Well, it seems like I’m not the only one drinking Google’s Kool-Aid.  Its been a few days after Google News Comments were announced, and it seems like I’m not the only one who thinks its bigger than Jesus — although, as far as I can recall, I also didn’t liken it specifically to Osama Bin Laden (either).

Of course, the only ones who could possibly do *either* in the same sentence?  Well, it’d have to be someone who at the same time acknowledged how powerful Google News Comments could be, *and* at the same time, feared Google.  Answer?  Traditional news media.  In this case, the Los Angeles Times.

Yes, in a particularly shrill piece, an opinion piece at the LA Times does both things in a fairly paranoid paranoid (albeit eloquent fashion).  In fact, although it does acknowledge that the Google News Comment system is in fact *more* than “just comments” thanks to explicit participation of news makers (or participants), where it gets a little paranoid is how it interprets it.

The feature implies that the stories aggregated by Google News are incomplete — possibly because of limited space, but also possibly because of bias, neglect or ignorance.

Futhermore, it goes on to describe a popular criticism of this almost-alpha service:

Google, however, won’t help readers separate the factual wheat from the public-relations chaff — a reminder that Google may strive to be the world’s index, but it’s not journalism.

And therefore leaves the reader with the impression with that, to traditional media services, it poses a greater threat than Osama Bin Laden.

I’m not sure what the piece does except bring the news of Google News Comments to the mainstream under the guise of an opinion column, and not really doing a fair job of describing the full extent of the spectrum of opinions on the matter.  On the other hand, it is the *opinion* column of a newspaper, so I suppose we should expect this kind of spin on this fairly undeveloped aspect of Google News.

While I am still convinced that Google News Comments are going to be a powerful (although I’m not quite sure if its Jesus-Level powerful) and unique way for readers to consumer, enjoy, and most importantly *engage* with the news, and I also think that it has the potential to upend traditional media, I think it is *also* a good example of how a new media company (The new media company) tried something new and different that is paradigm changing.

On one level they are “just comments”, but the magic will be in getting newsmakers or people involved with the news to comment.

I mean, rather than whine about it, let’s think about it.

Do you think that Google is the only brand with enough heft to encourage this?  Do you think that Google could do this half as well for local as well as national or international news?  Are they even going to do this well enough for international news?  News in other languages?

Better yet, (since I am going in that direction) if other news companies, irrespective of the type of media, start doing this very thing, is it possible that local news outlets will have contacts and relationships that *they* could leverage, *if* traditional media wanted to do the very same thing?

In fact, if you want to get hypothetical and nitty gritty at the same time, you could create a “total access” section for certain portions of the online newspaper, and get people journalists have just interviewed to have their own say.

Ballsy?

You bet.

There would be no question that it would require lots of guts.  Loads of it.  But if done right — and quickly enough — it could be implemented in a way that could even circumvent Google’s attempt at News2.0.  In other words, there is nothing stopping local and even national newspapers or traditional media outlets from trying the *exact* same thing as Google, but with one thing that Google doesn’t have:

They will actually know the people who *are* the newsmakers.

And while I expect that will be part of the challenge as well — getting them to participate in a way that is separate than the initial interview (or, in some cases, someone *else*’s interview) — that is exactly what will be dealt with in favour of what makes this kind of phenomenon powerful.

Not only getting newsmakers to give their say, but giving readers the opportunity to *engage* with the newsmakers in a real, unedited, unvarnished kind of way, and say something *back*.