DISQUS

Adam: As perhaps is obvious, our comments crossed in the making. I hope my latter comment makes clear that we agree about Google's impact---I simply mean to point out that Google's role as a "media" source in the consolidation context doesn't hinge on where the ad dollars are.

*In the last sentence above, I intended to write "inside" rather than "outside." In other words, I hadn't thought about whether or not Google is a "media" company in the sense of that word which is operative in the consolidation debate.

On reflection, I do have a view, which I think is to agree with the spirit of Adam's argument through perhaps a slightly different justificatory route. Google provides access to a huge range of varied media sources, and that's a reason to view media diversity rules with additional skepticism. But Google itself isn't a media company in the sense of being one such source--rather, it provides access to the sources. It's not in the business of reporting on town council meetings, but it'll show you the many blogs that do so report, helping create a convenient counterweight to any establishment media dominance that might otherwise exist in the market.

Also, Google's power to erode the case for media ownership rules doesn't depend at all on its status as a "media" company. Even if Google were to derive revenue from other source, such as subscriptions or outright sponsorships---or event if a service like Google's didn't seek revenue at all, and were instead run as a non-profit---Google's role easing access to many sources of local information would remain a potent factor that weighs against media ownership limits.

I actually hadn't considered this idea, which is facinating. Does google being a media company undermine the arguments against media consolidation?

There may be an impertant ambiguity at work here. From a business perspective,which was the operative point of view in my post, the "media" encompass any and all firms that get their main revenue from the sale of audience attention, regardless of how that attention is attracted. In this sense, Google, the New York Times, and roadside billboard operators are all media firms because they all sell the attention of an audience.

In the context of ownership regulation and media competitiveness, however, the word "media" has a different and more restricted meaning, which is simply to say that activists discussing the issue use the term more narrowly. They mean something like competing local sources of news and information. It's not obvious to me, and I certainly did not intend to argue, that Google is or should count as a "media" company in this second, more restricted sense. Then again, I also didn't intend to deny that Google lies outside this narrower categorry; I simply haven't considered the issue.