Quantcast

Dow Jones Exec Describes Google As “Digital Vampire”

Identifies newspaper industry as victim

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
[ Business]

Given how everyone seems to love HBO’s "True Blood" and a certain series of books by Stephenie Meyer, it might, at first listen, have been possible to imagine that a Dow Jones exec gave Google a compliment yesterday.  The man wasn’t being overly nice when he compared Google to a "digital vampire," though. 

Google Logo

According to Matthew Flamm, Dow Jones Chief Executive Les Hinton began, "There is a charitable view of the history of Google."  He then continued, "[It] didn’t actually begin life in a cave as a digital vampire per se.  The charitable view of Google is that the news business itself fed Google’s taste for this kind of blood."

But in any event, Hinton believes that the end result equates to Google "sucking the blood" out of the newspaper industry, which isn’t the most pleasant possible image.

Dow Jones does own the Wall Street Journal, by the way, which explains Hinton’s interest.

And if it matters, Hinton gave a vague reference to a possible solution instead of spinning metaphors about the problem.  "Dow Jones is just at the end of developing a new platform from which to conduct business on the Web," he said.

Dow Jones Exec Describes Google As “Digital Vampire”
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • B Parker

    So what, the newspaper industry shouldn’t have competition?

    Google should avoid a certain line of business, cos someone might get upset?

    sorry, if google do it better, cheaper, and more people want it that way, then newspapers need to evolve or die….
    thats how it works….
    thats how EVERYTHING works…

    or didn’t they learn that along with “freedom of the press” line?

    • Guest

      I don’t think competition is the issue. The issue is that Google isn’t generating this content (no reporters, no Google news site of its own content). If all the online news ventures disappeared there wouldn’t be a Google news service. Hence the vampire references.
      It is more like a cheap startup simply photocopying pages from a number of newpapers and giving them away under its own banner. Would you then be saying that the newpapers shouldn’t have competion from this rip-off outfit?
      I’m not saying that Google shouldn’t have a news service, but that your analysis is flawed.
      Google appears to allow news sites to opt-out from having their articles being indexed and displayed on the Google news site, so the Wall Street Journal could stop its articles from being displayed on Google if it really wanted to.

      • http://www.aniota.com/~jwhite Guest

        Your analysis is absolutely correct. Google is not generating any news but they are benefiting from those who do. When they have killed off those sources and there is little or no news, oh well, too bad. No skin off Google’s nose. If you are interested in what Google is doing elsewhere, read about their advancements on book publishers. Scary.

  • Guest

    Same story different media…. First music, then movies now newspapers. Allow me to translate the whine: “Wah. Our dated multibillion dollar business model isn’t able to survive the rapidly changing economy and we don’t see the path to new money so we will start vilifying the tech leaders as we die.”

  • Guest

    @guest

    you are making the classic fallacious argument that presumes businesses stay the same as the environment changes. There is everything to suggest that if faced with pay content mdels from AP and Reuters, or a loss of those “reporting” businesses altogether, media aggregators would create pools of reporters hired directly from those dying dinosaurs. The age of easy digital duplication has transformed creative media from a primary revenue generator to “added value” for digital services. Only businesses that treat media in this way will survive.

  • Guest

    The issue is that newspaper publishers do not want to opt out (ah the free exposure), they want a part of the cake.

    The news paper seem to focus on “you are benefiting from my content”.

    Nobody focuses on the fact that Google is also giving exposure to the news sources.

    So a better analogy (although even this is broken because digital goods do not follow naturally the same economic rules that “realworld” stuff does) would be, what if a startup would start to copy newspapers and start to hand out a mashup of different newspapers (including the ads in that newspapers) for free.

    Yes it would (and it does) limit the business plans of the news sources. Sad.

    OTOH, if the current news sources do not adopt to the new rules, they will die out. Considering how the current news sources are not very journalistic, filtering and shaping the world to their tastes, I do not think that would be a bad loss.

    (E.g. some local newspapers reported that the HADOPI law in France has passed. Most of these did not report that it passed by a trick, (most delegates had gone home, and the government moved up the voting to a time past midnight), nor did it report that the law has been basically struck down as unconstitutional some time later. That’s a very biased view what happens somewhere.)

