The Digger wants to give up Googlejuice.

Funny to see the Dirty Digger and arch-libertarian Henry Porter climbing onto the same mattress, but life’s like that sometimes. History’s littered with strange alliances. Here’s Forbes.com’s take on it:

Rupert Murdoch threw down the gauntlet to Google Thursday, accusing the search giant of poaching content it doesn’t own and urging media outlets to fight back. “Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights?” asked the News Corp. chief at a cable industry confab in Washington, D.C., Thursday. The answer, said Murdoch, should be, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Google sees it differently. They send more than 300 million clicks a month to newspaper Web sites, says a Google spokesperson. The search giant is in “full compliance” with copyright laws. “We show just enough information to make the user want to read a full story–the headlines, a line or two of text and links to the story’s Web site. That’s it. For most links, if a reader wants to peruse an entire article, they have to click through to the newspaper’s Web site.”

Later in the piece Anthony Moor, deputy managing editor of the Dallas Morning News Online and a director of the Online News Association is quoted as saying:

“I wish newspapers could act together to negotiate better terms with companies like Google. Better yet, what would happen if we all turned our sites off to search engines for a week? By creating scarcity, we might finally get fair value for the work we do.”

Now that would be a really interesting experiment. If I were the Guardian and the BBC I’d be egging these guys on. It’d provide an interesting case study in how to lose 50% market share in a week or two.

UPDATE: Anthony Moor read the post and emailed me to say that Forbes’s story presented an unduly simplistic version of his opinion:

Just to clarify, I’m not one of those who think Google is the death of newspapers. Quite the contrary, I emphasized to reporter Dirk Smillie that search engines are the default home page for people using the Internet, and as such, direct a lot of traffic to us. That traffic is important. I don’t believe Google is “stealing” our content. And I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about “turning off” to Google. We don’t matter much to Google. I was musing about what might happen if all news sites turned off for a week. What would people think? Would they survive? (Maybe.) I wasn’t suggesting we block Google from spidering our content. That wouldn’t test the “what if digital news went dark” hypothesis. In any case, none of that will fix our own broken business model.

Google organizes the Web. Something needs to do that. My concern is that they’re effectively a monopoly player in that space. Oh sure, there’s Yahoo, but who “Yahoos” information on the Web? I understand and recognize the revolutionary nature of the link economy, but I’m concerned that it’s Google which defines relevance via their algorithms. (Yes, I know that they’re leveraging what people have chosen to make relevant, but they’re still applying their own secret sauce, which is why we all game it with SEO efforts) and that puts the rest of us in a very subservient position.

I wonder if there isn’t another way in which the Web can be organized and relevance gained that reduces the influence of Google and returns some of the value that Google is reaping for the rest of us? I predict that someday there will be and all this talk of Google’s dominance will be history.

STILL LATER: At the moment, there’s a very low signal-to-noise ration in this debate : everyone has opinions but nobody knows much, and it’d be nice to find some way of extracting some nuggets of hard, reliable knowledge on which we could all agree. An experiment in which major news sources turned off their online presence for a week or two might be useful in that context. And it might enable us to move on from the current yah-boo phase. It would enable us to assess, for example, the extent to which the blogosphere is really parasitic on the traditional news media. My view (for what it’s worth) is that the relationship is certainly symbiotic, but that the blogosphere is more free-standing than print journalists tend to assume. The experiment would shed some light on that.

Microsoft Encarta succumbs to Wikipedia

Well, it was a long time coming, but here it is.

Do you remember what came in between printed encyclopedias and Wikipedia Wikipedia reviews? For many, the answer is Microsoft Encarta, which was distributed starting in the 90s via CD-ROM and more recently on the Web via MSN. Today, Microsoft announced that it’s discontinuing Encarta later this year, offering symbolic confirmation that Wikipedia is the world’s definitive reference guide.

Microsoft acknowledges as such in an FAQ they’ve setup explaining the move and what existing Encarta customers can expect. The company writes, “Encarta has been a popular product around the world for many years. However, the category of traditional encyclopedias and reference material has changed. People today seek and consume information in considerably different ways than in years past.”

That’s quite the understatement. As PaidContent points out, the crowd-edited Wikipedia boasts 2.7 million entries in English versus just 42,000 for Encarta. Need further confirmation of why Wikipedia is simply a better model? News of Encarta’s discontinuation has already reached the product’s entry on Wikipedia.

Jeff Jarvis on HuffPost’s Investigative Fund

Writing in the HuffPost, he says:

The future of journalism is not about some single new-fangled product and company taking over from the old-fangled and monopolistic predecessor. News come from a broad ecosystem with many players adding in under many models for many reasons. News organizations will organize news in this diverse new framework, aggregating, curating, organizing. Laid-off journalists are starting blogs, alongside other bloggers. Some people will volunteer, podcasting their school-board meetings, just because they care. When we demand transparency from government as a default, data will become part of the news ecosystem we can all examine. Some of this will be supported by advertising, some by contributions from foundations, some by contributions from individuals, some by volunteer effort. And it will all add up to a new pie, one slice of which will be efforts such as the one HuffPost is announcing.

Footnote: AP report of the HuffPost venture says:

The Huffington Post is collaborating with The Atlantic Philanthropies and other donors to set up a $1.75 million fund to pay staff journalists and freelancers.

