Cover title "Google will save the newspaper" sounded almost like a paradox.
I read the entire article by James Fallows and I realized, only lines from the latest American journalist that he was right. The idea that newspapers need to survive is crucial.
Sabadin Victor (Deputy Director of the "Print" Turin) wrote in his essay (L 'latest copy of The New York Times. "The future of newspapers, paper, Donzelli, 2007) that the latest copy of" New York Times "will be printed in 2043. A prophecy that many would hold true even before this date.
In short, many agree about the future of print media.
But then I read the article and now I feel reassured by this American reporter in "The Atlantic" writes that Google will help newspapers will not disappear from circulation. Why? Simple.
Google is useful because people using it as a search engine find useful information. If there were no useful information, interesting, accurate and up to date no one would use more.
The search engine is the world's most famous above all reliable, credible information that provides. Nikesh Arora (superintendent in all activities of monetization and customer management, and marketing and partnerships for Google) speaks of a deep symbiotic relationship between Google and authoritative sources of information. The contents are offered but products from Google. If the content is good, people will continue to look for them. If they are not even Google will lose its primacy. To this, journalism will survive.
Need someone to create the information. This is why journalism in general, print and online newspapers in particular will continue to exist.
Google will fund the newspapers in trouble, and this seems a good thing.
In our country there is more to a rock beat. Eric Schmidt (Chairman of the Board of Directors of Google) recalled how the survival of quality journalism is essential to the functioning of modern democracy. American democracy exists in the information, but not in Italian (remember that Mondadori owns 29% of the book market and 38% of that of periodicals, for one thing).
We, therefore, is a special case. As always.
0 comments:
Post a Comment