“In this new world of distributed media, if you’re not aggregated, you’re nowhere.
The prior law was: If you can’t be scraped and then found via a search engine, you’re nowhere. The idea that media can or should control presentation and distribution is over. Toast. Control has passed to the public, and search engines, aggregators, browsers, and the internet are their tools of presentation and distribution. Media have lost control. The flow in the pipe has reversed. So go with the flow, mediamen, go with the flow.
And there are more pigs in this pipeline: If a site does not have RSS, it soon won’t be seen by many, for example. Google is trying to turn video into a searchable medium and TV stations will be fools if they don’t put up their media with metadata to be found. Radio listeners are now demanding on-demand content thanks to the precedent of podcasts and radio stations should follow the examples of WNYC and the BBC and pod’ their stuff.
Media must figure out how to embrace all these tools of consumer control.”
All right and all true (and, as Jarvis points out, another wire service, Reuters, is adamantly not going after Google News). But there is a real issue here. To me, there’s no doubt that there’s a disconnect in the fact that Google can make ad dollars out of other people’s content. Sure, there is a trade-off – links for ad revenues, if you will – but that trade-off is, at the moment, based on a nod and a wink. And billion dollar companies can’t do business on a nod and a wink. At some point, Google News’ relationship with the parties that provide it with content is going to have to be regularised.