The impact of Google

1) Why has Google led to the decline of the newspaper industry?

As Google takes most of the advertising business away from the newspaper industry this has led to the decline in the traditional print news as its main source of revenue has critically dropped. More than $40 million of the potential $60 million went to Google which is 60% of the advertising revenue in 2012.

2) Do you personally think Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs? Why?

In my opinion, I believe that Google, along with other search engine sites are solely to blame for the decline in demand of print newspapers. Within a few seconds, any information on current affairs can be found on Google after typing in a few key phrases and on top of that, Google grants access to this information without any costs. In a society where the majority of the population are hard working citizens, aiming to save money as much as possible, the free service that Google provides is understandably more attractive in comparison to print newspapers in which many of the newspapers, we have to pay for. Additionally, the convenience of Google is a very attractive aspect as the site can also be used on-the-go through smartphones as Google is either offered as a built in browser or can be accessed on an app. 

Through these many elements, Google has gained popularity for servicing the public with compiled websites where they can find out the current news, thus making many print newspapers close down. However, I feel that Google is not making journalists lose their jobs as journalists are still very necessary. Although print newspapers' journalists may be unneeded, journalists are still needed for news websites that still distribute news to the public but now using the internet. 

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

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.

Although I do agree with the opinion that Google is not to blame, I do not agree that a charge should be incurred when a page is open. Google received such success due to the free service they offer to the public and by charging people when they open a news page will push people to find another source to find out about the news.


The vast majority of Google’s revenue comes from searches with commercial intent I.e. “cheapest coffeemaker” or “Miami hotels”. They don't earn very much from news related searches like “benghazi interviews”. I would argue they make their money on the backs of commercial enterprise, not journalists. Sergey and Larry owe the news industry nothing.

I agree with this comment as Google's prime source of revenue is from advertisements that give the public good offers, often relating to purchasable commodities. Advertisements about the news do not attract much attention in comparison to their adverts, meaning that they do not earn much from the news industry.