Hypothetical Question: Which Would You Give Up?

[Brad King]

Here is a hypothetical. Which of these would you give up for one week on the Web?

Google or your local newspaper?
MovieFone or your local newspaper’s reviews?
Travelocity or your local newspaper’s travel section?

And, if you'd be so kind...Why?

[Chris Graves]

I can't imagine my life without Google OR the Washington Post or the Minneapolis Star Tribune. But as a journalist I can't image a modern world without Google and igoogle. Google lets me, as you know, scan gazillions of records in a heartbeat. While the return is only as good as my search terms, it lets me sort my news from providers I want/need to read quickly. It saves time.

I don't use MovieFone.

And I use tons of different travel sites -- for the functionality of them and the ease of use and the comments. I tend to value other travelers' thoughts as opposed to one review. I believe in the wisdom of many. And often make travel plans based on what other travelers' have to say -- especially those like me (mom with two kids). No way that the printed newspaper can compete with the ability of Travelocity to deliver rating and reviews on an international scale AND the ability to return best travel rates because of arrangements with ticket companies, hotels, etc., etc. Most local newspapers do not have a local travel writer and if they do they don't write about large size travel -- escapism travel, which is what I tend to read travel sites for anyway. When is the last time we wrote about the Fiji? Tuscany? Paris?

Having said all of this predictable stuff, where else can I get intensely local news if not my local newspaper site. Local news is our past, our present and our future.

Here's a question back at the group: Is it fair to try to compare a local news site to The Google, Yahoo, Travelocity? And if so why?

[Brad King]

Chris, that comparison goes on every second of every day. People don't say, OH, I love Google and my paper. They go, I need this answer -- where do I go?

So here's my thinking behind the questions:

Here's why. The travel section of a newspaper is there, in theory, to inform me not about local movies -- but movies that I'm interested in and THEN tell me where they are locally.

MovieFone, Fandango and there's one more site, can't remember, do that -- much better -- than any movie page could.

Travelocity (or whatever site you use; studies I've come across say that people use 10-15 sites regularly -- which is more than I use, so chose whichever travel site you use) is the same as your travel and leisure page. Which one does it better?

As for Google -- if, as I'm told, newspapers are meant to inform us -- what's the modern equivalent? Google -- the best informing tool out there. So if you get rid of Google, but keep local newspapers -- or get rid of local newspapers (but I didn't say get rid of the news. Chris, you equate them both as one thing), but keep Google -- which would provide better results.

[Chris Graves]

I do equate newspapers with newsgathers ... certainly not the only ones and perhaps not always the best or brightest at all. That model is changing to be sure. But without journalists and newspapers -- or better yet, newsgathering mechanisms -- Google/Yahoo and others would not have local content delivered to you in various forms.

Consider this quote from Google's Eric Schmidt, from Frontline's News War series:

“We're in fact critically dependent upon the success of these newspapers. We don't write the content. We're not in the content business. ... There's no question that we depend critically upon reporters reporting new facts, new stories, new ideas. Almost all interesting news seems to start from a reporter on a beat in a country uncovering something or reporting their observations about what they're seeing.”

And this:

"Well, there are many problems with the emergent online news world. The single most important problem is that one of the things that newspapers always did is they had editors. Those editors were good, and they had a lot of experience, and it kept everybody in check. The brand of the newspaper, the brand of trust that was inspired by many, many years of hard work on the part of the publishers, it is much more difficult to find in the new world, in the new online world. Is this an evanescent thing? Is this going to be here for a year or two? Are they going to be here for 100 years? How important is the institution that's online that's being built? We don't know yet. …"

So what sayeth the crowd?

[Laila B.]

Hello there:

Sadly if I had to choose, I would give up my Google. Ever since I was in highschool internet was one of the biggest sources for me to find information. At the age of 22, (almost 23 in less than 70 days), I feel as if my heavy duty research skills as far as library usage, and reading from actual texts are slowly disolving, because of sites like Google. Partly because the amount of time is takes to get an answer from Google and other sites that are similar. I also admit that I often catch myself relying on what ever I can get the fastest. It takes longer to do research in the library. Im not the only one, I believe there are a lot of people who are anxious to get their food prepared by the the fastest resturant, along with the answers to their questions. Its the desire to instantly receive something. Cant think of a proper term for it, but thats what I think. With all that said,Google would go into temporary retirement for a week.

