Posted on 04/03/2006 12:13:32 PM PDT by abb
Unpaid use angers some publishers
Not only is advertising moving from newspapers to the Internet, but newspaper stories increasingly are migrating as well.
Whether they like it or not, newspaper publishers are seeing stories, or "content" as it is called in the Internet world, culled by outside parties for use on their Web sites and for their own profit.
News aggregators, most notably Google Inc., put together summaries and lists of newspaper stories from around the world in a practice sometimes referred to as "scraping." Google and other aggregators pay publishers nothing.
Meanwhile, The Associated Press, a news service cooperative owned by newspapers and broadcasters, is selling an increasing amount of news content to Internet sites. Much of that is derived from newspapers AP serves. The practice cuts the cost of AP service for newspapers but also gives an invaluable news source to their Internet competitors.
Some newspaper executives see the movement of news content to the Internet as a threat.
"I think there is tremendous concern, especially if we are not being compensated," said Mike Fancher, executive editor of The Seattle Times.
"Search engines essentially want to use our content to gather a larger audience," Fancher said. "They are destroying our business model."
Owen Youngman, vice president of development for the Chicago Tribune, said Google users come to think of Google as the news source and overlook the newspaper that published the story.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
You missed the biggest point in the whole story.
Well, what is the biggest point then???
I just wish we could make the mainstream television news programs obsolete as well, but unfortunately, they still have massive influence.
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
"I think there is tremendous concern, especially if we are not being compensated," said Mike Fancher, executive editor of The Seattle Times.
How much money could possibly be made from original "local" content being rebroadcast elsewhere with the AP? It can't be that much.
Oh, boohoo! When I check Google news I get a headline and a couple of lines of text plus a link to the newspaper's website to read the full story. That means they can show me advertising. Without Google, I would have never gone to their site at all.
BS. ALWAYS read the byline to determine who the source is.
Al Jazeera, CNN, and Helen Thomas have no credibility. Beware before reading their screeds.
Let's see....
how about "why buy a cow when you can get the milk for free"
I wonder if Google gets any money from the newspapers for sending them that traffic.
Certianly Google gets clickthroughs (if not money) from people visiting their site to review the day's headlines.
A fraction of a penny may not be much but multiplied by millions of users, it is.
Why would you pay a mailman to deliver unpasturized milk when you know he won't be bringing it around for a couple of days anyway?
The info in the newspaper is OLD and getting OLDER by the time it hits your doorstep.
What's more, in many cities, there is only one paper (and perspective) available to cover the local issues. Why pay for the priviledge of being told "you are wrong and Tom DeLay is evil"?
Too frackin' bad. SCOTUS has ruled that any story, once rewritten, can be used by another organization. It's plagerism only if lifted intact.
....Why would you pay a mailman to deliver unpasturized milk.....
Being as gentle as I can, for those of you in Rio Manhatten (A Rush joke slur against New Yorkers), The free milk is on the internet. The cow is the delivery system and some times described as the dinasour media.
They will lose their audience some day. Headline news gives audiences the same details when the AUDIENCE wants it.
TV news local and national is poorly serving the market.
I don't care about warehouse fires, domestic disturbances, overnight car wrecks, sports trades, or the latest long running sitcom to leave the air. That leaves about 6 minutes for local NEWS and weather.
I don't care for "focus on one person's problems in America" or packaged "new medical breakthrough" newsmagazine reports. Both mainstays of network national news.
I like TV news because it can show moving pictures. Just like newsreels did. I can read more about the story than they will even go into in a news report. But seeing the 9-11 attacks, overhead footage of a flood zone, etc. is something else. Then again I kept asking to see footage of the areas in New Orleans I would recognize (and that they didn't show because they were unaffected and therefore didn't support the story they WANTED to show).
I don't know any of the talking heads on cable tv NEWS. Therefore I have no loyalty to any such program, "give me the info and I'll look into it later".
And "issues" roundtable discussions (whether they are on Sunday Mornings, weeknights, or PBS) are not news. I get more out of reading FR roundtable discussions.
Yes. And the newspaper is an inefficient delivery method for product that has already expired before it is delivered.
The newspapers keep it up (even GIVING IT AWAY) to keep circulation figures high enough to justify their advertising rates.
If people had to go to the local newsstand to buy a paper, I doubt as many people would make the trek to get it every day (even if those copies were 10 cents or free).
As long as they deliver, I'll be getting a newspaper.
..
A subscription to most local papers is toutamount to a contribution to your local Democratic party. I stopped making such donations a year ago.
I don't care where the money goes......as long as I enjoy the product, I'll continue to buy it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.