  • Kipp

    It seems like this exec is using Google as a metaphor for the internet. Regardless of how well Google does it, it is done over and over by numerous services on the internet. Google was no stroke of genius, just good execution and marketing.

    I think this Exec’s failure to “get it” reveals why the dinosaurs (hardcopy papers) are all dying of starvation… Some didn’t realize it was a new world in time. Others may have, but had a flawed understanding of the new terain.

  • http://www.wordsmithwritingservices.co.in Ritusmita Biswas

    With internet readership fast increasing the news papers/television channels have no choice but to have their sites indexed in Google; else they will lose out on valuable readership. There is no harm if BBC site comes up in a web search and tells the story of Michael Jackson’s demise. This is because the BBC or The NewYork Times have sent their reporter to the place and have verified the event. They have the authority to report that event. That is what news is all about! What is a problem is when other lesser known sites simply copy news from there and rewrite/rephrase it. There is no news reporting involved here; it in most cases is simply garbage. Google should put a stop to such sites immediately.

  • Serge Grenier

    The old newspaper will ultimately fade away because they failed to deliver the whole story about what is happening in real life. A hundred years ago, the newspapers really made a difference for democracy. Now they only tell the official mainstream line and news is mostly viewed as filler between the ads. Google shows not only what the newspaper have to say, but also what the people have to say. And in my opinion the people beat the journalists hands down most of the time as far as telling us exactly what’s going on, because the people doesn’t have both hands tied in their back like professional journalists do. Newspapers will eventually die, not because of Google vampirism, but because of they lack of courage defending the truth.

  • Guest

    The newspaper was dead and buried long before Google came along. It was inevitable in an age of instant gratification who want to wait till tommorow to read todays news. They did not help themselves by fighting the trend and now like dinosaurs they are slowly dropping off.

  • Bman

    Well well well, now I’ve heard everything. After trying their best to gain all the newspapers under their control by buying then firing all the talented staff, the finance guy thinks he knows why nobody wants to read their newspaprs. This illustrates the problem we have with the finance class in this country, they want to control everything so they can suck the wealth out of it. Invariably they end up killing what they try to control. You would think after taking part in bringing down the greatest most vibrant economy the world has ever seen in the space of 1 year, the Wall Streeters would shut up and try and fix things, or at least stay out of the way while others do. I think the world would be a better place if the ocean came in and swept Wall Street away. Until that happens this country will have to put up with the real vampires. Hinton can sharpen his digital stakes all he likes, the rest of us should make wooden ones.

  • http://www.cncllc.com Guest

    Who cares if Google is “photocopying” articles from other sites. Welcome to the digital world.

    If you deliver content to the internet for public consumption, then you lost your control. It then becomes my perogative as to how, when and where I consume that content. If Google can gather several public content sources into one place for me, and I find value in it, then that’s where I’ll be. If you do not want your content out there for the public, then don’t publish it.

    Either way, you should face up to the fact that YOU are the vampire, as Anne Rice would have written, because you’ve lost touch with this generation.

    • Guest

      i guess u r using a free Internet connection. someone really loses some money when you access something for free so that someone really cares. how would u feel if ur neighbour started using ur electricity for powering his refrigerator and not paying u for it. i bet u would care. stop being selfish and think beyond ur petty “conveniences”.

      • Guest

        Stop conserving letters for your petty convenience of easy typing. It hurts my brain.

        The newspapers, et al have a choice to make:
        1. Go offline, or make themselves non-indexable (Google obeys the robots file), and miss comers from Google.

        2. Accept and deal with it in a shared society.

        Did you pay to post the above text?
        How much?

        I could also not watch any TV, but I don’t think any of the networks would like that either…

      • Guest

        People like you should definitely pay more attention in English class and read more books in order to learn how to write properly. It’s idiocracy like not capitalizing properly or using moronic shortcuts like “u” and “r” for you are and “ur” for you’re (I bet odds you don’t even know the difference between “you’re” and “your”.) that is one reason people who try to learn English as their second language make mistakes. They see asinine writing like yours and mimic it.

        Grow up, pull your pants up from your hips to your waist, wear your ball cap the way it was designed to be worn, and learn PROPER English before you try telling people how to think. Your message created an image of you as an ignorant fool because of the way you wrote it. I’m laughing at you and mocking you…so are my intelligent friends who write properly.

