instead you're more interested in acting self-righteous (it's honestly pretty cringeworthy).
You clearly don't hear yourself. Calm down.
EDIT: out of curiosity, I just took a quick look at your recent comments to others. One of the first to pop up was this:
>What are you even talking about? That's not how SEO works in the slightest....?
