Blogs and Stories
The New Good Guys
Alex Wong / Getty Images; AP Photo
Suddenly Murdoch and Microsoft are on the right side against the Google. Douglas Rushkoff says the two oft-despised companies are the best hope to defeat the Evil Empire.
Discussions between Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. for a structure where the former’s search engine (Bing) would pay for exclusive rights to the latter’s content (Wall Street Journal, Fox, etc.) has proven instantly upsetting to the self-appointed defenders of a "free" Internet. The simple reason: it might just work.
Defying the logic that everything is more valuable the higher it climbs on Google's search rankings, Rupert Murdoch is making good on his threat to pull out of Google searchability, altogether. Instead, he wants to be paid for his properties to show up in search results. And Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer may be desperate enough for a competitive advantage against Google to take Murdoch up on the deal, and offer it to other media companies with content people really want to find.
We can't confuse our actual right to make and distribute content freely with Google’s perceived right to freely exploit the content everyone makes.
• Douglas Rushkoff: Murdoch to Google: Search This
• Douglas Rushkoff: Google Declares War on Facebook Of course, the information-wants-to-be-free troops are already up in arms. Some welcome what they see as the extinction of both evil empires in an ill-conceived death grip that will push Fox News and the Wall Street Journal off the mainstream map. Others see it as a last-gasp effort by "old media" to resist the unstoppable, Google-driven evolution of an entirely free content universe. They see searchability by Google as equivalent to participation in democratic society—and any resistance to offering up one's content to exploitation by Google Inc. as resistance to the natural openness of interactive media and bottom-up civilization.
As an early cyberpunk, I see their point—as well as the confused logic informing it. Greedy monopolists controlled media for a long time, and formed huge conglomerates with interests beyond providing people with the content they needed. Media companies moved into the business of delivering eyeballs to sponsors, instead of content to readers. Recording companies bilked the artists who created the music. Taking content for free seems justified when it is being taken from big bad companies. And making content ourselves, as well as distributing it freely to one another, is now correctly understood as a basic human right.
But we can't confuse our actual right to make and distribute content freely with Google’s perceived right to freely exploit the content everyone makes. Google is not in this for the fun of it; they make money off their searches. By making our content available to Google, we make Google's searches more valuable. If we don't feel our content is being made more valuable in the exchange, then we don't have to accept this searchability as some precondition of Internet citizenship.
However much we all might like free content in the short term, it is unsustainable in the long term. When nobody is paying for content, that content stops being created. If money can’t be made reporting and writing articles, then professionals simply can't do it anymore. Unless we adopt the position that the amateur blogosphere is really capable of taking on the role that the New York Times and CNN play, then we do need solutions for paying for content.
Advertising is certainly one option. But when Google becomes the meta-frame around all the content in everyone else's publications, then Google's ads are the only ones that really matter. Google's ads are the ones that show up when we are searching for content, and open to suggestion. That's the Internet equivalent of the moment we are flipping through the magazine—not the time we are spending when we deep inside an article and oblivious to the extraneous information beckoning from beyond its borders. Once we have clicked on the article and are brought to the interior of the publication on offer, we go into content mode—reading, rather than searching for relevant information, including ads.
Since the search engine is now extracting the ad revenue that used to go to the content provider, it makes sense that the search engine should pay some of that forward.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Apple's Mac Killer Unveiled
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
The Great Google Coverup?
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
The Internet Mob's Porn Bomb
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
rackit
This is the same argument that developers and programmers use as FLOSS makes it's way through their ranks. It'll all work out Doug, just wait and see.
kokuaguy
Hey beastie folks -- I hope you all realize how fortunate you are to have this author contributing to the website. Check out his amazing background on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Rushkoff
I first encountered him years ago when I showed my students a documentary he did for "Frontline" on the advertising industry (The Persuaders) and later when I read one of his many books (Nothing Sacred -- it's on the roots and future of Judaism.) When it comes to integrity and qualifications I cannot think of a more impressive source of information. It's the first I ever heard of the cyberpunk label being attached to Mr. Rushkoff -- just another reason that his body of work has such attraction for me.
maukachamber
I think this obsession for money is what makes the media so evil. The newspapers and medias make enough money by advertising in their websites, and their websites are more popular according to the quality of their content and for the amount of investment in advertising the site. Google provides the free theater for the competition - the real problem is that the big news corp. are facing big competition from smaller medias such as this paper, that provide excellent, honest content for much less investment. I trust the daily beast much more than i trust the new york times.
matt59
News media is the greatest check on the power of politicians to abuse their position. The death of content would be a crime against humanity and would seriously undermine the survivability of democracy. All the independent newspapers of the world are under financial threat, and those that aren't have slashed staff and thereby undermined journalistic standards.