        As for newspapers…who cares? They killed themselves with their biased views. There are many people in the United States who still weigh all the evidence presented to us from various sources, not just the Internet…we aren’t the sheep the Council on Foreign Affairs and Bilderberg Group believes we are. We could care less what the flakes in Hollywood or music industry think. Their brains are usually fried due to excessive alcohol and other drugs or they are simply fools pretending they have a strong influence over others. Who has real respect for a jackass actress who calls people who attend “Tea Parties” racists or rockers or old lady singers who are no longer headliners, but still have big mouths? Like someone who has the morals of the swines in Hollywood is really going to impress people with common sense that live in the real world.

        • http://www.bigears.net.au Big Ears

          How dare you attack someone because of their education level. You probably think that your Gods Gift to Mankind…

          It is people (so called educated) that caused the Global Economic Recession. You remind me of the Aristocracy of Napoleanic Times.

  • Guest

    The newspaper industry is mad at everything from google to Craigslist. They just don’t get it. The days of everyone having to pay high tribute to them for disseminating information are over, or at least should be.
    That is, unless their scary media campaign against alternative online options works. That’s OK, get rid of them and let real journalists rise in their place. I’ll bet they want everyone to pay an Internet tax to them or something like that instead though.

    They’re mad at craigslist for providing free options and they’re mad at google for being more agile and getting by on less bloat than they do.

    http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/05/newspaper-execs-treading-carefully-on-antitrust-laws/

    http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/james_warren/2009/05/shhhh_newspaper_publishers_are_quietly_holding_a_very_very_important_conclave_today_will_you_soon_be.php

  • Guest

    google is just a syndication service for newspapers. i think yahoo does something similar with AP articles. there is an opt out for anyone who doesn’t want to give away their news on google.

    and for all those who think that google is perfectly ok in giving away some free news think again. nothing is free in this life, somewhere out there someone must be paying for this “free” service. u just need to know whether it’s worth it.

    maybe in future google will somehow force all newspapers to go bankrupt thereby create a mass scale layoffs to those loser journalists who worked for a company that didn’t want to share info for free because it had to pay its employees and stake holders. maybe that’s worth reading free news! yeah!

    • Guest

      You don’t get it, it’s not google that’s killing the newspapers, it’s people and groups like murdoch and knight rider and fox news
      They buy and fire, buy and fire, until the news comes out like they want it to be. But by then noone is reading it anymore.
      The newspapers are just the canary in the coal mine. our whole economy is following them into oblivian.

  • Guest

    Our local newspaper recently stopped daily publication and went to a three-day a week schedule. I thought I would miss a daily paper, having read one most of my life, but I don’t. I think we will drop our subscription altogether. Why not when we can get it all quicker online for free? You can’t beat free. The reading the paper on paper was just a habit, and habits can be kicked.

    Still, I have to wonder, when all the professional news gathers and editors go out of business, where will the news come from? I envision a Web full of press releases, personal opinion, social networks, and not much else.

    Let Google aggregate that.

    • Guest

      Many newsites just repeat the AP anyway, which is tightly controlled by the consortium.
      It’s a free market, and google gives them the option to opt out. They just want to control and get paid for the concept of news.
      Let these guys with their bloat go down, and something better will rise up.

    • http://www.bluegrassmerchants.com Mike Lawson

      Not to worry. When the free press is dead, the void will be filled by government-run news agencies. When they want your opinion, they’ll tell you what it is. lol Hey, it worked in Russia with Pravda…until it didn’t.

      The bottom line is that the conventional news media, as it now exists, is it’s own worst enemy. People don’t believe half of what they hear or read in it because it’s not news being passed along, but rather some corporate entity’s opinion. I’m sorry, folks, if your momma mislead you to believe that your opinion really matters to anyone but you.

      It’s a form of passive-aggression designed to coerce the tide of public “opinion.” Well, people don’t like being manipulated or handled and have begun to turn their backs on the media as a source of believable information. If it’s anything other than 100% facts, it’s just another opinion to be discounted.

      Not only that, but if you look at it, I mean really look at it, 99% of what is published is 100% useless anyway. Who in their right mind cares what Brittany Spears did today or what new drama she has generated? Or what Martin Sheen thinks about the war? Their opinions are cited as more “important” and “factual” somehow than that of the little old man sitting in front of the little country store down the road whittling and spitting tobacco juice as he discusses current events with his pals. I suppose it’s as my wise. old uncle once told me: “simple minds are easily amused.”

