Ron Schenone

AP and Google Butting Heads

Posted by on May 2, 2009 | 8 Comments

According to an article over at Forbes, the chief of the AP is making threat towards Google to cut off their copy, soon. The AP has been around for about 163 years or so and has held the newspaper companies hostage by limited the news that can be printed. In the digital age, with television, radio, satellite communication is the AP even still needed?

Maybe I am just naive, but aren’t there other ways to get the news besides the AP? Does modern communications today need an old system of news reporting? According to Forbes it states:

The AP and Google have been debating content and compensation issues for months. In an interview with Forbes on Wednesday, Curley warned that if Google doesn’t strike the right deal with the AP soon, “They will not get our copy going forward.”

The threat follows Rupert Murdoch’s accusation earlier this month that Google is committing copyright thievery when it borrows material from news stories to assemble search rankings. A few days later, the AP weighed in with a similar charge–though it did not mention Google–announcing a content protection initiative and threatening legal and legislative action against news aggregators.

The AP, a 163-year-old cooperative owned by news organizations, won’t discuss its talks with Google, but plans to create landing pages and Web-based “news maps” directing users to original AP stories (and away from secondary sources who post material “borrowed” from the AP). To do this, the AP needs Google’s help. Most likely that means Google creating search protocols similar to those created from the licensing deal the AP inked with Google in 2006.

I must admit that I do not know all of the ins and outs of news reporting, but I do know that Google is the primary search engine on the Internet. One would think they would be setting the terms and not AP when it comes to Internet reporting.

If the AP had their way we would all still be riding trains and airplanes would be outlawed. Isn’t it time that these corporate greed mongers be put in their place?

What do you think?

Comments welcome.

Forbes article is here.

  • laxoriginality

    Without content of at least moderate value what, exactly, will Google be searching? Tweets?

  • mhz

    Ok Ron, I have to say this. From watching your blog for at least a year now, you seem HEAVILY biased in favor of EVERYTHING that Google does.

    Now thats just off the top of my head, I haven’t actually gone back and read anything to support that. Its just the impression I get. I mean, I am impressed by some of the things Google offers too, but they’re just another corporation.

    I don’t think I’ve ever read a blog where everything Google does gets reported with a glowing review, and their enemies all get slammed automatically.

    What in the world makes you think that Google themselves are not corporate greed mongers?

    If the AP has a long-lasting system (global staff and infrastructure) for reporting news, why would you assume that Google should automatically get access to it, just because they happened to build a search engine that caught on?

    >>>>If the AP had their way we would all still be riding trains and airplanes would be outlawed.

    Where does that statement come from?

    I mean, years ago, the AP developed a system that “caught on” too, so why the prejudice against them?

    If someone else comes along in the future and builds a system that takes advantage of Google’s infrastructure investments without paying them for it, don’t you think Google will have some (well paid) lawyers knocking on their door?

    But don’t worry. Its just a matter of time before the reporters on the ground in all the foreign countries are wearing branded Google sport coats and asking interview questions that are specially worded for search engine optimization.

    I think you’ll have your wish…Google probably WILL OWN THE WORLD.

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/ Ron Schenone

    Hello mhz,
    First of all thank you for sticking around during the past year or so.

    I agree with you 100%. I am biased when it comes to Google. I am fortunate to have maintained relationships with people in Silicon Valley, who not only work at Google, but also for some of the major companies in the area. I even have a cousin who is a VP at Intel, but he is the black sheep of the family. LOL For the most part Google has maintained their do no harm policy. I am not naive enough to believe they are perfect, but they sure stand out in a sea of corruption.

    What irritates me about AP is the way they do things. Last year they attacked the blogging community saying no blogger had the right to use their content. Their interrupation of what is fair use is their own opinion, not that of others.

    I believe we can all agree that the Internet has changed the way a lot of things have been previously done, including news reporting. News papers are failing because their way of reporting news is to slow. By the time the paper is printed and news hits the street it is already old news.