I am myself guilty of getting my news for free on-line, and I cannot see how I or anyone else can expect to continue to do this without the standard of that news declining. We get what we pay for.
numonk
The "content" has been dead for years. How many Americans get their "news" from three large companies that long ago bought the now mostly AP whore "newspapers"?
I buy a paper every morning, and I NEVER get what I pay for.
sophia5
" News media is the greatest check on the power of politicians to abuse their position. "
Afraid not so much anymore.
FOX is Roger Ailes Conservative Friendly . . . MSNBC is Jeffrey Immelt Liberal Friendly.
Ailes was and maybe still is a Republican consultant.
Immelt has an advisory position in the Obama Administration.
General Electric Owns the entire NBC Family.
It seems unrealistic that NBC's journalists would ever question
certain corporate decisions at General Electric, much less
do any sort of critical report of the parent company.
ESPN and ABC are owned by Disney.
Can anyone imagine an ABC journalist ever
doing a critical report on the high cost of a Disney World
Admission ticket.
Just look at all the product placement promos
during early morning " NEWS " shows.
It seems the News Business caters to
biased points of view on BOTH the right and left
. . . . . . and selling dish soap, and Mouse Ears ?
AlanD2
You've been watching Fox News too much, Sophia. Bill O'Reilly's feud with GE is old hat.
And what about Joe Scarborough on MSNBC? Not exactly a liberal dream, is he?
RawhideRex
"We get what we pay for"
True...and we are already paying for it. First with the device we use to view the content (computer, mobile phone etc) and second with internet access. If the author, murdoch and others really thought about it... the issue isnt free content (because as I pointed out..its not really "free")..the issue is that the level of competition has changed...and that is what is "killing" the traditional news model. Instead of just a handful of media outlets...there are now thousands....if not millions. You can't turn back the clock now I'm afraid..either get with the times or move on.
Barleymash
First, we're not currently getting our news for "free" any more than we get it for "free" when we watch CNN or MSNBC. We're dealing with advertising. The advertising model for online news may be slightly off-kilter right now, but advertising is like water. It will find its level. Second, the big news about the Bing/News Corp alliance is not that two corporations are teaming up to establish a new marketing model. The big news is the death of Bing. Once Bing becomes the engine through which you can get nothing but filtered right-wing corporate propanganda, it will cease to be used by anyone except those seeking right-wing propaganda. Does Bing really want to be the Fox News of the Internet? Fox News thrives in America, but the U.S. is a small part of the Googleverse. If they want to compete, they need to stay above the political fray. News Corp doesn't know how to do that.
rushkoff
So your interpretation of the deal is that Microsoft is exclusive to Murdoch and NewsCorp? That's not how I understood the exclusivity, and I'm sorry if I made it sound that way. The exclusivity would be what Microsoft is paying for. Murdoch's properties become exclusive to the Bing search engine. And Microsoft would have other partners, also selling search rights for exclusive use on the Bing engine.
But Microsoft will still list everyone's else's content. It's not a matter of Microsoft pulling content providers who don't pay. It's a matter of Microsoft only paying content providers who give them an exclusive. Microsoft pays. Not Murdoch.
So Microsoft isn't in danger of becoming an engine through which you can only get Murdoch content - unless Google starts the same deal, and gets left-wing media to sign on exclusively with it. That would be and interesting development.
Barleymash
I believe the very shift of News Corp properties - with all their attendant political and pro-business baggage - over to an exclusive search engine mathematically shifts your likely search results toward a political ideology. That creates a situation in which searchers have two choices: Go to Google where you'll have a better chance of finding neutral information, or choose Bing, where you know going in that your chances of receiving ideologically-driven results are mathematically higher. That's going to be a self-selecting and reinforcing phenomenon. Google should include that message in their marketing. And Microsoft, whether they intend to or not, will be perceived as weighing results toward their "partner." No good can accrue to Bing over this. And, if I were a writer for News Corp, I'd lose my mind over it. News Corp is effectively boxing in their visibility and impact. Their information footprint will have been reduced by a potentially career-crippling margin. Fun.
stopper22
@barleymash- interesting point, however money, compensation, and fair value are the real theme behind the article. cable ratings show fox dominates the cable news. sponsors and advertisers are well aware of that. if this new business model works, ie those ideological seeking consumers flock to bing to get additional fox content, it will be a worth while success for both fox and msft. other content creators, say like nytimes, msnbc, cnn, will also want to be paid for their content as their sponsors and advertisers will push them to do as well.
google's power now is the size of its audiences, but if those audiences aren't paying, even a smaller audience on Bing is more valuable to msft and fox. google risks losing the appeal (and power) of the size of its audience if it can be shown that smaller audiences will pay for content. other content providers would surely rather be paid for their work than give it away.
kolakidd
Work shouldn't be free, but there must be more innovative ways of funding content than subscription models. Subscription is a tricky issue online because it limits your exposure of content to new readers.
