Guest blog by the Google executive and former BBC journalist.
Some have singled out Google as being to blame for journalism's current woes. Unsurprisingly, I disagree. If Google didn't exist, the problems of the loss of classified ad revenue, the economic crisis and the decline in subscriptions would all still exist.
There have been accusations that Google is making big profits on the back of newspaper content, with Google News (above) siphoning away readers. That's simply not true. First, Google does not sell advertisements on the Google News homepage, and the revenue from advertisements shown alongside news-related queries is tiny.
Just as brands do not tend to advertise against serious news stories in papers, the same is true online. The vast majority of Google's revenue is generated from people searching for products - try searching for 'digital camera' and then 'David Cameron' and compare the number of advertisements on each results page.
Second, people do not read the news at Google News - they use it as a signpost towards the websites of news providers. Google shows a headline and couple of lines from each story - enough for people to tell if they want to read on. And they do. Google News sends more than a billion clicks a month from interested readers to news websites. And if publishers don't want to use that model it is easy for them to opt out.
The truth is, Google wants to support news organisations in finding their way through the current challenges. We work with publishers which have chosen the ad-supported model to help find ways to engage readers for longer, making the advertisements more valuable. We have built the One Pass payment tool to make it easier for publishers which want to charge for their content online, giving them flexibility to choose what content they charge for, at what price, and how - day-pass, one-time access, subscription and so on. And Google is investing in not-for-profit organisations to encourage innovation in digital journalism.
Let's think back to the newsroom where I started my working life, before email, mobile phones and the internet. Is the state of journalism better or worse than it was in 1990, back at the beginning of the technology revolution? There were many great journalists operating then, of course - and there will be exceptions to any rule - but I think most would agree that, overall, the quality and breadth of journalism on television, radio, in the newspapers and online has risen, fuelled by a transformation in our ability to communicate, to gather information and to publish it.
Will journalism be better still, or worse, in another 20 years? I believe it will be better. In an era in which - through the supercomputers they carry in their pockets - almost everyone will be able to access the world's information, everyone can be news gatherers and publishers, and the possibilities for journalism are surely immense.
It will be a big challenge for existing news organisations to adapt to this world, to harness the technologies and find better ways of researching and presenting stories and, crucially, sustainable business models. Can it be done? As a former journalist, and a lover and avid consumer of journalism, I'm optimistic.
Peter Barron is Google's Director of External Relations for Europe, Middle East and Africa. Before joining Google, he was Editor of BBC2's Newsnight programme from 2004 to 2008 and worked in TV News and Current Affairs for almost 20 years.
This is an extract from an essay from Face the Future: Tools for the Modern Media Age, edited by John Mair and Richard Lance Keeble, to be published next week by Abramis. It will also be in the British Journalism Review.