The investigative fund will direct reporters to look first at stories about the nation’s economy.

Rachel Cooke: save our public libraries

Feisty piece by Rachel Cooke

Make no mistake, this is a crucial time. If those of us who love books, and libraries, and believe they are a vital, beautiful and cherishable part of our cultural and social heritage, take our eye off the ball now, we will regret it. We must make a fuss, and we must name and shame those who are set on destruction. “We need to say that these cuts are entirely wrong,” says Shirley Burnham, who is leading the campaign to save the Old Town Library in Swindon. “I compare it to sub-prime mortgages: if someone had said something forcefully, at the time, we would not be in the mess we are in now. People need to realise that once something is gone, you never get it back. Libraries are like train stations in that respect.”

Thanks to Lorcan Dempsey for the link.

Andrew Sullivan’s PoD cast

Print-on-Demand has just acquired a high-profile advocate. For years, readers of his blog have been emailing in photographs of the views from their windows.

So, after nearly 3 years, and well over a thousand published, we’ve decided to compile all your best windows into a book. A photo book? In this economy? And didn’t you call the publishing industry “one of the shallowest, dumbest and most archaic in the U.S” – two years ago? You bet, now more than ever. That’s why we’ve decided to bypass the publishing houses altogether and experiment with print-on-demand. We’re going to try to publish the book independently, through no established publishing house, as an experiment in blog-based, print-on-demand publishing.

Before you all rush to get in on the act, it’s worth noting that he demands that you surrender the rights. He gets to own your work. Smart, eh?

Premature obituaries

From the Editor of The Buffalo News

Maybe this is what Mark Twain had in mind when he quipped, “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”

The former Buffalo newspaper editor must have understood what it’s like to be alive and well, even as the public wipes away a quiet tear at your demise.

That’s what life is like these days for many of us who work at The Buffalo News. People seem to think we’re at death’s door.

It’s far from true. There’s no question that American newspapers are going through difficult times. Large, well-established papers in major cities are going bankrupt or, in a couple of cases, closing altogether.

Here at The News, we’re more fortunate— although certainly not unaffected by the difficult trends.

How are we more fortunate?

1. We’re making a profit. The decline in advertising revenue is significant—and likely to get worse— but we’re still in the black and planning to stay that way.

2. We have none of the crippling debt that many newspaper owners are carrying. Many of those debt-heavy papers would be making money if it weren’t for their debt load.

3. We have extraordinarily high acceptance among local residents. The News, as a print newspaper, has the highest “market penetration” among the 50 or so largest metropolitan dailies in the United States.

4. Our Web site is the leading local media Web site, by far, in Western New York. When you combine the Web site and the newspaper, we’re reaching 80 percent of Western New Yorkers on a regular basis…

Digital = ‘free’ (to all intents and purposes)

Very perceptive column by Emily Bell.

In the struggle to find new terminology that accurately describes concepts we don’t fully understand, sometimes language fails us. ‘New media’ is one such term that fails to describe seismic structural change, and insultingly foists the moniker of ‘old media’ on to vibrant formats such as broadcast television and newspapers. What we mean when we say ‘new media’ is most often ‘digital’.

This is much more helpful, as ‘digital’ carries with it a whole set of properties that can be readily understood and that go beyond media and into other areas of society. One key, defining principle of things that are ‘digital’ is that they can be very easily copied, compressed and transmitted. In other words, ‘digital’ and ‘free’; (in every sense, not just the monetary sense) go together like Morecambe and Wise, fish and chips, or banks and bailout.

This is something that the media, their ruling institutions, governments and regulators are all currently coming to terms with: once something is digitised, the ability over time to control it, charge for it, regulate it or contain it exponentially decreases…

Zittrain unpacked

Every so often, a group of my Open University colleagues gathers to discuss a book that one of us regards as important or interesting. Last week it was my turn to talk about Jonathan Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet — and how to stop it. The mp3 of the talk is here. The sound quality is variable, I’m afraid, and I only had one microphone, so it’s not Radio 4 quality. It runs for about an hour and includes a delicious excerpt from James Boyle’s recent RSA lecture.

If you’re listening to it, you might find the slide below helpful.

Alternatively, you might find it a cure for insomnia.

And if you’re podcast-averse, Doug Clow did an excellent live blog of the talk, for which many thanks to him.

Streaming to the future

Jason Calcanis says:

I’m going to be starting my own show in the next two weeks called “This Week in Startups” (place holder up at www.thisweekinstartups.com). More details on the show shortly… it’s basically going to be our emails in stream video format. :-)

For background: Streaming video is actually working these days and these show get in the low thousands of viewers live–and hundreds of thousands of viewers after their live viewings. We’re actually seeing the beginnings of a real business emerging. We built out Mahalo’s Studio for < $20,000 and it looks as good as Charlie Rose's studio (in fact we based it on his studio). At this point we can run a live show for $50 to $500 an hour depending on the staff setup (i.e. one video switcher no camera operators, or up to three or four folks running the studio). Think about that: running a live television studio reaching thousands of people in 16:9 with almost HD streaming, perfect lighting, professional audio and live video switching... setup for $20,000. Five years ago that would be $250,000 and ten years ago it would have been one million. I'm thinking we're going to let folks use the studio from time-to-time to live stream in exchange for them promoting Mahalo Answers on the air. It's just crazy! The world is changing... quickly.