From the "Um, I don't think so..." Department
Who hasn't yet seen the incendiary editorial from the LA Times this morning? You know, the one saying that publishers say (because apparently the Times wouldn't) that Google is "a greater threat to [publishers'] livelihoods than Osama bin Laden."
The editorial lambasts the recent Google announcement to allow unmoderated comments after stories published on Google News. And since Google News is aggregating content from newspapers that don't allow any comments, let alone unedited ones, the Times would like to know what the value is in suddenly allowing folks to discuss the news without a recess aid.
To wit:
The essence of good journalism is asking the right questions. Google, however, won't ask anything of those who submit comments. According to the company's announcement, its only interest is that the submissions are authentic, not that they're relevant or even truthful...
There will be some valuable responses too, plugging holes in stories or correcting mistaken impressions. Google, however, won't help readers separate the factual wheat from the public-relations chaff -- a reminder that Google may strive to be the world's index, but it's not journalism.
This editorial is emblematic of just how troubled our industry is right now. It's another indication that traditional news media outlets don't fully understand not how, but why the 'net works. On the print side, newspaper consumers have an expectation that their morning paper will have a certain number of local news stories, sports stories, a recipe or two, some editorials and a handful of letters to the editors. Sure, I'm generalizing, but the point is that American newspapers have succeeded in branding themselves into a corner. Part of the problem is that newspapers are static in both form and content. Think of what happened when the New York Times announced a reduction in size... or what happened with the Journal went color. Bedlam!
Print pubs are, by nature, static. Broadcast news changed that mindset just a bit, and if we all remember what happened when the first episodes of the Today show were airing, publishers all thought the end was near. But the industry adapted and survived.
It's transition time again - but rather than feverishly working to adapt and adopt, we're crying foul: Google isn't playing nice! Where's the lady with the whistle when you need her? Isn't someone going to give Google a detention?!?
The Internet is by nature and, well, in terms of its technology, dynamic. That means that it's bound to change and evolve much more quickly than we're able really comprehend. The whole reason we now have 70 million blogs indexed is because the Internet offers an adaptive, open publishing environment. Anyone can play, and for the most part, there are few or no barriers to entry.
While the 1990s saw the first transition - folks pushed content out to their consumers - the mid-2000s are seeing the second: participation. Why are sites like Facebook and Flickr exploding? Because consumers have (1) become more technically savvy and willing to try new web tools during the past decade and (2) because more people than ever are able to participate in the digital conversation.
It is unrealistic to believe that consumers still want news only pushed one-way. Even if that news comes via a seasoned, trained journalist. The expectation has morphed dramatically - we want, and we have, the ability to talk back.
It astounds me that news organizations are continuing to discuss whether or not to allow comments on their websites. Or if those comments should be moderated. Or watched. Or whatever.
Of course consumers should be able to take a story and run with it. Ask more questions, contribute their own ideas. Hell, that's what I'm doing right here, no? Difference is that I'm talking here, on my blog rather than reacting to the Times' editorial over at LATimes.com. And for the many, many people who come to mydigimedia every day, you're reading what I have to say here - and not at the LA Times. Lots of times you're commenting here, too.
And guess whose site is benefiting from that traffic?
Moderation? Absolutely - comments should be moderated to some extent. I wind up with at least a hundred spam comments and trackbacks for porn or Viagra every day. But there are workarounds - easy tech solutions that don't require me to sit for hours going through each commenter.
And so what if a flack at the LA Times chooses to respond here, to explain the editorial board's viewpoint? In the editorial, the Times gives an example of how commenting may result in unfettered publicity:
For example, if The Times ran another expose on conflicts of interest within the Food and Drug Administration's drug-approval process, Google News would provide a forum for the FDA and any researchers or drug manufacturers implicated in the story to respond, unedited...
...As a result, the comments section is likely to be larded with spin, hype and obfuscation. A seemingly heartfelt comment may carry the CEO's name, but the words will probably have been typed by corporate flacks.
What's to stop the obfuscation around the water cooler at your office? Or the spin dished out on talking head "news" shows? Funny, I haven't seen anyone from the Baltimore Sun show up at my neighborhood bar to moderate a discussion between me and our district councilman about a recent story that appeared in the paper.
Point is, newspapers cannot - cannot - rebuke the web as it realistically functions today. Nor can they continue to stare at the ground, waiting to be told where their cheese moved. Or for that matter, where the cheese will be tomorrow.
