The impact of Google:

1) Why has Google led to the decline of the newspaper industry?

Google has led to the decline of the news papers as they have caused a $40billion decrease in advertisement revenue (more than 60 percent of its total) since its peak in revenue in 2000. “It’s uncanny, therefore, that of the $60 billion plus of potential annual ad sales that print publications seem to have lost, Google had grabbed about $44 billion by 2012, from virtually nothing in 2000."

2) Do you personally think Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs? Why?

I do believe that google is one of the reasons why the newspaper industry has gone downhill, this is because not many people are reading the news in print, but online. People now have smartphones (which google also produce) which mean they have access to virtually anything, anywhere. Also, back in the day, newspapers were the main source to go to when wanting to advertise, since so many people used to read it daily. But now, people use google every day, and google now has the ability for users to advertise with them, ensuring that their website is the top result in a search or that users youtube videos will pop up on the viewers screen if they watch the same content that you are advertising, they've created a new way to advertise globally.

3) Read the comments below the article. Pick one comment you agree with and one you disagree with and justify your opinions in detail.

"Obviously, Google is not to blame. I don’t think it’s about blame. I think the Internet is incredibly poorly designed. Rather than being free, everything on it should cost something in order to compensate creators. We have a proven system for doing this through organizations like ASCAP and BMI. The principal of royalties for profiting from the content of others is well established. Google came along, and, at least in the case of Youtube, knowingly robbed content creators for years in order to build up the business. The ideal system would be one in which every click resulted in a nano-charge on your phone bill, maybe 1/1000 of a cent for a news story, for example. Sites like Google that link to other sites could also pay in very tiny increments."

I agree with this comment as i believe the internet allows people not to promote or appreciate the creators behind everything, they're not able to receive royalties or profits & how google never used to have any copyright laws and allowed people to use created content with no permission in order to gain publicity.

You can’t single out Google just because it’s the largest digital company. Patch, for example, invested hundreds of millions into journalism in the US and continues to search for the model that will work going forward. There are many who are investing in the future of journalism.

I disagree with this statement, although other companies are investing in journalism, i feel that Google being the largest company should invest too, as in the beginning it didn't contribute to creators having royalties and swept the newspaper industry of its feet, it should give back in order to keep the newspaper industry running.