free html hit counter No, Google Won't Buy the NYT. Google.Org Should (Again) | John Battelle's Search Blog

No, Google Won't Buy the NYT. Google.Org Should (Again)

By - December 13, 2008

I first posited this back in January. The idea is back. From the Deal:

As the New York Times Co. is negotiating with lenders over its debt, speculation has been floating around the blogosphere, pushing the premise that Google Inc. should acquire the beleaguered Gray Lady. The thesis (or, rumor, as some would put it) has been around since the beginning of the year, with SpliceToday on Thursday reintroducing the idea of the unorthodox union of the stalwart of old media with the scion of new media.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

9 thoughts on “No, Google Won't Buy the NYT. Google.Org Should (Again)

  1. Blog Expert says:

    Well I definitely think they should buy it also then. The only problem is that they seemed to want to buy anything with all the cash they seem to have.

  2. Rumors… hehee ;)

    They shouldn’t buy anything… Google needs to re-invest and focus on their own existing technologies and make em even more profitable.

    The NYT — Google simply don’t need them.

  3. Tom Crowl says:

    WITH A TWIST IT’LL WORK!

    Combining Newspaper functions with additional capabilities such as a platform for NEUTRAL political contribution…

    Especially MicroDonation (under $1) alone or with others (the microtransaction problem solved via the Pooled, User-Determined Account structure for political and civic applications at least)…

    And enhanced with electoral/geographic networking facilitation allowing greater opportunities for User-localized news and participation…

    Under a for-profit structure supported by advertising, charity/corporate sponsorships, campaign/charity services etc (with enhanced opportunities for LOCAL businesses, services and potential leaders to reach their own neighborhoods)

    and with substantial Donor/User profit participation

    leads to beneficial civic result and viability for the entity established.

    It, in fact, should lead to a better balance between the individual and the commons.

    At least it seems like it’s worth a shot to me!

    I’ll bet you a $1 people will like it!

    And a User’s account need not be funded to exist or have utility!

    P.S. Public funding of elections will work best through such a system.

    I believe it’s a key part of moving to a new paradigm…

    Whether you call it a piece of Socialism 2.0 or Capitalism 2.0 makes little difference.

    But a POLITICS 2.0 is desperately needed!

    Prototype: http://www.Chagora.com

  4. oyun says:

    Well I definitely think they should buy it also then. The only problem is that they seemed to want to buy anything with all the cash they seem to have.

  5. Tom Crowl says:

    P.S.

    A couple of afterthoughts to my previous post on this question:

    While concepts like NetworkForGood, Causes, etc are nice they don’t, won’t and haven’t been able to capture the general User over time…

    It’s both the individual and group political MicroDonation (under $1) aspect and the nature of the account structure itself that ensures the Donor/User’s continued use of the same account for all future contribution of whatever amount or purpose and provides the stability for community building with local empowerment.

    It’s through such a vehicle that communities will be able to do things like organize and create a co-op garden to help solve “The Omnivore’s Dilemna” or “ChangeCongress”!

    Combination with a news gathering and reporting is a natural.

    And with both a “professionally” created Opinion section…

    As well as a “User-created” Opinion section, with selected comments and ideas funnelled up from the neighborhood pages to the national or world page…

    We have quite a synergy building to attract and keep the User coming back!

    Capability ENABLES Responsibility!

    Anybody know anybody in the newspaper business? Seems like they could use some ideas…

  6. oyun says:

    They shouldn’t buy anything… Google needs to re-invest and focus on their own existing technologies and make em even more profitable.

  7. JG says:

    I thought Google isn’t, and doesn’t want to be, a Media Company.

    Owning the NYT would be the antithesis of everything they’ve ever stood for, and creates a dangerous scenario. It would mean that there would be a single company responsible for both creating and distributing the news. That is waay to much vertical integration for my taste. It’s democratically unhealthy.

    I remember, back in the mid-90s, I railed against Microsoft because they were too vertically integrated between their OS and their applications on that OS. All the hidden APIs were unfair and detrimental to the overall ecosystem.

    Now I realize that Microsoft’s vertical integration is nothing, compared with the control-of-information integration that would happen if Google bought the NYT.

    I’m very much against it.

  8. oyun says:

    Especially MicroDonation (under $1) alone or with others (the microtransaction problem solved via the Pooled, User-Determined Account structure for political and civic applications at least)…

  9. Tom Crowl says:

    Comment by JG is point worth very serious consideration.

    Of course, I’m thinking in terms of New York Times salvation via Chagora biz model which actually doesn’t require Google or other participation because of NYT existing infrastructure, subscription base, reputation and low cost of Chagora implementation.

    If fact the synergies are excellent…

    Hmmmmm…