I have been reading lately about the addition of comments on Google News. News so often presents only one side of the story, and despite the fact that it should by nature be unbiased, we all know this is rarely the case.The addition of comments to Google News has started an interesting discussion that I wanted to continue here.

First off, it should be clear, not everyone can comment on Google News items - they must be “part of the news” being reported. To comment, they must email Google with their comment and verification that they are who they say they are. What is Google’s mission?

… we’re hoping that by adding this feature, we can help enhance the news experience for readers, testing the hypothesis that — whether they’re penguin researchers or presidential candidates– a personal view can sometimes add a whole new dimension to the story.

There however is some concern about Google News getting comments because of the usual suspects: Google is now human edited? and What about Propaganda? And there is a lot of doubt that comments on Google News can offer value considering they will be likely flooded with comments and people will no doubt look to market and promote themselves and their companies. Some say that this will prove that journalism is not just the aggregation of information, and Google News will fail in its “journalistic” efforts, while still others welcome the added conversation and discussion in Google News.

So here is a link to a news item, and here is a comment on that news item. To clarify, I don’t usually read the health section of Google News. I imagine that perhaps doctors do, health professionals of all kinds I suppose. Perhaps also people interested in health issues. Which leads me to the main question: Does including comments degrade or enhance the user experience? I would have to say it enhances the user experience to a great degree, and one would be hard pressed to deny this. The user can easily identify it as a comment, and are told of the author and their affiliations. It increases the amount of information and reliable opinion related to the news.

In the above criticisms linked, the question was asked: Will Google let people know how to process the information in the comments? Separate fact from fiction, undervalue propaganda, and summarily coddle its users? For example a news item speaks of a negative aspect of a Product X owned by Company A. The news item is then commented on by the CEO of company A. But first - they cannot flat-out lie, for this lie will be recorded for all time and immortalized. But they can sugar-coat the truth and say that nothing has been proven about Product X and that their researchers are looking into it. But next to his name will be the name Company A and the user will understand that this comment is being made by the CEO of Company A. Can’t make it any clearer, can you?

Now, what about the criticisms that it is not journalism? Of course it’s not journalism. It’s Google, which means it is links to news and journalistic works. Now with comments. I don’t think Google is aspiring to contribute to the annals of journalism here, they are looking to contribute to the user experience, to “enhance the news experience for readers”. And I think adding comments to Google News will do just that.

Personally, I don’t see what people are fussing about. Google does not charge me to read these comments. It does not charge me to access the links to the news. In fact on Google News there are not even any ads. Furthermore it does not charge newspapers for being included in Google News. It is an absolutely free news aggregation service online. Now with rebuttal. :) And I need I discuss all the “propaganda” in the news itself. Perhaps adding comments like this will help separate fact from fiction.