Somewhere in the cacophony of the usual stuff on TechmemeCrunchFeed this past week, I missed this interesting nugget of news:

Google News makes money.  Lots of it.  To the tune of $100 million fungolas.

Now, when I heard about this, I did the proverbial triple take (“… wait, wait, wait — WHAT?”).

I’ve been a big fan of Google News.  I’m sorry to see that its commenting feature never really took off, but I attribute that more to Google News not really being as aggressive as it could be in the marketing department; but then again, that’s probably never been their strong suit (in some ways, they’re kind of like Starbucks, relying on their brand strength, and not really any particular message, nor any specific marketing campaign{ing})

But all that aside, one of the biggest issues that we were all yakking about a year ago, was how many traditional publications (read: newspapers) were complaining of how Google News was siphoning off readers.  And that Google Commenting would make that worse.  Some new media watchers (read: me, Mathew ingram, Scott karp, and others) liked the idea, and were pointed in the fact that Google News ought to be viewed as yet another source of traffic, and more importantly, has *NO* ads, and makes no direct money off Google News.

Well, I guess we were wrong about that one.

There are lots of sides to this tidbit of news, but one that hasn’t seemed to have gotten *any* traction is the legal one.

I’m referring to, specifically, the sabre rattling that Sam Zell made about a year ago when he purchased Tribune, and the threats he was making against Google at the time — that Google is liable for lost traffic to newspaper and traditional media sites, as it acts as a aggregator for news.  Lost traffic is lost money, and with this loose slip of the tongue, Google has revealed how much its making “at the expense” of the traditional sites that the are pointing to.

I put “at the expense” in quotes, naturally, because I think this issue is a little more complicated than a zero-sum scenario: Google doesn’t necessarily gain at the expense of other sites via Google News; rather, I suspect that the $100M figure comes from monetizing “left over” traffic who are either a) unsatisified by the news they findin Google News, or b) made more curious by the stuff they *do* find in Google News, as they head over to the “search” button to find more stuff.

It seems like the “death of newspapers” meme has dried up for a while, but with this casual slip of the tongue, one does wonder if it has just given some ammunition — and justification (however ill-defined) — that traditional media may have been looking for a long time.

What is also kind of interesting, to me, is how Google News kind of missed the boat on this.

So, I’ve written about Google News a bunch of times before, and most recently about how it might help the digitally disaffected, ironically, in another story about a Wikipedia founder (in this case, Larry Sanger).

Well, I think this case is a perfect case of how, if Google wanted to commit the man power (and perhaps some learned PR tricks), Google News could have really worked.  What do I mean? Well, the “digitally disaffected” or new media orphan here, is Rachel Marsden.  In her retort to Jimmy Wales, she decided to post her personal reply on *Ebay* of all places.

Granted its somewhat appropros given that she planned to sell his stuff (and is going to be making a killing — a t-shirt and sweater that he left at her place are going for around $2k and $1k respectively … and there are still 5 days left of bidding) anyway, I think that her message could have gotten out just as well as a “comment” on Google News.

What do I mean by “man power” on Google’s behalf?  Only that it would have taken an active solicitation (and I mean *active*) to get her “take” on things as a Google News comment — because as I recall its a somewhat onerous task to do, and this aspect of Google News is by no means so popular that people are flocking to it in the first place to release their “statements”.

In fact, there’s no real easy way for people who are part of the news to submit their comments *on* Google News, which is also a bit disappointing (i.e. there is no clear link or clear submission page), but perhaps that’s not really all that surprising.

So is this a missed opinion for Google News? 

I think it is.  If they had recognized who Rachel Marsden was, and recognized that she wanted to release a “digital” statement, then this would have been the perfect opportunity.  Google could have, in turn, released a statement of their own, stating that Rachel Marsden was releasing her own statement in full on Google News, rather than the pithy off the cuff remark made on Ebay.  And as this would have been the only place where this existed (because I don’t know of any other place Rachel Marsden released a comment), it would have resulted in not only Bongo traffic, but more importantly, Bongo recognition that Google News is something important and unique.

But for whatever reason, Google didn’t, and perhaps its more reflective of the inertia of Google’s beta ‘handlers’ than anything else.  It may not be as great as Jesus, but I think Google News has the disruptive potential to upend a great deal of online journalism by giving principals in the story *their* say — its just too bad Google doesn’t believe it as well.

