This is how Google is killing journalism and the Finnish language

Why is Google killing journalism? This is a question that many Finns interested in journalism and communication are asking themselves. Therefore, this text tells how Google, known as a search engine, is destroying communication and journalism.

Many people see that Google favours linguistically bad content optimised for its search engine instead of good journalism. This article answers the question of how SEO is killing good journalism and the rich Finnish language.

Search engine optimisation (SEO) has become an increasingly important part of content production in recent years. Communication has also been forced to consider whether good SEO is killing good journalism. So in this blog, we look at how Google favours good SEO at the expense of journalism. And why Google is ultimately killing journalism and the Finnish language.

Is the above rimpsu enough to justify the title? It is an example of a text optimised for search engines, where certain keywords are repeated often enough and sentences are presented in question form. And even if that rimpf is just a circular rant, Google loves it.

How Google kills good content

Google loves content. But to get content to the top of its search results, Google wants not only repetition of keywords, but also a table of contents, numbered questions coded as subheadings and hyperlinks to other Google-favourite sites.

Content doesn't have to be particularly good - as long as it's lots of it.

Want to make cinnamon rolls but can't remember the ingredients? No problem, because you can find the recipe on Google! But before you can check the amount of wheat flour, be prepared to hear a lecture on the history of Cinnamon Bun Dags or read a 2,310-word novel about the deepest essence of cinnamon buns.

In the examples linked above, 98% of Googlers would be satisfied with just the recipe and recipe for cinnamon buns. But in order for these pages to be found in the first few Google search results for "cinnamon roll" or "cinnamon roll", they have to throw in a keyword search along with the recipe. Preferably 1 477 words.

Good journalism, on the other hand, gathers together a large amount of fragmented information and compresses it into a concise and readable package. The news cuts through the bullshit and gets straight to the point, answering the questions: who, what, where, when, why and with what consequences. Say little, but say a lot.

Good SEO content, on the other hand, builds a log cabin's worth of content from a simple stick. There is a lot of noise about nothing. Readers may not like it, but that's beside the point. Because what matters more than the quality of the content is the high Google visibility, the resulting page views and the advertising revenue that comes from them.

This is how Google is killing the Finnish language

What doesn't Google love? Good Finnish language.

Rich language or clever puns do not please the search engine: it is like a small child to whom things have to be explained in a very simple way.

In journalism, puns based on the ambiguity of the Finnish language and inventive metaphors are often the spice of journalism, especially in headlines, which make the reader giggle. However, Google is not amused by them, as the search engine prefers unadorned plain language.

For example, a column in Kauppalehti with the headline "King No" is a badly used tool is easy for the reader, but difficult for Google. It is therefore pointless to dream up a search engine section for the article with keywords such as work prioritisation, change management or business strategy, even though these are the very things the column is talking about.

And even though Google is quick to learn, the numerous inflectional forms of the Finnish language continue to confuse it. That's why a good search engine optimiser always writes his keywords in their basic form and sentences in plain language - making the text poor and clunky, bad Finnish.

How Google is killing commercial journalism

Commercial journalism has been one of the big losers of the internet age. Social media, tax-funded journalism and bad journalists have all been blamed. And of course Google has also been blamed, for example for driving down the price of digital advertising.

To compensate for the collapse in advertising revenues, almost all the major commercial media have introduced paywalls to restrict their content to paying customers. But while Google favours the large and trusted media in its search results, the problem with paywall stories is their relatively low search visibility: because readers who find a paywall story through Google rarely want to pay for content, they don't stay long on the page. A short visit, in turn, has a negative impact on the Google visibility of the story, pushing it to the bottom of the search results pages, where few Googlers ever click to open the page.

And as the quality journalism behind the paywall falls off Google's front page, it is replaced by free, highly search engine optimised sites. Unlike quality media, the content on these sites is not controlled by a national self-regulatory body for journalism like the Council of Public Words - or even by legislation as a whole. Indeed, many fake news sites have used good search engine optimisation to spread lies. Indeed, Google has publicly stated that it removes fake news sites from its search results. But studies have also claimed that it helps to increase the visibility of hoax sites, making millions of euros in the process.

And this problem is not just about written journalism. Search engine optimisation is also practised in other media channels, such as YouTube. This video service, which is particularly popular with young people - and owned by Google - has been accused of being one of the biggest channels for spreading fake news on the internet.

Going strong in this week's #headlinescab. #journalism #China #headline-making pic.twitter.com/J1nL9xVbDM

- Annina Vainio (@anninavainio) October 25, 2019

Is this headline linguistic fireworks or good search engine optimisation?

This is how Google also affects the everyday life of a communications agency

Whatever you think of Google, its impact on communication can no longer be overlooked in the office. If content is to reach as many people as possible - as those who buy it often want to do - it must always be designed and produced with SEO in mind.

However, a lot of mediocre content is not automatically a better option than a little quality content, even when aiming for organic Google visibility. That's why it's important to see search engine optimisation as an integral part of the overall communications plan - not as a separate, extra and ill-fitting building block for the IT guys to take care of.

Google can't be ignored in PR and media work either. If the measure of success in these areas is the widest possible visibility, is the diamond behind the story in Helsingin Sanomat ultimately a good or a bad thing? The diamond indicates that the story is quality journalism - but also that it is behind a paywall, and thus on the Google search results.

Because of paywalls, and with them Google visibility, the media targeted also matters. Most local and regional newspapers nowadays have a paywall. So is it worth offering a good story primarily to the top newspapers in your area, or to a smaller but free newspaper without a wall?

Google is killing journalism, the Finnish language and good content. But still, you just have to learn to live with the killer. Adapt or die.