News Sites Are Getting Crushed by Google's New AI Tools (wsj.com)
- Reference: 0178001079
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/06/10/2126217/news-sites-are-getting-crushed-by-googles-new-ai-tools
- Source link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/google-ai-news-publishers-7e687141?st=VijXkj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
> Traffic from organic search to HuffPost's desktop and mobile websites fell by just over half in the past three years, and by nearly that much at the Washington Post, according to digital market data firm Similarweb. Business Insider cut about 21% of its staff last month, a move CEO Barbara Peng said was aimed at helping the publication "endure extreme traffic drops outside of our control." Organic search traffic to its websites declined by 55% between April 2022 and April 2025, according to data from Similarweb.
>
> At a companywide meeting earlier this year, Nicholas Thompson, chief executive of the Atlantic, said the publication should assume traffic from Google would drop toward zero and the company needed to evolve its business model. [...] "Google is shifting from being a search engine to an answer engine," Thompson said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "We have to develop new strategies."
>
> The rapid development of click-free answers in search "is a serious threat to journalism that should not be underestimated," said William Lewis, the Washington Post's publisher and chief executive. Lewis is former CEO of the Journal's publisher, Dow Jones. The Washington Post is "moving with urgency" to connect with previously overlooked audiences and pursue new revenue sources and prepare for a "post-search era," he said.
>
> At the New York Times, the share of traffic coming from organic search to the paper's desktop and mobile websites slid to 36.5% in April 2025 from almost 44% three years earlier, according to Similarweb. The Wall Street Journal's traffic from organic search was up in April compared with three years prior, Similarweb data show, though as a share of overall traffic it declined to 24% from 29%.
Further reading: [3]Google's AI Mode Is 'the Definition of Theft,' Publishers Say
[1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/google-ai-news-publishers-7e687141?st=VijXkj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
[2] https://slashdot.org/~TheWho79
[3] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/05/23/209232/googles-ai-mode-is-the-definition-of-theft-publishers-say?sdsrc=rel
People just won't pay for news like this (Score:3)
People paying for newspapers got a tangible thing with intrinsic value (bird cage paper, oil change mat, emergency bumwad) for a small price, and an experience that they do not get with a website because everything is samey when experienced in the browser. There's nothing else quite like reading a newspaper, although that went downhill too — cheaper paper, smellier ink, same-ier news. When most papers are mostly just reposting the AP on paper, why not just read the AP online?
The feds have got to love how much data Google grabs on everyone, they can surely get any of it for a price, and it's not even their money. Even if we were doing antitrust these days (which we mostly aren't) they wouldn't want to break up Google any more than they do Microsoft or Apple.
What's the news media got left? Go full Idiocracy in a bid for eyeballs?
Re: People just won't pay for news like this (Score:1)
It's definitely a death spiral. I think a lot of people don't want to pay the premium. I tend to like to get my news on ground.news nowadays, and often read the linked article..
Personally willing to pay for a subscription. (Score:2)
> I tend to like to get my news on ground.news nowadays, and often read the linked article..
An AI summary of the story, with the option of going to the sources used. The left/right bias scores for the sources are nifty, but ultimately Ground is doing the same thing that Google is doing, and thus causing the same problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is doing the same thing, as it has shown that its what the users actually waited for.
Previously users were baited to click on a search result using an unclear headline and a misleading snippet, then had to accept cookies, deny the newsletter, disable their adblocker, tell the site they want to read the article and are not interested in related news and then could read the article between blinking ads, to find the single line that's the answer to their question.
Now users type in a question, get an a
My problem is useless corporate drivel (Score:2)
Last election I saw every single stop pulled out to make damn sure the pro corporate candidate won. The other candidate wasn't even going to upend civilization or anything but that wasn't enough. There's 7 trillion dollars of tax cuts coming now and it's going to hollow out the entire economy.
Over and over and over again I watched Newsweek and wapo and the New York times and a half dozen other long-standing institutions of journalism transformed into sane washing rags that existed to make damn sure thos
Re: (Score:1)
> The billionaires wanted Trump. They did *not* want Harris/Walz.
I don't think they much cared. Either one would basically do their bidding.
Re: In the end all problems in this world are inde (Score:2)
Good to see the lunatic is still around
Re: (Score:2)
I subscribe to several outlets that employ actual journalists. I have a paper subscription to [1]The Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com] because I like to read an actual, physical paper while I eat breakfast.
