Should news sources use Google News?

In an article posted at Media Daily News, David Goetzel notes some arguments against google news made by Mark Cuban. Mark Cuban is the head of HDNet. Cuban remarks that content aggregators, such as Google News, shouldn't make a profit off of the journalistic investigations of other news sources. Cuban believes that, since Google News doesn't actually do any of the work in making the news stories, they shouldn't be able to make a profit off of them. In fact, he refers to Google News and other aggregators as vampires, sucking the profit from news sources. Cuban advises media sources to block Google News from linking to their stories, and cut them out of any profit-making. Some people are listening, and some news sites have blocked content aggregators and errected pay-walls.

However, Google has argued that Google News actually helps some news sources by driving traffic to their sites. Sites with low distribution could potentially benefit from awareness raised by Google News.

Towards the end of the article, Cuban and Greg Coleman clarified that they were not supporting pay-walls for news sites. They reaffirmed their desire for free content and advertisement-run sites.

The opinions and questions introduced through this article are having a serious effect on how news companies are doing business. With the decline in sales in print media, many companies are looking to online media outlets. With the internet being fairly new ground for these companies, many questions have to be raised in order to find the best way to make a profit online. As we can see in the article, there are two main options here: free content sites that make profit through advertising and sites where readers must pay for content.

According to Cuban, Google News and similar sites bring up another question: Should news sites allow Google News to make profit off of their work? While Google News does provide benefits to some news sources, it is easy to understand some people's outrage at content aggregators making money off of others' hard work. But, in the end, it is important to note that Google News doesn't actually take money from the news companies. It simply piggybacks on their success.

While some are angry abut this, I think that news sources should not block Google News. Google News helps many sites to find new readers and reach a larger distribution. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with Google News making money by this, as long as it is not stealing the content of other news sites works or directly making money from their work.

With Dragon Gold Love,
Blogdor the Dragon.

Nick to Nick to Nick Nick Nick!

When you think of Nickelodeon, what is it that you think of? Most people probably think of the hip and popular television shows like Rugrats, and Doug that we viewed when our generation was growing up. I too used to think of these popular television shows. Thanks to this article, I find myself thinking that maybe Nick was not so innocent.

Nick has a reputation of playing good-quality shows with little violence and sex. It was always trying to stay ahead of the game by amping up its broadcasting. When Nick became a hit, the company opened Nickelodeon Studios in Orlando Florida and made Nickelodeon Magazine available to everyone by giving out free copies at any local Pizza Hut. With the creation of this, and popular Nicktoons, reaching out to kids all across the United States in the mid-nineties, Nick had no other choice but be an epic success. One of the network's most popular shows, Rugrats, came out with Rugrats the Movie, which produced over 100 million dollars—the first animated, non-Disney movie to do so. In the mid-nineties, Nick.com hit the scene, recently becoming one of the most popular websites between six-to-fourteen year-olds.

My perception of Nickelodeon is that its ideology is family-friendly and safe for all young teens and children to watch. But I also think there are guidelines that should not be crossed when dealing with children as their brains are sensitive and not fully developed in a lot of aspects. Young minds are particularly challenged along the lines of violence and sex. A lot of children on these sites are naive when it comes to abstinence, safe sex, and violence. When they get on these sites, it's not to find links leading to other violent games, but to play their favorite ones, pertaining to the shows they watch. There are lines that are being crossed, and it looks like Nickelodeon does have a reason to try and clean up their reputation. The fact that Nickelodeon lingers children onto their website and then posts links to other dirty games, like "Naughty Classroom - 'Hot for teacher?...Here's your chance to fulfill your ultimate childhood fantasy. Naughty Classroom will leave you begging for more homework'" simply appalls me and leaves me stunned.

The combination of the media, cartoons, and websites makes it very difficult for children to mold into their own bodies and beliefs. Our children are getting on this website because they like the shows they filter out on their channels. These websites can distort their perceptions of reality. Americans become teen mothers more often than in the past. If six year-olds are being exposed to this type of material, how can we expect them to keep their innocence? Our children are being tricked into possibly getting more than they bargained for.

Ad it Up

Ads have a way of conveying a statement. Whether this statement is positive or negative, motivational or easy to surpass, adds catch our attention. The more unusual an add is, the easier our thoughts are provoked. The Montana Meth Project feeds its viewers the death and ugliness of using methane: "Not even once" stands firm as the slogan for the project."[T]he campaign doesn’t preach or demand that kids take action, but rather it tells the heartbreaking stories of teens who watched their friends become consumed by the spiral of addiction." The dreary low-lighted setting of The Montana Meth Project's new ad campaign brings an eerie feeling to the whole thing. But this dismal approach to selling the anti-message just isn't going to cut it.

The media are cracking down, asking themselves, "What can we do in order to sell what we see fault in?" For ads discouraging negative practices, a different approach should be taken. Instead of the drab, unconvincing focus, the ad should focus more on the happy effects of not consuming meth. The message here is not going to sell because usually reverse psychology will set in. The artistic photography of the advertisement is just about the only thing that might help keep the kids methane-free. If there is modeling of why a certain group of people should not do something, there also should be modeling as to why a group should do something. It is more likely that if the subject was not brought up at all in advertisements or commercials, meth consumption would go down on its own. We see advertisements exclusive to gender daily, and that tactic feeds each audience accordingly. If we find that less attention is being brought to drug use, less ideas would stimulate the brain in that area.

The advertising world is a sketchy place that not only confuses its viewers, but also convinces them to buy whatever their hearts desire.With this much power, advertising campaigns should persuade consumers in positive directions. We should analyze the media messages with great care and in some senses, let us not let them get the best of us.