How to fight Google’s article commenting plan
Google announced this week it would allow people mentioned in news articles to address misquotes and add information to those articles. I wouldn’t call this a shot across the bow of newspapers, because Google’s been firing at local papers for a while. This would probably affect mid- and large-market newspapers the most (according to the Bivings Report, only one-third of the top 100 newspaper web sites allow comments on articles). Here are some possible effects of Google’s move:
- Audience growth: This new level of information means more readers look to Google first for news.
- Audience growth: The opportunity to contribute information after the presses run will increase the number “newsmakers” in Google News’ audience.
- Reduced credibility: Nowhere in this announcement is anything that says the reporters behind the article will have an opportunity to respond. Indeed, it gives newsmakers a license and incentive to gain a spotlight on Google (Online News Squared asks the question: Google says yes papers can comment, newspapers are participants too).
- What’s up, Rolodex: Google builds an index of these people-in-the-news (and their contact information) across the nation. Google’s hold on information gets even stronger.
There aren’t a lot of “wins” in this for newspapers. But there is a worthwhile solution that address this new-found need (assuming you consider “correcting the record where need be” a need):
Devote more resources to article commenting: Many papers allow comments on articles. Build out the comment system to allowing readers to designate a comment as a “correction,” “addition,” or “clarification.” For comments like that you require real names and contact information (keep the contact information for verification). Heck, while you’re at it, add a “questions” designation and create a specific way readers can ask the reporters for more information about an article — not only could this get your reporters more involved in the web site, it would boost credibility with readers, and give newspapers a little more insight into what readers want to know.
I’m not saying this will “beat” Google — but I do say it’s the best shot at taking that attention-share away from Google and pointing it back at newspaper content and its community.
If your newspaper-dot-com is still using HaloScan, it’s time to get serious about your technology.
Here are a couple related links to newspapers and article commenting:
» Comments, registration rise at paper websites
» The case for real identities on newspaper-dot-com sites
Update: Here’s a synthesis of the conversation added in the comments:
- Are newspapers doing the standard wringing-of-the-hands? Yup. But this is is a different type of move for Google (less automation more human / editorial involvement), so there are new reasons for hand-wringing.
- Google, Facebook and these sites with significant audiences are pushing newspapers to address the online issues that have been ignored.
- This passive approach to technology on newspaper’s part is weak.
And here are some more links on the topic:
- Lauren Rich Fine (I love what she writes): Was GoogleNews’ News News?
- Guardian Unlimited: From Google to gaggle
- New York Times: Names in the News Get a Way to Respond (and no, there were no corrections to this article on Google News, as of 8/13)
- Press Gazette: Fleet Street: Google News comments roundup
August 10th, 2007 at 5:22 am
[…] Joe Murphy: How to fight Google’s article commenting plan Possible effects on newspapers: (1) More people look to Google first for news (2) More ‘newsmakers’ turn to Google for news (3) reduced credibility (4) Google builds up contacts book of news sources. (tags: googlenews comments) […]
August 11th, 2007 at 6:29 am
[…] Google News: war is declared Google moves to make their use of other company’s content more profitable for themselves by adding the ability for people to comment on the Google News stories; despite the fact that Google do not pay for displaying the original content. The JoeThink blog lists some long term advantages for Google in this move. […]
August 11th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Am I missing something? It’s Aug. 11, and I have not seen this new feature integrated on the Google News page. I’m curious to see what it will look like.
It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t see how it differs much from newspaper sites that offer robust comment sections. I suppose the real difference is that a lot more people skim the Google News headlines than look at the comment sections for a specific, regional newspaper.
This stuff might cause a lot of handwringing for the news industry, but if it is done responsibly, it can be a benefit for the news consumer.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Hey Jacob,
I’d say the scare-factor comes from Google’s superior command of technology and technology applications. The more Google cuts newspaper’s turf the more newspapers wonder “where will this stop?”
Also, this particular move is different for Google. Usually Google puts out tools that rely on automation and databases (take a look at the products Google has launched and is working on). This move relies on people: The people writing the comments on articles, and then the people inside Google who verify the comments.
As far as where it exists right now, I don’t see it either. SearchEngineLand has some screenshots of it, but I don’t know how they got those.
-Joe
August 11th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Thanks for your response. I definitely understand your arguments. I would have to say that Google probably won’t stop without some sort of government intervention. The best newspapers can do is try to figure out a way to work better with them or beat them to the punch.
You are a media guy, and I am a J-school grad and former reporter. You know as well as I do that most media has been drug, kicking and screaming into using new technology. Most media owners are only interested in squeezing as much out of their products as possible. It is not very popular to invest or reinvest in the media outlet.
I live in your former state, and I have been impressed with what the N&R has done with their blogs, and I know the N&O used the Web early on to break news, but for the most part, media was slow to see the importance of the Web. I think it is important for Google, Facebook and others to push media outlets to reexamine traditional ideas about community.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:43 am
[…] Joe Murphy, a developer on the Denver Post web site, argued the move threatened news sites in a number of ways. It would lead more people to go to Google News first for news; the opporuntinty to comment would bring many “newsmakers” into this new Google News audience; it reduces the credibility of news organisaitons by giving a (presumably-required) right to reply, and it provides Google with a growing contacts book of sources for news stories. The simple solution for newspapers, he argued, is to devote more resources to commenting features on their own sites. […]
August 13th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Jacob, I agree that “beating Google to the punch” is a much stronger tactic than “meekly counter-punching Google a couple months after the first punch gets thrown.”
N&R does a good job with blogs, certainly. Blogs make sense for publishing certain data — and there are plenty of other ways to publish data that also make sense for newspapers. Some of those ways have to do with community, some of those ways have to do with getting down and thinking the stuff you do on a daily basis all the way through online.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
[…] Ryan Sholin writes three bullet-points about why Google hosting AP news content is a good thing. I agree. Last month I wrote a bit about ways newspapers could fight Google News’ new article-comment function, and in the last week I wrote some comments here about the value of wire services in newspapers’ print product. Google’s AP step is a bit more constructive for newspapers because it’s something papers couldn’t have accomplished on their own, and it encourages smart decisions about where newspaper’s online resources ought to be pointed. […]