Google hasn't caved in to Murdoch

The search engine has not capitulated to News Corp's demands

So, is this round one to Mr Murdoch? I don't think so. Google has announced two changes to the way it treats paid-for content. Its First Click Free programme, which currently allows users to access an unlimited number of articles, will now cap the number of subscription articles readers can view at five.

For Murdoch, this is still likely to be five too many. Jeremy Clarkson's weekly column is reportedly responsible for 25 per cent of the traffic to the Times's website. Will News Corp executives really be content for Clarkson fanatics to read his ramblings for free?

Google has also announced that it will crawl, index and treat as "free" any preview pages -- usually the headline and first few lines of a story -- from subscription websites. Such stories will then be labelled as "subscription" in Google News. This is still unlikely to placate Murdoch, who has insisted that even the use of a story's headline and standfirst is tantamount to "theft". Though clearly this principle doesn't extend to the parasites, plagiarists and kleptomaniacs who run the Times's (excellent) CommentCentral blog.

So, despite some bloggers claiming Google has "caved" in to Murdoch, don't worry. It hasn't. Had Google pre-empted Murdoch's anticipated deal with Bing by offering to pay him for News Corp content, we could have justly cried, "Capitulation!" But no one at Google is contemplating such an absurd manoeuvre. Instead, by offering to compromise with Murdoch, the search engine has made itself look like the reasonable party.

Murdoch's commitment to find new revenue streams for his newspapers is in many ways admirable. We can all laugh at the proprietor of Fox News and the News of the World declaring that "quality journalism is not cheap", but the Times's permanent bureaux in Baghdad and Kabul really aren't.

Much of the industry is trying to have it both ways, mocking Murdoch's verbal assaults on free content while secretly hoping he manages to "rewrite the economics of newspapers". The truth is that it may be too late for that. Google got there first.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.