      Short of the long is that the media and publishers of print have made thornbirds of themselves. I really don’t care to hear their whinning now.

  • Guest

    I’m wondering when the phone company is going to stop sending out phone books. Our goes straight from the porch to the trash. What a waste of energy and resources.

    • http://www.musemanfiestingkit.com Maria

      Ours already has stopped distributing phone books. You can get one if you call and ask but they don’t just drop them on your porch anymore.

  • http://www.BeHome.ca Debbie Ruston

    Google has nothing to do with us not reading the paper. We do not buy into all the negativity and made a conscious choice to remove newspapers, t.v., from our life. It is simply taking a stand that you do not have to buy into all the crap the media feeds you, which has nothing to do with google.

  • http://www.abicana.com Aquila Magnus

    No actually. I regularly frequent the digital versions of the newspapers. Somtimes also I search for something and get into pages of some newspaper.

    But the pages of newspapers are often so overloaded with animated adverts that my computer is nearly halting. Therefore I often go streight out of them again.

  • http://www.terryreeves.com Terry

    “Media people” are somewhat misinformed on this issue. Google is simply redistributing the one sided opinions many national newspapers provide. Google is actually helping these newspapers stay afloat in the mess of a shrinking pond they have created over the years.

    The truth is, thanks to the Internet, we can now find, read and contribute to news sources that are not all lock step together in pushing a common agenda. The liberal one sided commentary pushed by the vast majority of the big city newspapers across the country really does not fare well with the 80% of the population that does not live in the city limits and does not identify with the liberal slant published on a daily basis.

    Let them point their fingers and point the blame where they will. Real Americans know the real truth about the decline of the largest newspapers in the country and Google never comes up in the reasons why.

  • http://www.musemanfiestingkit.com Maria

    I understand that newspapers are trying to defend their dying industry but c’mon….blaming Google or anyone else on the net is like the buggy whip people trying to do away with automobiles. It’s ridiculous.

    The newspaper companies who will survive in this century will morph into news-media companies, drastically reducing or even giving up print for quality online delivery. The internet is where it’s at. Either be there or fade into oblivion.

    Interestingly, if these companies took the time and energy they are using to blame everyone for their woes and re-channeled it into re-defining themselves into something that fits into today’s world they’d surely come up with some proactive solutions and be a lot happier and more profitable.

    I do hope newspapers don’t totally disappear though….I need something to line my birdcage, wrap my Christmas ornaments in, and use for packing in boxes :)

  • http://www.brandmantra.net/ Website Design

    Really in this fast moving world we dont have much time to read the news papers. This is much easier to get the news in feeds.

    But Journalism would never be ruined. News feeds need the journalists. :D

  • M Petit

    Internet searching has led me to a shorter attention span for details and for long, complex analyses of major issues. I find this unfortunate, but I believe that I have become addicted to “headline hunting”. The “Google syndrome” leads me to a good overview of what is going on, but I have less in-depth knowledge than if I were still concentrating on serious journalistic research.

  • Guest

    Is there still any right of existence for a printed newspaper? A medium whose news are already obsolete when it is purchased? Business and modern people need up to date information. Not information that ist nearly a day old when it is published. What good about information to be read in a newspaper, that everybody knows already from modern online media?

    Newspaper companies should not mourn an point fingers but start being creative and up to date. And by that way helping to save resources, that are wasted for a useless printmedium.

  • http://www.indianalaw.to Paul

    Let’s face it. Newspapers are, at best, 18th Century technology. They are relics of an earlier time. Nobody drives a buggy or horse to work (except in Amish country, God love ‘em), so why should anyone read a newspaper, except online? Besides, the newspapers are heavily biased. If I want to be LIED to, I’ll read a newspaper, but the Internet allows me to search dozens, or even hundreds, of sources, so I can decide what to believe!

    Ben Franklin, whom I revere, was a newspaperman, but Ben also was perhaps the greatest genius of the 18th Century. Ben would NOT be a newspaperman today—he would be an Internet Gazzillionaire! Why? Because he GOT IT!!! He also would be driving a souped up convertible instead of a carriage, and I’ll bet his place would have the best audio system in town. Get with it, people!