    During the age of the train barons, they rode rough shod over the country. If they had their way air planes would be banned. Therefore the comparison to the AP. They need a new business model. Times have changed and they haven’t. Making threats is not going to work.

    I disagree about Google ruling the world. But I do see them in a position of power for some time to come.

    If Google starts to take on the Win-Tel mentality I will be the first to report it.

  • mhz

    Well I appreciate your response. Personally I’m not a blogger, so I haven’t butted heads with AP.

    If your admiration for Google is somewhat based on having access to people inside the company, that gives it a little more credibility.

    The internet has made EVERYONE need a new business model (or at least made them *think* they do), and many companies don’t know how or are too late to create a viable “copy” of themselves online.

    So they fear becoming obsolete, and fight back, but not always in a constructive manner. Obviously limiting the spread of news is not really beneficial to citizens on a broader scale, as we all feel we have a “right” to know whats going on everywhere.

    But I’m sure you know that news organizations are frustrated not only by the fact that people are getting their news from arbitrary sources, but also that it gets reported with arbitrary quality. Whereas most news organizations have some commitment to integrity and balancing their biases*, the blog-o-sphere mostly does not.

    So on some levels, they do have a just cause for attempting to constrain their “product” to limited distribution.
    ————
    *footnote: OK, now due to the rise of “cable” tv networks, there are many highly opinionated news pundit types. But you can flush them all and just give me NPR.

  • mhz

    Also, I am one who disagrees with the concept that,

    >>>>By the time the paper is printed and news hits the street it is already old news…

    There is always a need for QUALITY reporting, not just FAST reporting. If you write a GREAT article about a news event a few days after it happens, it will still get read, because people DO STILL THINK about major news events for days/weeks after they happen.

    The papers and similar orgs just need to focus on their strengths, rather than speed. They need to push the message of their reporting QUALITY. If they can advertise it, and they can back it up, then they can sell it. If they don’t have the QUALITY to attract readers, and they have just been taking advantage of the lack of any other media, well then they are sunk.

    Again, that just seems like logic to me. I don’t have any statistical reason to think quality would equal sales. It just stands to reason, as in most other markets, people will pay more for better quality.

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/ Ron Schenone
  • mhz

    Sad.

    The statement:

    >>>>The solicitation of new subscribers to replace those who do not renew costs millions of dollars a year

    ..indicates that people are not renewing, so they must not be satisfied with the quality of the magazine. It may be that the annual solicitation just appeals to people who want to “try out” the magazine, and really end up never reading it, so they don’t renew.

    I read recently that some of my favorite TV shows are getting cancelled this season, because even though they have a massive fan base, the fans are watching the shows only on DVR.

    Although the DVR watching is trackable, and indicates a large audience, the advertisers assume that DVR users are using the FF button and skipping commercials (they are correct), so they only count the numbers of people who actually watch during the broadcast. Real-time watchers are low in number, so advertisers are pulling their money, and shows are getting the axe.

    My friends and I who watch and talk about certain TV shows were remarking that we have reached a point in the history of TV where the best technology (DVR) has become the direct cause of the lack of any good shows to watch.

    Apparently the internet has a similar effect on print media. I wonder if we will reach the point where there is nothing left except for internet blogs? Technology advances consistently allows us to defeat advertisers, which leads to the loss of the content that we REALLY, REALLY WANT.

    I wonder if there is any market segment where internet advertising makes enough money to fund other non-internet forms of media, i.e. are there any pockets of profitability which might lead to the publishing of good, non-internet content?

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/ Ron Schenone

    Hi mhz,
    Interesting about the DVR use causing programs to be cancelled. I use my DVR quite a bit, especially for programs that appear to have a disproportionate amount of advertising [commercials] compared to the program itself.

    I agree about the content. I am currently enjoying Time magazines issue of the top 100 Most Influential People.