<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Deep Jive Interests &#187; San Francisco Chronicle</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/category/san-francisco-chronicle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Web 2.0, Social Media, Marketing.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:51:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Newspapers vs. Google Round XII: &#8220;Please &#8212; Just Buy Us&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/17/newspapers-vs-google-round-xii-please-just-buy-us/</link>
		<comments>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/17/newspapers-vs-google-round-xii-please-just-buy-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hung</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[San Francisco Chronicle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Techdirt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/17/newspapers-vs-google-round-xii-please-just-buy-us/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If it sounds as sad as I think it does, I worry that the ongoing debate (if it can be called a debate) about the evolution of newspapers in the face of Google has taken a turn for the pathetic. (&#8230;)</p><p><a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/17/newspapers-vs-google-round-xii-please-just-buy-us/">Read the rest of this entry &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If it sounds as sad as I think it does, I worry that the ongoing debate (if it can be called a debate) about the evolution of newspapers in the face of Google has taken a turn for the pathetic.  Jon Carrol, of the San Francisco Chronicle, a paper which has had to organize layoffs of a not-insignificant number of journalists, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/14/DD7ARGKB0.DTL" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.sfgate.com');" target="_blank">posits a solution</a> to the Newspaper problem (you know, declining profits, massive layoffs, the diminution of a critical organ in a well functioning democratic society, etc): Google should just buy a few newspapers.  Nevermind that Google has repeatedly said a number of times that it isn&#8217;t in the content business (all YouTube-like acquisitions aside).  Hey, I agree with Mike Masnick on this one: it seems like the dialogue is going through different stages, with the<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070814/145644.shtml" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/techdirt.com');" target="_blank"> latest stage being the begging/pleading kind</a>.</p>
<p>Hey, I get it that newspapers &#8212; and journalists in general &#8212; play an important role in our society.  And,  yes, I get it that the public will probably be diminished by it as this shaking out of <strong>redundancies </strong>takes place.  The thing is that I don&#8217;t think that its Google&#8217;s &#8220;responsibility&#8221; to do anything.  I mean, Google&#8217;s responsibility is to make money by doing whatever it feels is best for Google and its stock holders.  If anyone has a responsibility, it involves the people behind news organizations large, small, and in-between to try and innovate, experiment, and do whatever it takes to turn this thing around.</p>
<p>And as glib as it sounds, I also think of it like this.  Someone, somewhere, will decode how traditional media can transition to something more <strong>meaningful and survivable</strong> than its current state.  It may not be as dominant a force (even as an industry) as it once was, and I think we all have to come to terms with that.  But besides that, I am convinced that whoever does figure it out first will really reap some big, big, rewards.</p>
<p>And perhaps that&#8217;s a <strong>better way</strong> to look at the &#8220;Google problem&#8221;, which is really part of the larger &#8220;Newspaper&#8221; problem: one of immense opportunity.  I mean, sure, its trite, doesn&#8217;t it sound a little better and more productive than &#8220;Google needs to bail us out&#8221;? (And less pathetic, since, you know, its the company that most newspapers are blaming for all their ills)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/17/newspapers-vs-google-round-xii-please-just-buy-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