    • Guest

      I couldn’t have said it better!

  • http://www.Neale-Sourna.com Neale Sourna

    We’ve not taken a daily or weekly paper for years. A lot of news we didn’t want [unfiltered to our need, and depressing otherwise]. That was before Google or MSN or whatever.

    Newspapers used to be fast, because mail took months then weeks and no one had radio or TV.

    Well, they’re not so fast and you have to go get it or wait for it to be delivered, tomorrow. With old news.

    Newspapers should be the novels of news now. In depth materials that get and give all the multiple layers of detail that online headlines can’t. I glance the online headlines and often don’t read the details, and when I do, it’s often cloned from something I’ve already read.

    Details, newspapers, in depth. In fact, change your name, make a new face and reality of what you are. People buy the special editions of all Obama, or all Michael Jackson, or all the next “wedding of the century” be somewhere between the online headlines with little substance and the glitz photos and no substance of LIFE, US, People, TMZ.

    Neale Sourna
    www.PIE-Percept.com

  • http://ravenwest.net Robin C. Westmiller, JD

    I’ve not read a hard copy newspaper in about 5 years, however those of us who live on-line tend to forget that there are still thousands of people who are not connected to the Internet at all who still need their papers, not only for news, but entertainment, coupons, cartoons and the like. A monthly subscription to a newspaper, in some cases, is still less than paying internet access fees.

    Book publishing is also going through difficult times with Amazon’s Kindle reader, and although brick and mortar bookstores are not what they used to be, and even libraries are struggling, I still believe it will be many years before we’re even close to a “paperless” society. Just ask anyone who works in a law office!

  • http://www.theiphonedevelopers.co.uk/ iPhone Developer

    On my iPhone I have Reuters, ITN, The Telegraph and Straits Times – all good in different ways.
    On my RSS I have over 60 feeds – all deliver news for their area of focus very quickly.
    I very rarely use Google News – it’s not that good.
    Just like GM, many newspapers didn’t bother listening to what their customers wanted – because they knew better – until their business died. I’d argue that their short-sightedness killed it; not Goog.

  • Guessed

    When I was younger, I counted a paper route among my teenage stable of income sources. As an adult, the Lazy Sunday paper and leisurely coffee was a ritual for years. Even after being part of the digitial revolution beginning in the ’80s. I lost interest in newspapers for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that they’re owned, lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels by the elite who control the flow of news. Consequently, there is no objectivity to be found in print anywhere on paper these days. The newspaper employees have killed themselves by being mindless sheeple doing and reporting whatever they’re told regardless of moral or social ramification. I am a nasty Nationalist who still loves his country. When the Local Gazette Star/Reporter/Journal gleefully prints attacks against ordinary citizens while protecting the truly filthy, they do not deserve to survive. Google, or more fittingly, the Internet, is the fittest. When I can search and find truth I will return to that medium. Newspapers have been nothing more than ad revenue machines full of lies for decades. As Paul, in a post before me, I am an ardent admirer of Ben Franklin. Were he and his ilk still walking the Earth today, I have to believe it would be a much better place, and that the useful life of the printing press would have been laid to rest scores of years ago.

  • Guest

    So there are still some who claim that the Internet is where to go for the ‘truth’ eh? Lol!

    And we’re screaming foul about the news we’ve been reading in print? I can’t quite imagine the thinking there other than that the Internet gives such a wide enough range of opinions that surely everyone can find someone to ‘agree’ with, therefore finally discerning the ‘truth.’

    One can surf all day on the ‘net and not land on a single site that isn’t agenda-driven. It’s what the Internet is all about.

    Human nature never changes, but can be quite imaginative in camouflaging the true self.

  • Mike

    Newspapers give me a view of the news that they want me to have. Search engines allow me to find the news and information I want and need.

    If the news/information I want comes from a news source, so be it. If it comes from a blog or website, so be it.

    • http://morganservice.net Don Morgan

      RIGHT ON!!!

    • Guest

      You said: “Newspapers give me a view of the news that they want me to have. Search engines allow me to find the news and information I want and need.

      If the news/information I want comes from a news source, so be it. If it comes from a blog or website, so be it.”

      And the good part is – it also must be accurate if it comes from a blog or website since we know those are never biased or innacurate.

