The impact of Google

1) Why has Google led to the decline of the newspaper industry? 
- As stated in the article, ' The Google guys have apparently sucked the lifeblood out of the media business by siphoning off billions in advertising revenue over the past decade or so.'  Google is often blamed for removing billions of dollars in classified advertising from the newspaper business, demolishing one of its key revenue pillars.More than $40 billion of advertising money has disappeared from the newspaper business. Google has prospered because it was an early adopter of a new form of algorithm-driven advertising, one that served the needs of many advertisers as well or better than much more expensive forms of marketing.

2) Do you personally think Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs? Why?
- I personally do believe that Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs. This is because as Google have adapted so well to this new form of advertising that they have become more successful than any other advertisers and newspapers. For people who consume these newspapers, Google seems like an easier access which would be more convenient for them as they could just read the articles online on the internet or even on their phones instead of having to buy newspapers. Therefore I believe that Google is to blame for the newspapers closing. 



3) Read the comments below the article. Pick one comment you agree with and one you disagree with and justify your opinions in detail.

Comment i agree with: 

"So what if they didn’t invent the Internet. They did figure out a good way to advertise on other people’s content without sharing anything with the people who did the work. They could have built a system that actually paid the content creators. They could have tossed in a microcent every time someone clicked on a search link. But no, they kept ALL of the money for themselves. And they still do it. They seem to think that Google News is a service. It’s just a leech on the hardworking reporters."

-The reason i agree is because it states how google is just keeping all the money for themselves which shows that they have taken over.



Comment I disagree with:
"Obviously, Google is not to blame. I don’t think it’s about blame. I think the Internet is incredibly poorly designed. Rather than being free, everything on it should cost something in order to compensate creators. We have a proven system for doing this through organizations like ASCAP and BMI. The principal of royalties for profiting from the content of others is well established. Google came along, and, at least in the case of Youtube, knowingly robbed content creators for years in order to build up the business. The ideal system would be one in which every click resulted in a nano-charge on your phone bill, maybe 1/1000 of a cent for a news story, for example. Sites like Google that link to other sites could also pay in very tiny increments."

-The reason I disagree with this comment is because it states that, 'The internet is poorly designed,' and that, 'Everything on it should cost something in order to compensate creators.' I don't think that the internet should be charging money on what you use it for because it eliminates the purpose of being able to use it for free. and not to mention it is not entirely free anyway as there is broadband costs anyways.