Not that Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia is anything *remotely* like a New Media Orphan (in fact, one could say he is a new media ‘godfather’, in some respects), but interesting rejoinder *by* Mr. Sanger on Google News, with respect to an article written about Citizendium, his new authority-driven Wikipedia off-shoot.

Upshot of this was that Mr. Sanger felt the author got several facts wrong, and proceeds to go on a lengthy rebuttal as to exactly what numbers and facts were, in fact, wrong.

How?

Through Google News’ ability for people who are directly involved *in* a news piece to comment *on* that the news that is published.

Now, several months ago, I ranted and raved about this (not unlike, for example, how others ranted about the Jesus Phone, but I am a media geek, I suppose) — and still today, I stand by my initial irrational exuberance.

The ability for principals *in* a story to comment *on* a story, on a platform that has a gargantuan reach is *important*. It allows people to give their opinion that is unrestricted by the 5 second media byte, and it allows people to make sure that they are quoted correctly, or more importantly to set the record straight — particularly if the author of the story got the “angle” wrong.

And perhaps most importantly, it gives people who would not otherwise have a widely read platform *for* their opinions, to *give* their opinions without censorship — and, perhaps *just* as importantly — have their opinions be front and center.

Without them being drowned out by the multitude of comments by “ordinary people”.

Now, sure, its important that everyone have their say. Blogs are important, right? And sure, many *newspapers* these days have “comments” enabled for every single post. That’s also good.

But if people who are interviewed *in* a story want to comment on the story, they have to include it in with the rest. Most likely it will get buried in the avalanche of comments if its a particularly controversial story. And for the purposes of getting the *message* of the story right — I don’t think that this is as powerful as what Google News is doing.

Sure, they could also let everyone comment — but allowing people who are in the stories to do it first, is a great first step (if they realize it or not). Because those voices don’t get drowned out by the other voices (some of which may be insightful … others not so much).

I mean, let’s imagine Mr. Sanger, for example, if he wasn’t as digitally connected as he was. Google News provides a great platform for such an individual — a new media ‘orphan’, perhaps, someone who doesn’t have a blog, doesn’t have the juice or connections to get their opinion broadcast — to have his or her say, and more importantly, have it heard.

And that, I think, is the genius of Google News “2.0″ … where they are actively allowing people who are *part* of the story *give* their side of the story if they want, without any apparent editorialization whatsoever.

Is that going to “change online news as we know it” forever? Ok — I don’t now. But I think its a damn good first step.

To be honest, Blogrunner seems to have the same “problem”.

But for my money, the death of the HD-DVD format is easily the biggest story in the technosphere. Its something many have wondered about for years, and has implications far and wide for tons of folks — not the least of whom, consumers who have been wondering about competing formats and who have been on the sidelines waiting for a winner; or, the industry, who is cognizant of the fact that as long as their was a “war”, they were on the losing end of it, while folks *did* wait for a winner (and continued/continues to download media with abandon).

Why isn’t it the top story? With all due respect to Nick Carr (who’s post on Amazon’s S3 failure has been sitting at the top all day), a niche storage solution doesn’t trump the end of the high definition wars. Hand waving explanation for all of this? Its because of the “algorithm”, man. I mean, I have no idea what the algorithm actually constitutes (I have my best guesses), but I think its clearly one of those times where an algorithm just ain’t cuttin’ it.

(and also to be fair, at the time of this posting, Megite isn’t getting it right either. Google News, however, does).

To say that progress has been “modest” would be a dramatic understatement (cue in Mat Ingram’s — a journalist himself who clearly follows new media as closely as anyone — own observations that he barely noticed that they have existed a few weeks ago), as only 150 comments have been submitted over the life of the “beta” thus far.

Now, I have to say that I’m a little disappointed in this, but I’m not surprised.

Unless there’s some marketing push behind it, I am sure that many people involved *in* media stories will necessarily know that a) Google *News* exists and b) there is in fact the option to put your *additional* comments “on the Google”.

For a company that’s planning to purchase something like a company every few days for the next year, I’m sure Google has enough cash to promote the hell of out this thing. However, I suspect that there’s probably a lack of political will within Google to push for an activity that requires a substantial amount of human capital.