  • http://morganservice.net Don Morgan

    I quit reading newspapers and watch very little TV news because the news is so slanted by reporters with an obvious agenda. If reporters would quit giving their point of views and just report the facts it would be a lot better for newspapers and TV news outlets. Too much sensationalism in the news today. The dirtier the laundry the better. Stories are also rode to death. Take Micheal Jackson for instance, I thought he was a talented but an eccentric person. There has been little else on the airwaves except his passing. What about the other news of the world. I’m sure something else is going on that will have a more profound effect on civilization than that. Don’t get me started on news analyst. That is nothing more than an educated guess. Just report the facts and move on to other things. I like to get my news from many different sources, like the internet and blogs and make up my own mind. With the internet I can pick and choose what interests me.

    • Guest

      Newspapers
      I quit reading newspapers and watch very little TV news because the news is so slanted by reporters with an obvious agenda. If reporters would quit giving their point of views and just report the facts it would be a lot better for newspapers and TV news outlets.

      What’cha mean is:

      I quit reading newspapers and watch very little TV news because the news doesn’t agree with the news as reported by Russ… If reporters would quit giving their point of views and just report the facts as my little mind perceives them.

      Mebbe when whosiewhatis is done with his aluminum hat you could borrow it for a while.

  • Paul from Oz

    The main news is so tainted its close to ridiculousness to take in. I prefer to search the web and collate the presented information and work out if its true on not. As far as truth goes there is little of it that i trust, this world is built on capitalism and there is no place for truth in a profit driven world.

  • http://www.bigears.net.au Big Ears

    Just a few ramblings;

    How can the internet ever replace the feel of a newspaper and the smell of the ink?

    When the internet first took off everyone spruked about how it would create a paperless office. Wrong, due to the instability and lack of security of the internet, software and hardware, as well as the massive increase of information available, it actually increased the amount of paper used in an office.

    Lets look at some of the places where people will read their newspapers.

    On a train, bus, station etc. going to or from work – I know you can pull the laptop out and go online and read the news but, you increase your chances of getting mugged for the laptop rather than a newspaper. Wait, did I hear you say what about the mobile phone? Cost is a big thing as well as crime. People are being mugged regularly for their mobile phones as well but, the big issue is what the mobile companies will charge you to go online to look at the news, compared to the price of a paper.

    In bed – The missus likes to read the SMH every saturday morning in bed as this is her relaxing time. Work days she will keep up to date on the computer with the news. It is very uncomfortable sitting in bed with a laptop surfing the news.

    Personally, I like to watch the news on TV (Austar/FoxTV) as I spend all day staring at a computer and this allows me to zone out from work.

    On saying this I buy the local paper for local news once a month as most of this news cannot be found on the internet. You also feel like you are helping your local community by this purchase.

    Yes, the internet has its benefits as delivering up to date news can be important to some people.

    By supporting newspapers we support our children as there are not many other jobs children can do when they want to earn a few dollars.

    Long Live The Paper Boy!!!

  • http://www.myrtlebeachkidsstuff.com Guest

    Haven’t picked one up in several years now. You can even get the same coupons online if you know where to look. I get the breaking news updates on email, so I don’t miss anything, and actually probably know about it much sooner.

    Can’t blame it all on Google, but the internet has killed the written newspaper industry.

  • http://illuminatusobservor.blogspot.com Dennis Fetcho

    As an executive that lives outside the United States, I have found reading even digital news from the “mainstream” papers to be so absurdly twisted that you have to wonder if they follow a Protocols of Zion strategy and simply print lies.

    From their clearly coordinated lies regarding 9-11, to their known lies regarding “Al Zarqawi” during the Iraq War, and then the lies stretching into so many global events, the mainstream media has proven that the consolidation of media into so few hands, and worse, to one centered in Israel, has been a huge disservice to the American people.

    Let the newspapers and their editors be tried for war crimes along with those politicians who have internally destroyed so much for so little gain. In the meantime, who cares if a group of collective lying idiots goes down in flames.

    The market would reward them if they were doing a good job. Clearly the newspaper business is nothing more than Soviet era crap. Media execs know this, equally.

    The Internet arrived just in time or we would all be in an intellectual dark ages.

    • Tim M

      Until the online versions are identical to the printed versions, I will have need for both.

