As a journalism student, I have heard my fair share of criticism of the media industry and its desire to make money above all else. And as a critic myself, I understand why professors and articles are disgusted with our corporate culture of agenda setting, special-interest loving media. But on the flip-side, I am also a business minor, and understand the challenging economics most media companies are facing. I found the article “What’s a Fair Share in the Age of Google?” because I had never considered that the original content provider may not be anywhere near the top of search results, thus declining them from receiving the majority of advertising income. While I do agree that something must be done by the search engines to give more “credit” to the content producer, but I also think that the content producer, if they want credit, need to do their best to include keywords and any terms that would increase hits and have a high level in search results.
The Internet is a marketplace with open standards, but producers of content, as property holders, they have every right to restrict access to whomever they please, at their own risk. From newspapers requiring online readers to be paying members, to iTunes have proprietary links, the companies know that they can either have fewer consumers who generate money, or more consumers who may generate no money at all. Unless every media venture becomes subsidized in some form, money will have to come from advertisers, subscribers, and unfortunately, companies who in one way or another, pay to have positive news created for themselves. Without some form of revenue, the resources to run newsrooms and to staff educated reporters would run dry, forever changing and negatively affecting reporting.