Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

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.

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.

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.

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.

I mean, seriously, that's the reason.

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.

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.

Everyone loves reading stories that confirm everything they already know.

Big real news spreads like wildfire, but news as it is consumed is entertainment.

The news outlet can use robots.txt to prevent indexing. If Google doesn't bring them value, there's the easy answer.

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.

In the Google News case, no news sites sells their news to Google News. There is no business relation between Google News or any de jure contact whatsoever between the two. It's different. I am not saying its good or bad, or that this gives the right to the news sites for news sites to demand payments from Google.

But I think its a weird scenario that doesn't occur in other markets. And to understand the pathologies of the online news business, we need to think about this particular no-relations fact.

If I have a product page on Facebook, I have a contract with Facebook. Facebook could choose to end that contract with me and close my account. But Google News blocking/downranking a news site does not involve any contract ending between Google News and the news site. If I don't have a product page on Facebook, Facebook could still choose to block/downrank posts where users on their own free will mention my product. But I don't think this really happens at any significant scale yet.

Same applies your Amazon/Ebay/Youtube/Twitch examples.

...at the end of the day, I'd be happy to see a tax pass, some mix of what you put excellently as "real people’s jobs and livelihood being drained away", and I imagine similar to you given your MTV reference, experiencing there wasn't really anything special going on at BigCo. It's plain old economic inefficiency, not poor beleaguered good guy G that's always looking out for news and just trying to organize the world's information.

Google has been at the helm of the web for at least 15 years. “Before Google came along” was before the consolidation of the internet. Google consolidated the internet behind Search, their browser, SEO, even Amp pages (remember that dumpster fire? So open, right?), as they slowly tolled more and more of the internet, while keeping traffic flowing to their advertisers.

Content creators are entitled to a cut of the profits that Google makes from selling ads while presenting their content. I hope this law passes and every other state follows suit.

What's actually happening here is that news media orgs were in a huge bubble because of the advent of the internet, and they've failed to monetize effectively. So they're looking for a revenue source to shore up their failed model, and they know they'd lose revenue if they removed themselves from search results.

You may be operating on a model of the New York Times from ten or more years ago. I know I often find myself resorting to this model, at least until I remind myself that it no longer reflects reality.

Here are some of the headlines on the New York Times front page right now:

The Troubling Trend in Teenage Sex

Ocasio-Cortez Never Steered Money to a Key Arm of Her Party. Until Now.

New Zealanders Are Crazy for This Fruit. It’s Not the Kiwi.

Salt Is Hiding Everywhere. Can You Spot It?

What’s the Best Way to Get Rid of a Hangnail?

Where to Buy Plants Online

Look at the Washington Post site. One good article above the fold, a right column of clickbait, and more clickbait when you scroll. Then crap "lifestyle" articles. Pathetic.

I’m pretty sure I wait through/ignore/click past an ad every time I play Connections.

But maybe we’re grading on a curve here.

Also they have a mix of comically bad articles and really good ones. Whereas in the past there was some level of baseline journalistic integrity.

Now I frequently read articles where at least once a week I have to check if I’m accidentally reading an op-ed, because it’s so opinionated. And this is even when I happen to agree with the political slant they’ve clearly taken.

I don’t want any slant. I want factual, objective reporting, whether I like the outcome or not.

the only reason they have to appease google is because they had given up on worrying about navigation or discovery on their own platforms, and ceded that to google. which is dumb. google's not forcing them to do anything, they gave up control and responsibility to google.

none of this is to "appease google". it's malicious incompetence, malaise, and cynical stupidity.

nobody other than the publishers is trying to say the money should be based on view counts. tying anything to view counts is obviously a dumb idea.

This outright BS. Noone asked them to fill their sites with popup videos, popup ads, spam and other garbage.

Noone asked them to spam people with notifications in iOS either and Google didn't force them to do that either.

Stop blaming Google for the deep rot within the news industry, they did it to themselves.

Sure, stand your customer base in a mine-field for some minor short-sighted profit. Implement this at your own peril.