I honestly cant say whether or not I would give up MovieFone or the local reviews, because I currently use either of them.

[Brad King]

If you think you would give up Google, then I would make this challenge: give up Google (the eponymous term for all search, which means no Google, Yahoo, Microsoft search -- only site searches, but no searches for sites) -- and report back.

[Andrew]

Which would I give up? Local newspapers, local newspaper's reviews and local newspaper's travel section. Google is an important part of my daily routine and essential tool for my business. It would be very difficult to give it up even for a week (although certainly not impossible). While I like reading my local paper (and yes I currently use it primarily for information about what's going on locally incl. movies and travel) it is not a critical source of information for me esp. since I know that I can always get a more diverse pool of local information through Google.

One week seems a bit short. I might rephrase the question: Which of these would you give up forever?

[Digidave]

I have to agree with Andrew here. Giving up Google would be crazy at this stage for me in terms of my daily work activities.

[Wade Roush]

It may be scandalous for a journalist to say this, but I stopped reading newspapers about two years ago. My local paper is the Boston Globe. I'm told that its website, Boston.com, is respected in the biz as one of the most sophisticated examples of how a paper can engage with Web audiences. But if that's true, I have to say that it's a pretty sad commentary on the state of newspapers. The site is an awful mess -- impossible to navigate, extremely hit-or-miss in terms of the quality, and seemingly dominated by sports videos and hit-grabbing celebrity photo slide shows. I only go there when I absolutely have to read articles relating to companies I'm covering. So, I would miss my local newspaper NOT AT ALL if I had to give it up for a week.

[Brad King]

For the record, Wade and I worked together on the re-architecture of the Technology Review website. He was -- and is -- a very progressive traditional journalist. I would even venture to say he's more sophisticated now than even the digerati because of what he's covered, experimented with and done.

He's sharp too. We had some interesting discussions -- and I'd like to think that we made each other smart during the transitional period at TR.

I have to say, Wade, I'm actually shocked that you don't read papers anymore, but I'm glad to hear it :)

What, Wade -- or anyone -- do you think are the qualities of a good, modern news site (not a newspaper site, mind you, a news site).

[Dan Koabel]

I'd have to give up the newspapers across the board. There's nothing in there that you can't find online somewhere, for the most part (unless you're addicted to a particular journalist in your local paper). I have a slew of RSS feeds that give me all of the news and reviews my heart could ever desire.

[Brad King]

Dan will be my first Media Informatics graduate in December (knock wood). One of the great things about teaching college is seeing how younger folks think.

I'm continually amazed at how many don't use RSS feeds -- but once I show them, they are addicted.

Dan came with a built-in knowledge (although you still have some things to learn, pal). It's interesting to watch others rapidly catch up with where he's at.

They are fearful of technology (Gen Y), but there are more adaptable to it.

[Elizabeth Naramore]

I could NOT give up Google, both professionally and personally. The local paper? Well, let me check the stack of unread local papers in my recycle bin. Uh, yeah. We only get the community paper, and if my neighbor wasn't our paperboy and saving money for stuff, I'd give that up too. The community paper is rarely relevant to me... occasionally there will be something of interest to me, but for the most part it's high school sports.

MovieFone I would keep, although I don't really use that much either, since I never go to the movies.

Travelocity I would also keep.

My feeling is that the general opinion of people around me-- I don't care that much about. I might care what the neighbors on my street think about something that affects us all (as in "hey, they're putting in new fire hydrants! Woo!"), but if it's something like a movie, I'd much rather get a broader response from people all over instead of just right here in the area.

Also, obviously with Google, you can find the answer to anything in a matter of seconds *and* get the local news too, if you want.