Google paying $1 billion to publishers for content in new News Showcase

Posted:
in General Discussion
Google is planning on paying news publishers more than $1 billion for a new initiative dubbed Google News Showcase, a project aimed at creating and curating high-quality journalism.

Credit: Google
Credit: Google


The search giant first announced that it was developing a "new news experience" over the summer, suggesting that it will pay publishers and media outlets to license content. In a blog post on Oct. 1, Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said that the company will pay publishers more than $1 billion over a three year period to "create and curate high-quality content" for Google News Showcase.

Google News Showcase will first launch in Brazil and Germany, and will be available initially on Android before launching on iOS.

The showcase will sport a new set of features aimed at guiding readers to higher-quality journalism and overall information, including the ability for publishers to package stories with greater context and elements like timelines and video briefings.

Alongside those elements, Google is also offering free access to select paywalled content in the hopes that readers will one day subscribe to a media outlet. Users will also be able to customize their feed by following specific publishers.

Compared to previous efforts to highlight high-quality journalism, Google News Showcase will rely much more heavily on human curation and the editorial decisions of publishers. While Panels will still surface based on Google algorithms, publishers will be curating the content featured within them.

The showcase also helps deal with some of the complaints publishers have had with news curating services like Facebook and Google. Google News Showcase panels link directly to a publisher website, mitigating some of the hit to monetization.

Google and Facebook have historically resisted legislation that would force them to pay publishers. Facebook, for example, threatened to pull news stories out of Australia if legislation that would require them to pay media outlets. Google, for its part, appears to have warmed to the idea -- particularly when it's on its own terms.

News publishers have long complained that technology platforms steal revenue and minimize their brand.

The New York Times, for example, pulled out of Apple News in June over a lack of connection with readers. Publishers have also raised concerns about new features in iOS 14 that could redirect users from their websites or threaten advertising revenue.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    “High quality “ news?  That’s an oxymoron. 

    This is a clear example of a deep-pocketed company trying to control the news content one can see in an effort to create news, sway minds, and establish/maintain a narrative of their choosing. 

    SpamSandwichcat52watto_cobramobird
  • Reply 2 of 10
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,573member

    “Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative.”


    ― H.G. Wells
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 10
    spar85 said:
    “High quality “ news?  That’s an oxymoron. 

    This is a clear example of a deep-pocketed company trying to control the news content one can see in an effort to create news, sway minds, and establish/maintain a narrative of their choosing. 

    As opposed to what?  
    Google is taking readers to the website of their choice currently.  You can choose to go to Fox or CNN (etc) if you choose.

    Google will be purchasing content in the future.  There are no “alternative” facts, there are just different interpretations.  If you’re getting your news from Twitter or Facebook, you’re just reading B.S.

    If the content they purchase is high quality, covering both sides of issues and laying out the facts as they are known (given by professionals in the field) that will be a huge improvement over the alternative.

    People quote so much B.S to me lately (on COVID) anything would be an improvement.

    I.e. The flu kills more people than COVID!
    Then they repeat it over and over, as if it would make it true through repetition.

    Excuse me, I can do my own math using the CDC’s website as data.
    USA Flu Deaths: Est. Ave. 30,656 over the last 9 years (no est. for this year).
    Last time I checked 30,656 is less than 210,357 (current COVID-19 deaths, also an estimate)

    If there was a reliable source of data + expert opinions by real virologists that would be useful.  No I’m not interested in the opinion of Joe Plummer on Facebook, who’s qualifications is he gets sick a lot.

    dewmeOferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 10

    spar85 said:
    “High quality “ news?  That’s an oxymoron. 

    This is a clear example of a deep-pocketed company trying to control the news content one can see in an effort to create news, sway minds, and establish/maintain a narrative of their choosing. 

    Every news organization has choices to make. I'm all for Google attempting to keep some news orgs afloat. It'll be a nice change, since they've been eating their lunch for years.
    Oferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 10
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,767member
    spar85 said:
    “High quality “ news?  That’s an oxymoron. 

    This is a clear example of a deep-pocketed company trying to control the news content one can see in an effort to create news, sway minds, and establish/maintain a narrative of their choosing. 

    So, basically the same as every single other news organization? Every. Single. One. Or did you really think you were getting an unbiased account of the news from a multinational with no agenda?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 10
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Japhey said:
    spar85 said:
    “High quality “ news?  That’s an oxymoron. 

    This is a clear example of a deep-pocketed company trying to control the news content one can see in an effort to create news, sway minds, and establish/maintain a narrative of their choosing. 

    So, basically the same as every single other news organization? Every. Single. One. Or did you really think you were getting an unbiased account of the news from a multinational with no agenda?

    You haven't been following Google lately have you?

    They make Fox and CNN look good.
    cat52watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 10
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    Guys, did any of you read the blog article announcing this before commenting? It doesn't sound like a service Google will curate. It's more an opportunity for publishers to ask to partner with Google for promoting their own news stories AFAICT.
    https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-news-initiative/google-news-showcase
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 9 of 10
    GG1GG1 Posts: 483member
    Ofer said:
    Good article, better than I expected from Gizmodo.
    Oferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 10
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 254member
    spar85 said:
    “High quality “ news?  That’s an oxymoron. 

    This is a clear example of a deep-pocketed company trying to control the news content one can see in an effort to create news, sway minds, and establish/maintain a narrative of their choosing. 

    As opposed to what?  
    Google is taking readers to the website of their choice currently.  You can choose to go to Fox or CNN (etc) if you choose.

    Google will be purchasing content in the future.  There are no “alternative” facts, there are just different interpretations.  If you’re getting your news from Twitter or Facebook, you’re just reading B.S.

    If the content they purchase is high quality, covering both sides of issues and laying out the facts as they are known (given by professionals in the field) that will be a huge improvement over the alternative.

    People quote so much B.S to me lately (on COVID) anything would be an improvement.

    I.e. The flu kills more people than COVID!
    Then they repeat it over and over, as if it would make it true through repetition.

    Excuse me, I can do my own math using the CDC’s website as data.
    USA Flu Deaths: Est. Ave. 30,656 over the last 9 years (no est. for this year).
    Last time I checked 30,656 is less than 210,357 (current COVID-19 deaths, also an estimate)

    If there was a reliable source of data + expert opinions by real virologists that would be useful.  No I’m not interested in the opinion of Joe Plummer on Facebook, who’s qualifications is he gets sick a lot.


    Dude, I think your "analysis" is pretty shallow.  If you'd done some more research on the CDC's website, you'd find that the co-morbidity death rate of covid-19 is above 90%.  There are plenty of people who have died with covid, but not because of covid.  Of course we could go on to argue that there are plenty of flu co-morbidities too.  My point: there's more to the story.
    cat52watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.