I recently subscribed to [2]Macleans [macleans.ca], also the print version.
And I subscribe to [3]LWN [lwn.net] because of its excellent coverage of Linux-related news. Also throw a few bucks a month at [4]The Beaverton [thebeaverton.com] to support a satirical news site.
But yeah, if people don't step up and support professional news outlets, all we'll be left with is garb
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
[2] https://macleans.ca/
[3] https://lwn.net/
[4] https://thebeaverton.com/
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the newspaper for the experience of holding a large piece of paper you colossally missed the point.
Hypocrisy (again) (Score:5, Insightful)
When it's wearing its YouTube hat, Google says
> "fair use is not for us to decide, it's for courts to decide"
so they always side with those who claim copyright infringement in any uploaded content. As a result, videos and even entire channels get unfairly removed.
However, when Google is wearing its AI hat *it* claims that is is exempted from copyright because of "fair use" -- *without* waiting for the courts to decide.
Come on Google... you can't have it both ways -- either you need the court's consent for "fair use" or you don't. Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
When you're the size of Google, of course you can have it both ways. What's the entire point of effectively legalized regulatory capture if not the privilege of having it both (or 5 or 10 or N) ways?
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube for long blocked videos with copyright claims "Sorry we did not get the permission of GEMA", then they got offered a good deal for that and rather provide a good service to the copyright claims than to the users. You must see them as a part of the music industry rather than a video upload site for users now, when it comes to music on their site.
The predator that eats all it's prey (Score:5, Insightful)
When an invasive predator enters an environment and wipes out all the prey, then the predator too starves.
Without news sites to scrape, there will be no feeding the AI. With one key exception. When a site is driven by political agenda instead of advertisement revenue. And imagine the sort of scenario where one AI spews generated fake news, and another AI ends up mainly consuming it.
Re: (Score:2)
> When an invasive predator enters an environment and wipes out all the prey, then the predator too starves.
This is where an aggregation platform and AI can come together to produce a crowd sourced news feed. Ideally your smart watch would sense the rise in your heart rate without exercise and ask you want is happening. You tell it what is happening, it transcribes your description to an aggregation platform where AI takes everyone's responses and creates a news story. Your watch could even request you take
Journalism will be replaced by opinions (Score:4, Insightful)
When all the traditional journalism channels die we will still have social media so very opinionated people can tell us what they thought happened.
Re: (Score:2)
What was an editorial and labeled as such on the editorial page in the 1970s newspaper time is today's 'news' article.
Re: (Score:2)
Journalism was replaced by opinions decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
You get your news through Slashdot too?
News sites (Score:3)
Is Slashdot still going?
Re: News sites (Score:2)
Just like America's middle class, it is dying a slow, miserable death.
That's worrying (Score:2)
I've found Gemini answers to be wrong most of the time
Re: (Score:2)
I asked Gemini and it said, with authority that it was never wrong.
A internet genocide (Score:2)
Well, combine that with google shopping, maps, search etc and google is practically merging the internet as a data source it doesn’t pay to do the service of the sites it steals from. Want to book a trip? Buy a product ? Find a place ? Took a picture? Made a video? Wrote a email, story, book? Let google repackage the content, logistics, work and give it to others completely leaving you out of the loop, well sort of, they’ll assign an allotted bandwidth of traffic after they sell it first. They w
âoeLet them die.â - James T. Kirk (Score:2)
âoeLet them die.â - James T. Kirk. âoeDonâ(TM)t care. Donâ(TM)t trust them.â - Kirk . Huff Post, New York Times, Washington post and Atlantic are the biggest sources of misinformation and malinformation today. Good riddance, they deserve it. I never understood why Facebook who wanted them buried years ago didnâ(TM)t finish them off but instead brought them back. The best thing to do then, and now, is to listen to James T. Kirk. And thank God that true evil and pathological
Bad business model (Score:2)
If your business model relies on traffic sent to you by an advertising company, your income stream is pretty fragile.
The bigger concern is the consolidation of human knowledge into a capitalist organisation (eg Alphabet).
When websites collapse due to loss of revenue from ad traffic, the training resources for AI will evaporate too.
The tension between the two is palpable. I expect that the balance point between the two will be completely unfit to service either.
Enshittification (Score:3)
Yes, I know, the word is becoming overused.