That is, it takes humans to vet the credentials of sources within stories (so that they can comment), and it also takes humans to find those sources in the first place to let them know that Google comments exists, and it also takes humans to actually read the comments to filter — and I’m sure they do this no matter how they deny it, even in a post-hoc way — for appropriateness and so on.

On one hand I’m glad that Google News is getting a bit of a bump through the New York Times. On the other hand, its a bit sad to see that its not quite reaching the potential that it could — because while my initial euphoria has passed, I still think that the potential is still huge, as it really allows sources *of* a story to have their own soapbox.

(because not everyone has a blog)

Now, the refrain from new media watchers and bloggers at the time was “but Google doesn’t actually *make* money from Google News, you blithering idiot.”

And in fact, that kind of refrain continues to be echoed by new media watchers every time there is some kind of evolution in Google News — with the subtext being that Google News doesn’t actually *host* news, it only *links* to news. Hence, it has value in a traffic generator.

Well, it looks like that’s all about to change.

Google News will now be *hosting* and *publishing* news. Not as an original publisher, mind, but republishing agency news, including such as Press Association, Associated Press, Canadian Press and Agence France-Presse. The details, as I understand them, is part of a larger move by Google to eliminate duplicate news, where for a given news headline, there might be dozens of news sites, where all of them might have exactly the same story, because they might all use, for example, the wire story from Associated Press.

Where does this business about “hosting” come about? When the agency story doesn’t actually have an original news site, Google will host it themselves.

This, coupled with Google News Comments, is a big thing.

(Is it “Jesus Big“? I don’t know yet)

It really does show that Google is interested — in its own way, and in its own language — to being part of the content creation and distribution process. And in this way, furthermore, being a threat to any large traditional media companies who are already doing this.

Some of them may have been upset at Google News “taking away” their visitors because Google was linking to them. Now, they don’t sound so absurd, stupid, or ludicrous at all, because that is *exactly* what Google News will be doing now.

First of all, for any given piece of news, it is dropping news sites which have the same agency news — in other words, you won’t find those traditional media links any more.

Second of all, for some stories — and really, how long will it be before it becomes “most” stories? — it will be hosting the actual agency news on its own site.

Couple that with Google News comments with newsmakers dropping in for their opinion and perspective on things, and you have the recipe for something that is Big and Game Changing about Google News, if things are allowed to continue on this kind of trajectory.

The irony in all of this? Well, the Associated Press, one of these agency wires, is actually a co-operative involving thousands of smaller (and larger) newspapers, television and radio stations across the United States; it was founded on the idea that there was a way to avoid duplication and improve the efficiency in the news gathering process by pooling together some resources.

Now, it seems like rather than being a tool to help beef up (or pad) local and traditional news outlets, it is going to be an instrumental tool in helping one of traditional media’s largest and newest competitors in the online space.

In fact, its a move that may be regarded in the future as a stepping stone that allowed Google to take a very prominent stake in the “online news” portion of how people read, consume and engage with The News.

Linkage:

• Dan Gillmor’s thoughts on this irony echo mine (albeit in much more succinct way)
• Jeff Jarvis thinks that all of this should be an impetus to improve journalism, rather than think of it as a threat to journalism (can I get a hell yeah?)
• Mat Ingram says this is potentially explosive. I agree, except for the “potentially” part :)
• Donna Bogatin makes the case for this being another step in the Google World Order.

However, this business about walled off gardens is probably *as* premature as the “biggest thing since Jesus” post yesterday, if not more so.  Let’s all remember that this Google News Comments is probably in a stage that is so pre-beta it might as well be alpha.  Heck, there’s no easy way of even finding them, even if you happen to be on that “limited” list of users that can even view it.

Besides the fact that there are some good self-serving reasons why Google might do this, perhaps we need to let the dust settle to see how this pans out (yours truly included).  After all, its hard to get worked up over what Google might or might not let you spider in a service that hasn’t even officially rolled out.

[Yes, we can let the cries of hypocrisy ring throughout the blogosphere if and when Google still blocks spiders (and more) if it rolls out in a proper and organized way (i.e. you can find them), because yes, Google will still index and have access to other news items without letting anyone else "see" them in the same way.  On the other hand, I think none of us are still naive to believe that Google "does no evil"].