Comments on: What a Bing News deal might mean for journalism

By: Newshound

Newshound — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:06:10 +0000

Starving the cash rich Google quite likely will backfire. Journalists have an interest in protecting the value of their work, but this may be the beginning of a new chapter and it is hard to predict how this will end. It may not be as pretty at the end as it is now.

By: danny e blolom

danny e blolom — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:24:00 +0000

But dan, what about snailpapers. that’s a new word for the old print newspaper that is delivered to your door every morning with news that is 12 hours old already. Will snailpapers have any impact on this Bing vs Google thing?

By: All the News That’s Fit to Bing « DigiDave – Journalism is a Process, Not a Product

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:41:04 +0000

[...] Media Nation: What a Bing News deal might mean for journalism But imagine, if you will, an alternative universe in which newspaper sites were rolling in advertising revenues from readers Google sent their way, but in which Google itself couldn’t find a way to make any money. (Such a scenario requires you to believe a number of ridiculous things, but never mind.) Can you imagine what the debate would be? You’d hear demands that cash-fattened newspaper owners share some of their newly gotten wealth with Google. [...]

By: amusedbutinformedobserver

amusedbutinformedobserver — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:40:14 +0000

“Trust Microsoft at your peril,” Tom, a sure man, said. “And Murdoch makes two,” Ned added scandalously.

By: Joey

Joey — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:48:04 +0000

Here’s why this whole debate isn’t worth a hill of beans. The Neiman people say:

“Thus if you wanted to search for a news story about, say, President Obama’s upcoming speech on Afghanistan, you would have use Microsoft’s Bing instead of Google.”

Nice, but incorrect on a fundamental point– if you wanted to search for a news story about, say, President Obama’s upcoming speech on Afghanistan ***from a news organization that has an exclusive deal with Bing*** you would have use Microsoft’s Bing instead of Google.

The vast majority of us are searching for news about the president’s speech, period. We couldn’t care less who published the original story. If Newspaper X runs its story on Bing instead of Google, I just won’t know about it when I go searching on Google. The assumption in all of these Murdoch-Bing plans is that news consumers will search out specific engines to find specific information. I don’t believe they will. Google has seeped so quickly into public consciousness that people will not break the habit. They’ll simply go without information, rather than change their searching habits or pay for it.

By: Interesting post in Media Nation « bases full

Interesting post in Media Nation « bases full — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:55:59 +0000

[...] Interesting post in Media Nation By basesfull Dan Kennedy has an interesting take on what a Bing News deal might mean for journalism. [...]

By: Chris O'Brien

Chris O'Brien — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:39:06 +0000

One thing that interests me in this debate about the search deal is how it relates to Google Books. Google seems to be setting the precedent in this case. Google Books will reside on their servers,and only be searchable through Google, and not other search engines. Aren’t newspapers essentially proposing to do the same thing? And I’m still intrigued by the idea that Bing can create a marketing campaign about being the place to search the WSJ or the NY Times (if the jumped, too.)

My hunch, though, is that ultimately Bing can’t/won’t pay enough to offset the decline in traffic to such large sites as the WSJ or NY Times.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:20:02 +0000

I have to disagree that this will be a good thing for journalists, mainly because I don't think it will work. It would be a wonderful thing if Bing gave every reporter a unicorn, but where would they get them? CMLP has explained why it why it won't work much better than I could (and with Princess Bride references to boot!). Moshirinia even says "This whole thing smells of antitrust," and aspect I hadn't considered, but think has merit.

By: Ken Doran

Ken Doran — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:15:09 +0000

A key point that deserves attention is that while Google (like all or most major search engines) doesn’t include sites that ask them not to, it is best highly unclear that they have to ask permission if the don’t choose to. If you put a web page on the internet for all to see, I have a strong First Amendment argument that you can’t forbid me to tell others where and what it is. A hyperlink is merely the internet method for doing that. If large amounts of money start changing hands based on “permission to link”, major legal fireworks will follow. (Pay walls are a different matter.) While most commentary seems to overlook this, I doubt very much that the legal teams of Murdoch, Gates/Ballmer and Page/Brin are missing it.

By: Alex Howard

Alex Howard — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:08:40 +0000

The element I like in all of this is the notion that we might actually see another business model for journalism employed in the online wilds. This has been the year for pundits and prognosticators to talk about what could be or what might work. (I suppose this post is an example of that, but since I think it’s a thoughtful contribution to the discussion, I’ll ignore that if you will, Dan.)

This Bing-MSFT deal is starting to feel like the analogue of Apple’s iTablet in the consumer tech world. If the iTablet really does turn out to have close tie-ins to an Apple ebook store, the NYT and Conde Nast magazines, I imagine the digital punditocracy may burst a blood vessel chronicling the possibilities. 10% of market share is no small achievement for Bing in this short time, even considering the massive marketing push and integration into IE.

The deal, if consummated, would represent the next iteration of third parties build frameworks that newspapers might have been better building themselves – Google News, craiglist and Gawker blogs and social networks of readers spring to mind – but I’ve come to realize that for any number of cultural and business reasons, executives failed to create aggregators or digital tools before more nimble online organizations did so. So be it. This is the world we’re in, where changing that robot.txt file can make all the difference.

I wonder if 2010 will be the year when people startedd asking if you “binged” that story on your iPad.