    • Guest

      Dennis,

      A corner of your aluminum foil hat has come loose again. Please check it or we’ll have to send the guys in white around with the padded suit with the arms on the back, again.

      Get out much? Didn’t think so.

  • http://www.novatedlease.com Damien Kingman

    My folks pay $1.30 to have the paper delivered to their front door. I pay nothing and get to read more then one newspaper right here on the net. How do you compare, easy, you can’t. I have learnt more from searching the net in the past 5 years then I ever did at school in 12 years.

  • Fathead

    It serves to clean up after the cats. But I actually do read it as well. I don’t use google or any engine for other news. I get it from TV and from TV news sites.

    The news itself is univeral, there’s a dozen ways to get it. What really counts is the editorial and commentary pieces from various knowledgeable sources.

    There’s a difference between events and happenings, and the analysis of who where and why in those events.

    If all I had to read was news I’d eventually not bother with it. I’ve never considered any of the aggregate sites like google, yahoo or MSN to be in any way relevant to current events other than letting me search on topics of interest and research.

    I subscribe to one newspaper and one magazine. Everyone has their own level of information intake and preferred method of doing it. Newspapers bring me headlines and advertising. My science magazine keeps me ahead of the newspaper stories in science and technology.

  • Ken Milton, Fl

    I stopped reading the newspaper many years ago because I can get the most negative interpretation of the world events right here in my neighborhood. There is no need to pay for the most recent bad news or how some idiot ‘star’ has again, gotten away with some atrociuos crime against normal folks.
    No, Google had nothing to do with my decision to stop reading any newspaper. I think of it as survival. I get just enough to stay informed watching regular Sunday morning ‘blues’ on local tv to uderstand we are not in the best place in our history. I spend my time helping at animal rescue and local senior in care facilities.
    You can keep your ‘blues’-papers AND Goolge.
    Happy Sunday

    • http://godhistoryandyou.blogspot.com Christina

      I just remembered the other reason that I only occasionally read the papers!

      Great approach, Ken M., combatting the negativity by ‘positivity’ – helping those who need it.

  • Judith

    It breaks my heart to see newspapers going out of business. I still read them, I also read from news sites. I prefer something I can hold in my hand and pick up (physically) later where I left off. On the web, if you miss it today, the link will be gone tomorrow (so to speak). I don’t have the time to sit in front of a computer long enough to get all my information there.
    I also read books. Lots and lots of books. It is hard to take a computer to bed to read.

  • http://godhistoryandyou.blogspot.com Christina

    I am very sorry to say that I believe the ‘blood-sucking’ imagery may be far too accurate, in this instance.

    I never read newspapers that much, too much to process and it seemed a waste of money…now that I “blog”, I like to keep up on national & world events, and I do it online. I am more aware, and I feel good about that. But there is something to be said for actuallly holding a newspaper in your hand, reading it your way, in your time, with a big mug of coffee nearby.

    “Common Sense” was a pamphlet, that’s paper!, and passed out to the colonists. The Declaration of Independence of Independence was penned on parchment/paper. Our Constitution & the Bill of Rights…need I go on? Hear ye! Hear ye! The possibly impending death of the newspaper industry is just plain wrong

    Reporting will lose its heart.

  • Vlad

    The newspaper industry has been transferring their investments into the web for well over a decade. This wall street vampire sounds like an ambulance chaser trying to steal more from the middle class in the name of the newspaper industry… Booshht!

  • artgrrl

    I will tell you the honest to god reason I stopped buying the daily newspaper and having it delivered is because the delivery persons we have are so lazy…they drive by in their car and throw the paper…on your driveway, sidewalk, bushes whatever.

    They just simply stopped putting it in our mailbox. When I was young I delivered papers…you carried a bag or pulled a wagon and you had to deliver them to every house. I got to know all the customers and always recieved nice tips. Google has done nothing to the newspapers….they are their own worst enemy.

  • http://www.cpasitesolutions.com Kenny

    It’s hard to believe such a small minded twit can get such a great job and generate so much press by saying something that stupid. Google is not killing newspapers. The internet is. It’s called a “changing business environment”. Deal with it. Adapt or die you silly old fart. Blaming Google for the demise of print news is like blaming the rooster because the sun’s coming up.