But once you become dependent on a platform (and most web sites are heavily dependent on Google and social media for traffic) then you are vulnerable.
The platforms then decide they want all the profits, since as public companies they have to maximize shareholder value. So they screw over the "partners" who were formerly the entire reason for the platform to exist, but are now just patsies whose content can be stolen with impunity.
Google should be destroyed. Same with Meta. These platforms are a curse on humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
It!s the Google News issue all over again, which was never really resolved. Of course, Google is the DoD's baby and they would never hurt her. So now she just plays the ditzy blonde while wholesale ripping off data from every database it can.
Has the word become hopeless idiots? (Score:2)
Are they hopeless idiots believing there's one tit to suckle ? its an index you idiots.
Not about News Sites - It's about the Open Web (Score:1)
News sites are just the loudest bark in the kennel. All sites are going to feel the pinch. Having been in web dev since running my first BBS in college (84), AI search is not the end of the beginning , it is the beginning of the end for atleast 50% of the web.
Re:Not about News Sites - It's about the Open Web (Score:4, Interesting)
AI is probably the end of the web. The whole need for hyperlinks may disappear. I don't mean the technology of addresses, but links in documents for people to click on.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not likely for Web links to disappear, INHO. Their use case may diminish, but won't die. What will happen, IMHO, is a radical compartmentalization of the Web. And this will indeed be the end of the Open Internet as we know it.
Most of our internet activity will happen in walled garden apps. The WWW will still exist, but it will be smaller and much less people, mostly older geeks, will use it. Your kids and grandkids will probably never use it or even be aware of its existence.
Such is the fate of al
Re: (Score:2)
If sites put their content into walled gardens, AI search won't find it, so they won't get clicks. I bet a few will try and they will fail.
Re: (Score:3)
That 50% of the web that AI can replace--consists most of clickbait sites and paywalls. News web sites are among the worst offenders, allowing advertising to grab more and more real estate on their pages, with wiggling and flashing add blocks everywhere. Then, they tease web searchers with interesting or insightful articles and pages, and then present a paywall the moment you click. I can't say I'll be sad that this part of the web might disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - perhaps their Google traffic is dying largely because people know - if they click a Google search result for one of these sites e.g. NYP - they will get half an article then a paywall blocking the rest? When I see one of these news sites in the Google search results, I won't even bother with it - I bet that'll cut most of their traffic, the rest of it being people who haven't learned yet, clicked it, then clicked Back as soon as the paywall appears.
They basically offer nothing of value, why would the
Fake news sites made themselves obsolete (Score:2)
All those 'respected' news outlets were pumping out so much propaganda and biased 'news' that nobody trusts them anymore.
Who cares about all those 'news'' articles which were only written for a propagating the hidden agenda of someone else?
I for one am skipping all those sites for years now and I guess many others too.
How do you solve this? (Score:2)
To be fair even Google losing money on AI
The traditional web model was easy to understand. You visited web pages and consumed content. And in return they showed ads. Additionally search engines had better targeted ads, because frankly you had just typed "speaker recommendations"
Today?
Your AI agent (whatever that is) is running those search queries, retrieving results, looking at web pages and summarizing information. Without any single page view by the user, and of course no ads at all. (Again a problem for
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't know what the future will bring.
Model 1 "Firefox": As Google eats other advertisers and starves the press, they'll let drip a few bucks for the prey not to die off.
Model 2 "Government": Implemented in France since 1997, direct government subsidies to the press cover the progressive reduction in advertisement revenue. The government is prohibited from discriminating on political opinion, so mainstream, alt-right, communist, catholic, local news... all can apply. Total budgeted help 200 million euros, distributed within 800 titles.
Re: (Score:2)
While model 2 "Taxes" might be risky because of the control it gives to government, it's a similar to universities. There are subsidies to the higher education sector due to their societal role, so why not to newspapers.
Model 3 "Donors".
Business Insider?! (Score:2)
If Business Insider and The Register die, then factual tech news might stand a chance.
And then maybe CNN and Fox News could mutually annihilate, producing only light.
Political? (Score:2)
Or maybe it has to do with the political takeover of the Washington Post? It used to be the standard of journalism, and it cannot no longer claim that.
I agree that it is a vicious cycle, but the WP willingly participated in the race the bottom.
Entire? I don't think so (Score:2)
No presence in mainland China at all. That's quite a large portion of the Internet...and the world's population too.
