But I don’t believe I’ve ever blamed the rise of the internet for the demise of some media companies. Quite the opposite. The internet is the most exciting thing to happen to news media in its history, and that companies haven’t figured out how to fully harness it – and monetise it – is entirely their own fault. I’ve been quite clear on that.

A tool as powerful as Google needs to be part of the solution. That was simply my point, against those who completely dismiss the idea that Google’s influence is entirely positive and in no way negative. I’m not sure that’s the case.

Appreciate the feedback and please keep reading.

Certainly agree Google is an incredible weapon for getting stuff out there and disseminating the journalism of the future. Regardless of whether it sees itself as a media company, I think the point is simply Google DOES have tremendous influence on where this is all going and can’t wipe its hands of the debate or the legitimate question of what impact its aggregation services are having on how media companies will operate in the future.

It’s interesting that so many people describe Google as a media company, including yourself. On the face of it, they appear to be and yet their executives have always said and continue to say that they are not and do not want to be a media company.

Rather than bicker about whether they are or not however, it might be useful to ask the question ‘what is media today?’

Google, in their eyes, are a technology company. Their mission is to organise the world’s information and they’re scarily good at it. In the world of search, people love having their content picked up by Google. Some people’s entire livelihood depends on it.

I think the bigger trend/problem here is the decoupling of advertising as the main business model of journalism. Google’s news aggregation is only a problem because it ‘deprives’ the media outlet of the opportunity to collect money from advertising. To my mind that’s a much simpler and less esoteric problem to solve.

In practice, Google’s practices mean potentially more eyeballs see the journalist’s work. Surely there’s some way to capitalise on that. iTunes changed the business model for music. the iPhone App Store is changing the business model for software. There are other examples that a biased Apple fanboy like me will no doubt be able to point out.

The point is, the opportunity for journalists to have their work seen, read and appreciated by mass or targeted audiences has never been greater. Only good can come of that. Those who suffer will be the people who built an empire on controlling the work of others (a la music labels).

We are in that messy transition period where everyone is still working out the rules, but the debate seems to have moved on even from a few months ago. That’s encouraging.

I don’t completely agree. I guess my major beefs with your thoughts on the future of journalism is that it casts blame of the decline of traditional media on the rise of the internet.

Newspapers have been in decline since – since, TV? Before? Was The Australian EVER profitable?

I’ve been told television news has never been profitable (in this country) and simply existed because
the various free-to-air channels thought it added prestige to their brand.

I’m all for resourced quality media that is willing to speak truth to power – however, I don’t see any need to prop up failed businesses. I also suspect one or two of your heroes (and some other names I can think of) have contributed to journalism substantially without any promise of pay.

I guess I don’t have any answers. Long live the ABC?