First off I am not sure that this rumor is anything more than a couple of excited folks on Wall Street who know some equally excited bloggers. With that said, the big question is why would a company that has made their money in aggregating content want to suddenly buy a content provider? There are many reasons:

1. Google thinks that news content providers are going to sue them for using their content or that legislation will soon bar them from using their content. I doubt this will happen and I doubt that Google wouldn’t be able to fight it. Let’s not forget the recent words of the Tribune company’s new owner Sam Zell.”If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be? Not very.” Then again I could alter his quote to “If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would the newspapers be? Not very.” It works just as well.

2. Google is looking to expand upon the way that consumers get their news. Currently almost all news organizations on the web display and produce content in the same format that newspapers did. A new news story every time something happens. Sure we link to “related stories” and we allow comments, but that’s it. Google could be working on a way to enhance this in a number of ways. For example, if every story was given a topic or number of topics. You could go to a topic page that would automatically display a time line, key players, statistics and changes in the story. In order for Google to do this they would need stories to be coded in a way that would allow them to add and aggregate this enhanced content. It’s only a matter of time before someone does something like this, so why not Google.

3. Google isn’t buying Reuters. I’m leaning towards this one.

So really I stumbled across this theme and liked it. I will be changing the header picture to something more…well me. Any suggestions?

UPDATE: Here’s what Mark suggested as a header. As much as I like it, I’m not sure I’m going to use it.

I’m guilty and so are a lot of people. I always find it difficult to figure out what is and isn’t passive and then how to fix it. Leave it to Grammar Girl to do a good job explaining it. A must read for…everyone.

In the 2004 presidential election I did not watch many of the debates. I had no need to. The day after the debate I would watch the 24 hour news networks and would see all the highlights with a chance to absorb them in and hear commentary from various pundits on TV. It was great.

The problem is for me it’s not 2004 any more. I have for the most part stopped watching TV news (shhh don’t tell anyone). Instead I read newspaper and TV websites and more often then not I get my commentary and additional insight from blogs. So I was under the assumption that the day after this recent debate I would see video clips galore online and in blogs. Not the case. Why? Because as Jeff Jarvis pointed out MSNBC “is acting like the bratty and unpopular rich kid who takes him marbles and harumphs home, ruining the game for everyone.”

MSNBC’s antiquated policies on the usage of debate video have left me feeling completely clueless. Now I surely can read about the debate online, but it just isn’t the same as seeing the clips. So please MSNBC stop ruining the game for everyone.

There has been ample discussion as to the showing of the Virginia Tech killer’s “multimedia manifesto.” Those who appose it being shown say, “I just hate that a lot of people not used to seeing that type of image had to see it.“ That’s a quote from Virginia State Police Col. Steve Flaherty. Those who are in favor of the manifesto being shown claim the obligation of journalists. “When they have news value, we have an obligation to show them,” ABC News Senior VP Jeffrey Schneider said.

With that said, it seems we can make everyone happy. Had the networks just put the video online, they can fulfill their obligation and not offend or disturb those who do not wish to see the video over and over again. Was this ever a thought? If so what are the reasons for not doing this?

I do have one pending question NBC continues to contend that they had a journalistic obligation to show the video and to make it available to the public. That I agree with. How then can they turn around and say, there are parts that are so horrific that they “will never see the light of day?” You comments are welcome on this.

Jeff Jarvis’ take.

(First off, don’t you love the use of the Cavuto mark?) I’m not sure how I missed this in February, but a study by Borrell Associates found that newspapers are making more money off online video than TV stations.
From a MarketWatch blog:

The media research firm found that newspapers are making more money from online video advertising than local TV stations, $81 million to $32 million – almost 3 to 1. In each of three markets, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, local advertisers spent more than $5 million for streaming video commercials.

This reminds me of a recent conversation on LostRemote.com where TV folks were upset that the blog was featuring more and more innovating things that newspapers are doing versus TV stations. The problem is most TV stations aren’t doing innovative things online. My best guess as to why is because most TV stations want all their online video to have the same production value as the video that goes on the broadcast show. Compare that to newspapers that are realizing the long tail and are working to get as much video up as possible. Or maybe newspapers are better at sending out press releases. OK fine I’ll admit, I’m now biased.

Thanks to Lucas Grindley for pointing it out in his post on how the Netflix move to “Watch Now” is a Sign of the Times (see I can still use TV brands).

As some of you know I tried out to be the student graduation speaker…didn’t make it. So I figured I subject everyone to my corny speech here. Let me know what you think. (Speech follows after the break.)
Read the rest of this entry »

Just two days after the tragedy at Virginia Tech a shooting near MU’s campus caused area media to falsley report the details of todays shooting. Both KOMU and the Missourian were posting information as it came in. Initial reports put the shooting at Reactor Field, which is on MU’s campus. However, we now know that the individual was pulled over on the street adjecent to Reactor Field and that the shooting took place well of campus. Stations like KSDK, the NBC affiliate in St. Louis, said “The Columbia Missourian newspaper is reporting that at least two people have been shot at the University of Missouri – Columbia”. That story quickly circulated around and possibly made it on the wires. The story circulated enough that TV stations as far as Florida were reporting Wednesday evening that “two MU students were shot on campus.”

While the Missourian and KSDK have since corrected the online version of their story, other stations and media outlets are still using the old version as of this evening.

For some reason in tragedies some reporters and anchors seem to forget to be human. Anyone who has reported on a tragedy has done it. It’s easier to distance yourself from the story. I understand. The problem is when we forget about the victims and for some reason find it more important to point fingers. People have been asking me over the past day why the cable news nets continue to ask all the what if questions. I agree that it is our job to do ask questions and determine if there was any wrong doing, but no one has been able to show there was. The University has done a great job explaining why they did what they did. Let focus on the future, the future of campus safety across the nation and the future of the students affected by this tragedy.

One of my favorite reporters is Shepard Smith. He has a tendency to be a bit over the top, but it’s times like these where he shines. As one blog pointed out he was “the only anchor or correspondent to ask a student being interviewed ‘how are you doing?’ and sound like he really meant it.”

Here is his transcript from Fox & Friends. A lot of people would say he overstepped his bounds as a journalist but I think he said what needed to be said.

I’ve been to a lot of these kind of scenes… and I know what’s going to happen in the next few days.

These kids are going to lose a lot of their innocence. They’re going to realize that their university will never be the same, that their lives will never be the same, that Virginia Tech will never again first and foremost be thought of for the Hookies who make this school so proud on the football field or the fine acad rep that this university has garnered, it’s going to be remembered as the place where 33 people died… they’ll never be able to get past that.

A real learning experience is coming here. They will look back on the timing of it all and say ‘if only.’ If only the storm hadn’t been so bad and they could have gotten helicopters up; if only they had decided to close down the campus; if only they had been able to get more students out on ambulances. But the if only’s are passed. And now the hope is, together, that they’ll be able to get through this.”

From Google Maps…check out step number 23.