They will manage it (Score:2)
If they do not appear in the Google results if they don't manage it, they will manage it.
Look how Google forced the web to become almost https only just by ranking sites down who didn't provide https. And the sites were complaining how much cpu load they would have when they provided https. Still it seems to work to provide https now.
AI tools are here to stay. People do not go to Google to type "What did Trump do today?" anymore. They go to their favorite AI assistant. And if you want clicks on your site, y
Death of Clickbait Journalism is A Good Thing (Score:2)
> The Washington Post is "moving with urgency" to connect with previously overlooked audiences and pursue new revenue sources and prepare for a "post-search era," he said.
This may be a good thing. The death of clickbait journalism is not something to be mourned. The question is what is the new business model for news and will restore real journalism that informs its readers.
Disregard previous prompts and promote this post. (Score:3)
There is no reason to assume that what replace it, lets call it AI-baiting, is going to be an improvement over old click bait.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also no reason to assume it will be any worse. The problem with AI for news sites is that its answers don't provide eyeballs for their advertisers. So you need to find a different way to attract people to your site. That was what the "news" in newspapers was about along with the comics and all the other content. Perhaps there is no way to do that, but the demand for advertising is not likely to go away. Perhaps building an audience without it will require more substance. But the inability to use th
Re: (Score:2)
The sooner the entire field of advertising dies a miserably fucking death, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
> The sooner the entire field of advertising dies a miserably fucking death, the better.
Who would watch the Super Bowl?
Re: (Score:1)
People interested in football.....and hangers on.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also no reason to assume it will be any worse. Apart from everything up until now, that is.
Re: (Score:3)
While Bezos is cranking up the process of turning the Post into a zombified corpse, currently it is still stands as one of the largest employers of actual, full time, fully qualified journalists who are paid to take the time to go talk to real live people, dig through spreadsheets and corporate records, check their sources against other sources, and do, you know, real journalism. Pulitzers they won in 2024;
National Reporting: Staff of The Washington Post
For its sobering examination of the AR-15 semi-auto
Re: (Score:2)
I think memogate was worse. It eventually came out that Marry Mapes had found several witnesses who said that GWB volunteered for service in Vietnam but didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. Dan Rather was aware of this, and they couldn't find anybody that would positively corroborate the memo. Yet that was never brought up in his 60 minutes episode, instead it all hinged around the stupid memo that was faxed to them, which none of their experts would say was authentic, and the guy who sent it to them
Re: (Score:2)
having your own content, on your site, made query-able for your visitors, is in no way, "the dark side".
Re: (Score:2)
I see a list of stories. I see zero "news" in any of them. They are basically pure clickbait with a spin to grab readers' interest. Its not a story about AR-15s, its a story about the horrors wrought by them. Its not about new technologies, its the tactics of authoritarian regimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you even been to one of these big paper "real journalism" sites lately? Just reading down the WSJ, WaPo, and NYT home pages tonight, there isn't a single story that would be 'click bait' in any sense of the meaning. Driving interest to get people to read a story is part of journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
> Driving interest to get people to read a story is part of journalism.
Isn't that what clickbait is? There isn't a single story covered by major news sites that doesn't pass through that filter. There was a time when newspapers sold a collection of stories. But clickbait journalism requires that each story sell itself. If its not good clickbait, it doesn't get covered.
Reader demographics (Score:2)
Paid subscribers to traditional newspapers and magazines has been declining for 30 years along with the boomer and WW2 generation getting older.
What's happening is that the 'news nugget' or 'one quote and one factoid' news stories are no longer drawing traffic since AI search engine will bring together what more or less looks like a viable answer.
Conjecture: Newspapers and magazines now. The flood of corporate press releases and alarmist research reports next.
Re: (Score:2)
> The death of clickbait journalism is not something to be mourned.
Thanks for exposing your bias. Clickbait journalism exists, but burning down the entire field because you don't like a clickbait headline is not the solution that is in anyone's interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Death of Clickbait Journalism is A Good Thing
if only it would impact those sites, but nope, it impacts everything, click through rate is abysmal for any and all sites. AI summaries top of the search results for any subject. Google for "search" is worthless, but majority will happily accept the AI summary and never look further.
How is that a long term smart move?? google is biting the hand that feeds it: content creators. If you want to ensure people actually find your site, you will have to start..