WSJ's logic is totally flawed because they're ignoring the user perspective. If I as a user am on a search engine I'm generally not looking for the news source I'm looking for a subject, and I generally expect more than one result for that subject. I may judge the subject by the news source which may affect wether I click on the subjects link but if a specific news source isn't there I'm going to click on the next best link. WSJ is assuming that their brand is more important than the subject matter
Lets say though that WSJ moves to Bing and takes it's few million visitors with it in a best case scenario, what does that really do to Google? Yeah it's a nice marketing campaign for Bing, but beyond that?
I also don't think the assumption that they will adopt the paid model for other exclusive news content will save the industry. Smaller more desperate news agencies will simply fill in the gap left behind.
DakLak
Murdoch: using Notepad create a file called ROBOT.TXT and place the following in it:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Place copies in all your servers and no one will ever bother you again. No need for Microsoft.
Google will honour these instructions. You are less honourable.
AlanD2
Does it have to go in any specific folder, DakLak?
CitizenBloggerX
How assinine, Murdock calls himslf a fighter for freedom of the internet, Then wants paid for his content ? Deport that unamerican immigrant
sretchko
Should'nt that read "Deport that unamerican immigrant bastard"?
connie47
Murdock fights for his pocketbook .... end of subject. There is nothing too low that he will not do it for money.
Veronicaxy
If you've worked with Google and had the chance to listen to them behind closed doors you'd be hard pressed to see a difference between their desire to win at all costs vs. say Microsoft or Murdoch News Corp.
The original founders don't act interested in administrating a huge company. So there are fiefdoms run by individuals, some who see the opportunity to use large wads of cash and a powerful brand to accomplish their means unchecked.
I'm curious to see if we'll see a coup d'tat at Google as often happens with distracted founders or if it's more effective to allow the facade to exist that the founder's presence provides.
It's not good. They also have knowledge of the psyches of each of us that would make our mothers envious.
We need a clash of the Titans. Including better government regulations that limit the power of their use of our information.
dooreen
I think the problem probably lies in spam.
People do not trust advertisers that are advertising, even though they could pay for the content, like advertisers pay for content in newspapers.
People don't trust new advertisers or pop ups, assuming they are just spammers or worse.
Microsoft could come up with something to make it safe again to trust pop ups, but it seems there is more to this than just money.
I think they are trying to dumb people down, by making information too expensive for an ordinary person to get, in this economic crash, where the value of capital was possibly being destroyed for much longer, than the "news" agencies let on.
DaveNewton
A powerful analysis. I was thinking Microsoft Murdoch = hubris. True, of course. But maybe you're right. As all these companies know, you can dominate parts of ad-based media by growing huge. Google seems to have found the taproot of the ad tree. Maybe the next big thing is watching the bigs chop each other up. A new kind of top-down antitrust movement. Intriguing.
splamco
Uh cyberpunk, Google doesn't have or present content, they point you to it. Many content providers would call this a service they get for free enabling them to present they're ad laden content to someone who might not have seen it except for finding it at Google.
BTW, Murdoch and Microsoft or still evil.
dooreen
I think Murdoch misses one big point in marketing.
Pride. So many products know, a person buys a product to look good, partly.
I believe Murdoch owns both Economist and News of the World, but who would feel good sitting on a crowded subway, reading a publication that looks very much like soft porn to some people.
Some things work better on the internet and some things work better in print.
I also wonder if this could lead to another anti-trust complaint or claims of price fixing or that kind of thing.
chswad
If this deal happens, I. for one, will completely forget about Bing and probably Yahoo too, since Yahoo and Bing have made their recent agreement. If I want to read a tabloid, I'll go directly to the tabloid website.
pulmanomancer
It is a bit ironic that this article should be on The Daily Beast, a news aggregator which is itself in the business of taking eyeballs, and thus ad revenue, away from the content creators...
keemia
Why does the Daily Beast show the photo of Bill Gates on behalf of Microsoft. He doesn't represent the company any more.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.