• http://www.planetc1.com/ chiropractic

    Is Danny Sullivan the only person that asks these kinds of questions of the news industry? There appears to be an entirely set of self-created rules (possibly made up by AP and others) as to how content should be handled on the Internet. Unfortunately, these are not the same set of rules that the rest of the online world abides by.

    I wonder what news outlets complained about getting their content indexed in 2002, when Google launched their news aggregator in beta. How many billions of visits collectively did major news sites receive? What about those years of online subscription services? Take a peek back at archived Google News home pages from about 2004, and you’ll see dozens of news networks that required subscription or charged for content. What about all the site advertising and populated e-mail lists that were created during those years? Was there no value there?

    Google News is seven years old now, having indexed an untold amount of news content, you’d think media companies would’ve figured out how to leverage this vehicle of delivering information to the public by now.

    Fast forward to today and we have a significantly updated Google News homepage. I have no idea how much traffic the homepage sees on a daily or monthly basis, but as I view current top stories, I see the Associated Press listed as a source for all three topics.

    Clicking on any of those links, in my opinion, delivers results that are lacking in detail, and provide little value to the end-user. Doesn’t that go against Google’s intention of user experience first? Perhaps I am overly critical, but far too often I see AP posts that appear incomplete (“check back soon for further information” frequently accommodates such posts), and they still receive priority placement.

    It seems rather unfair to me that hard-working journalists (whether they be citizen bloggers or hired reporters) are required to take a backseat to mandated “news” articles that at times appear to be little more than placements for upcoming information. I’m referring to the collection of sources provided for any given topic of news article on the Google News homepage.

    Imagine any website taking a similar approach in the world of organic search. Rather than report actual news, the site owners could simply create a headline for a popular topic, followed by a short blurb that an article would appear sometime in the near future. They could then wrap that content in advertising. A “cesspool” of information is how I believe Eric Schmidt would call it. Is it okay that there are different rules applied to big media than the rest of those that provide news information?

    I’d love to see Google move forward with a spirit of equality shared amongst all those that provide news, rather than cater to a select few, that in my opinion have nobody to blame but themselves, for the situation they find themselves in.