New York Times To Get Around $100 Million From Google Over Three Years (reuters.com) 31
According to the Wall Street Journal (paywalled), the New York Times is getting around $100 million from Google over the next three years as part of a deal that allows Google to feature Times content on some of its platforms. Reuters reports: The deal includes the Times' participation in Google News Showcase, a product that pays publishers to feature their content on Google News and some other Google platforms, according to the report, which cited people familiar with the matter. The Times in February announced an expansion of its agreement with Google that included content distribution and subscriptions.
curated news (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with going to AP directly is that you don't get "full coverage of this story." AP has biases and leaves out facts it doesn't like. Being able to see multiple sources for the same news is very useful.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the murdoch outlets sometimes have real news that "mainstream" outlets like NYT do not carry, or leave out important details. The problem for me is that no matter how many times I tell google news that I don't want news about the royals or entertainment, they force feed it to me anyway. Same thing with wrestling news, fer god's sake.
Meantime, there are some outlets that they won't let me block at all. Presumably, those are paying to have their stuff shown. Scumbags.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem for me is that no matter how many times I tell google news that I don't want news about the royals or entertainment, they force feed it to me anyway. Same thing with wrestling news, fer god's sake.
On the other hand, after I viewed a YouTube video on how to make lead-acid battery grade sulfuric acid from epsom salts using a flower pot, a couple carbon rods from big dry cells, and an electronics-bench power supply, it only took their algorithms a month or so to figure out I wasn't interested in Sa
Cue the complaints (Score:2)
So what happens when the smaller and/or new news outlets complain because they no longer get any Google News traffic because Google is not interested in paying them because they don't generate significant traffic for Google?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Is there an unethical mulit-national corporation who's dick you don't have in your mouth?
Google is the abuser here. They're profiting on the backs of smaller news outlets and giving back nothing. The occasional click through sure as fuck doesn't make up for the lost revenue. Google is strangling local news and you're telling them they should be grateful? Fuck that noise.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Cue the complaints (Score:2)
Google is the abuser here. They're profiting on the backs of smaller news outlets and giving back nothing. The occasional click through sure as fuck doesn't make up for the lost revenue. Google is strangling local news and you're telling them they should be grateful? Fuck that noise.
If you think I give a shit about Google then you don't know a damn thing about me. The fact is that having big tech companies decide who gets paid and who doesn't means they pick the winners and the losers. Big unethical companies controlling shit is exactly what this delivers, so bend over and start sucking.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are going to just regurgitate the AP wire, who cares if they go out of business.
Re:No idea if they are trust worthy (Score:4, Insightful)
You shouldn't: they're in bed with Google.
Re: (Score:1)
You haven't figured out how to bypass a paywall by this point?
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't figured out the content behind the paywall isn't even worth reading?
Re:No idea if they are trust worthy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just make this comment on an article about google paying the grey lady 100 million bucks?
That's awesome.
Re:No idea if they are trust worthy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're trying to suggest that a paywall should preclude trust then you have your priorities backwards. Free news sites are supported by ads and data collection, their news is whatever best caters to their revenue from ads and data collection.
And pay news sites have to cater to their existing audience, because they have a harder time attracting new readers. That means they can be afraid to change their opinions out of fear of losing subscribers, even if those opinions are later shown to be stupid or even dangerous. In other words, they can end up telling people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear.
There's no such thing as a good model for paying for journalism — only bad models and worse models.
Re:No idea if they are trust worthy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you're wholly off-base, I just think you picked the wrong word there. The essence of branding is meeting customer expectations, and customers of a given newspaper have certain standards which they expect the newspaper to meet. That's not a bad thing though, when those standards are high. In fact, that's the point. That's how responsible journalism is maintained. And when those standards are low? It's as you say: it can result in a deceptive feedback loop.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm struggling to think of what opinions a newspaper could have which would maintain an audience over a long period of time. Newspapers cover news, current events, their opinions are ephemeral by nature.
Politics. A good test, for example, would be seeing how right-leaning papers covered (or didn't cover) the January 6th uprising and the subsequent committee hearings.
Re:No idea if they are trust worthy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The big question is why... (Score:2)
I mean the NYT kinda sucks unless you want NYC related content. Their national and world reporting certainly offers nothing worth the paper this won't get printed on over and above what you can get at AP or Reuters.
Alphabet has enough money to open its own news room given all the layoffs in the press industry lately it seems like they'd have little trouble finding qualified staff ( or at least staff no less qualified than the rest of the industry ). Having their own 'Alphabet News Service" or something woul
Re: (Score:2)
Although NYT does suck, even for NYC news, it still has numerous useful articles. It's just a bad idea to rely on it as your primary source of news. It's also helpful to keep in mind that it has a very woke bias, so most articles are just there to push the narrative, and one can readily skip them.
buggy whip factory kept alive (Score:1)
For what, though? (Score:3)
Almost every time I click on a NYTimes link in Google News (browser and app), it just takes me an NYTimes article with a paywall.
Bass Ackwards (Score:1)
Infernal paywalls (Score:2)
It's super-infuriating to have to back-click and select an alternate article on the same topic all the time.