You're choosing to implement all of these terrible things by continuing your employment, so you "not wanting them" is kind of moot. Find a different job if you genuinely don't agree with what you're building. I'm a firm believer that companies would stop doing this kind of crap if we, collectively as tech workers (even better as a union!), stopped implementing it.

The issue is value. 1$ is too high, because most of the news right now are, and I am being charitable, opinion pieces. I have an opinion too. In fact, there is no shortage of opinions on the market. The market has spoken that opinions are worth less than 1$ a year.

Now, media companies do have an opportunity now to distinguish themselves as gatekeepers ( and a source of truth ) from AI generated stuff, but I am too cynical to seriously consider it as a possible outcome.

So. I think that is your problem. Maybe make a business where people are wanting to pay for the content? Think about how much more money you would make!!!

News should be subsidized by people who want to inform the public whether out of public-spirited motives or out of a self interested desire to influence the public debate and, indirectly, the government. That means allowing people who want to support the news outlet to donate or to purchase a print version of the outlet's reporting. If I was a millionaire, I'd probably start or purchase my own media outlet to influence public opinion. Controlling the media is probably a better ROI than directly buying politicians so I'm surprised rich people mostly seem to opt for the latter. Even those who buy media outlets, such as Bezos buying WaPo, often don't noticeably change their editorial line or move away from the "we have to be a profitable business" paradigm.

It also doesn't help that journalists are, on average, well to the left of public opinion or that colleges offer degrees in journalism which was traditionally a blue collar profession that anybody could do. Journalism schools mean journalists are unnecessarily stuck with debts they probably can't ever repay and unable to pivot out of their profession if there's a lack of people willing to pay for it.

Alternatives to increasing advertisements have been tried and found to work. However, these approaches may not be feasible for all publications—especially local news outlets that may not have as many resources. These approaches are to:

i) Start selling other services besides news. The New York Times—one of the most currently financially successful newspapers—has found a lot of success in its Games section. This was famously seen in their acquisition of Wordle, though this has already been popular with their Crosswords section. The company has also found success with its Recipes section. (This is not the only reason behind their financial success, but it's a significant part of their strategy.)

ii) Focus on financial news, which lets the publication frame their reports as having a financial value that arguably exceeds the subscription price. The Financial Times is also a highly profitable newspaper today, with one of the highest-priced subscription prices that can be about $500 USD a year for a standard subscription (depending on one's region). The Wall Street Journal similarly charges a high subscription price. Both are seen as important resources for well-funded companies to buy group subscriptions for. (Once more, this isn't the only reason for their success, but it's a major factor.)

iii) Focus on a specialized, niche area of reporting that other publications can't or won't cover—ideally appealing to institutions or large audiences willing to spend money. For example, several publications in Canada focus on providing detailed reports on federal politics (such as The Hill Times and iPolitics), which is useful information for their readership that fills a gap by less-frequent reports from the country's main newspapers—this lets them charge high subscription prices. The Athletic also used to be financially successful by standing out with its sports-only reporting, which led to its acquisition by The New York Times. These specialized publications can charge more, because certain audiences find these reports financially valuable.

---

However, a major drawback to thinking about news through the lens of financial value is that many important news stories don't have financial value. While an outlet can attempt to use one of these approaches to subsidize the rest of their stories, it's also costly. It's usually not feasible for many local newspapers to fund the software development of a Games section (especially as this would need to compete with all the other online alternatives for one's attention).

It's also pricey to offer competitive enough salaries to create a newsroom to compete with The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg. However, it's not impossible—there have been a few alternative publications that have found success by focusing on a niche, such as business news in a country outside of the US, or focusing on a sector such as biotech for the publication STAT.

It's a tough problem to try and fund local news. There is civic value for one's community to have a platform for providing a check against corruption by various institutions—yet in practice, oftentimes not enough for most local residents purchase subscriptions. Alternatives to support local news can include funding (such as through taxes), but that makes the outlet reliant on government funding, which is subject to change (and the perception, real or not, that the outlet is less independent from the government).

