From comments on the page:<p><i>Mark, you’re absolutely right that it “is never good for a brand to be considered one of 2,000 plus sources.” Is this Google’s fault for creating this perception in the eyes of you and me? Absolutely not. Newspapers have become a cheap “news” provider- in no way consistent with what they stood for years ago – legitimate reporting, digging up facts and stories that actually mattered and were relevant to people, etc. not just the ridiculous garbage they call front-page news nowadays.</i><p>Sums up the problem with this article.<p>The claim that Google is <i>bad for</i> the newspaper business is certain but the question is whether that's bad thing (also, craigslist has actually been <i>much worse</i> for newspapers than Google). If newspapers in general could make claim for consistent quality, for integrity in editorial policy and so-forth, the claim for Google being a bad thing could be justified but they can't. Ruppert Murdoch defending journalism? Please!<p>The newspaper business have both been hit terribly by the Internet. The problem is, they were fat, greedy monopolies which wilted in the face of open competition. I'd probably feel more for literary journals - but I think these have been hit more by how much people read.