Increasing advertisements seems like a short-term solution for local news outlets trying to stay afloat, but it's hard for me to see this as a long-term solution for sufficient funding.

So much of news today is not even worthy of my attention, let alone my money.

I think you're right on raw links also part of the target, but it's also in the context of Google providing an overview of the news and profiting from it, whether the links are clicked or not (Google's clearly covering all the spectrum of where money can be made on the pipeline, until it hits the target site)

Your statement is absurd.

My site does still support searching, though, which they still haven't added after... four years.

Few would consider it unethical to fund wars of self-defense. But self-defense is not a clear term, see for example the Bush Doctrine and preemptive war. America has a historical habit of funding its future enemies, and in more current wars of simply maintaining the status quo.

I can see why the British might be very happy with them and they're often intelligent and classy about the whole thing. But they aren't a counterexample of public money being used to grease wheels in the war machine.

>Oh, you posted this story we really didn't like. Sorry, this month's check got lost in the mail. We'll sort it out in 6-15 business days.

Businesses eventually become reliant on significant revenue streams which gives the party that provides them power over the business.

It might not even be Google doing anything nefarious, just a case of "sorry, but our business is doing poorly and we might have to shut down Google News and stop paying if this keeps up."

Impressive it was done, and absolutely insane.

However, it seems to at least be a common belief that US free speech laws are often interpreted more broadly than free speech laws in several other countries. Moreover, compelled speech (as noted by the commenter) seems not unrelated here. For instance, see the somewhat recent Colorado web designer case [1].

[1] https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/30/supreme-court-303-creative-ca...

I don't have a problem with publishers getting a greater share of ad revenue, but there are better ways to do it. The govt could increase taxes on ad exchanges categorically (still effectively a tax on Google and Facebook) and give publishers tax breaks. That would have the same effect but be way more reasonable.

The solution shouldn't the world where you can't say that newspaper X has published the article titled "Y".

My point is simply that this is more than just linking. It's a full-on parasitic relationship, where Google (and Meta, and others) take the reporting that others are doing and build their own traffic off of that, while draining the people doing the work dry. News orgs are then faced with a terrible choice -- cut off the source of traffic or give it away for free. That's different than a dev deciding to open source a project.

I do think there should be some laws around funding certain open source software that has become critical to the functioning of society -- whether or not that's paid by tax payers in general, or by the companies using that software is a different question though.

Government funded open source strikes me as something that can very much make sense, in certain cases. Some software very much operates at utility scale, and yet, doesn't have a funding model beyond the good will of volunteers. This is dangerous, and also the type of situation that the government exists to solve.

So, yes, companies probably should pay for at least some open source software, maybe indirectly through tax, maybe through some other mechanism.

I think that would be an amazing law, actually.

A quasi-tax that affects everyone and helps fund public goods is easy to get my support.

But taxing specifically linking by a couple companies is not good.

My point is that sharing links is a double edged sword that was sort of forced on the news publishers. They've grown dependent on the traffic -- and agreed, they need a different business model -- but thats tough when anyone else can undercut you and publish for free, and then compete for that same traffic.

Also, if you think you can differentiate on curation or speed, you cannot, because those same links will appear regardless.

And yes, the advertising monopoly is a huge part of this -- but the argument has always been that the search engines need news just as much as news needs search engines. But they've set up the situation in a way that they have all the leverage.

It seems like Google and Amazon shutting down or divesting some products would make room for a lot of competitors to step in and dominate that space.

It is possible that some human practices aren't compatible with a simple capitalist model of sustaining them.

Similarly, artists in this modern era are stuck because to be relevant, they have to show off online (where the eyeballs are) but everything they put up online can become fodder for an AI synthesizer.

Newspaper ad revenue has simply collapsed (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/28/audiences...) and it's not being replaced by digital media as digital ad revenue for news industry (as opposed to total digital ad revenue) is shrinking every year.