This is never more evident than in comparison of the Huffington Post and Google News as aggregators. Both of them gather articles, organizing and compiling links on an an excess of topics from across the web in order to give them meaning. In this way, they seem to serve the same purpose: with very similar articles and links in any given news cycle, the content is the same. Here again we find that the final touches such as marketing, advertising, and organizational focus emphasize the human touch.
The first facet of difference between the Post and Google is indeed marketing: which articles are placed where, and with what title lines. The Huffington post is dominated by feelings, emotions, by human interest stories and action words. “Glared”, “Mighty”, “Mysteries”, “Secrets”, “Hilarious”, and “Nostalgia” all spring from the page, promising a feeling, a personal reaction to the article after the reader ends.
Compare this to Google, who focuses on concise, precise, machine-like titles. “Turkish Inaction on ISIS Advance Dismays the US…” or “IMF Asks Rich Nations for Support” Here, the words chosen are neutered, clinical, but always very good at conveying the true story. To see the difference between the Post and Google, look at some of the stories they both cover. Huffington says, “Texas Ebola Patient's Family Unable To Sleep After Seeing His Face”, while Google simply notes that “Family too upset to see Ebola patient via video.” Or, again: the Huffington Post says “These States Still Won't Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses”, but Google, in another article on the subject, says “Gay marriage bans fall in Idaho, Nevada after high court decision.”
All of this doesn’t even consider the choice in articles, which may be the most interesting. Google consistently examines political and economic issues such as public opinion, revolutions, and constant stock updates. The Huffington post is nearly the opposite, looking much more towards human interest stories and individuals.
Now there is an argument here that it’s not Google’s fault: after all, it’s just an algorithm, pulling these headlines from other sources and citing them. But that’s just it: it’s an algorithm, not a human editor. So of course its articles are going to be less relevant, less catchy, less emotional than that curated by a normal human.
Second comes advertising, a less nuanced difference. Less nuanced for one simple reason: Google does not have any advertising. While the Huffington Post has a few sparingly sprinkled “Presented By” articles, Google has none at all. The Post’s articles are all quite interesting, just as much so as the normal content, and that is just one of the ways they’re indistinguishable. The ads for the Post are all native, formatted in just the same way, and worked on by the editors of the magazine. In addition, they fit in the “stream” layout of the articles, not catching the eye or obstructing the flow of customer interaction.
It is rather puzzling that Google doesn’t choose to include advertisements here, as there many opportunities to do so. Some would object to advertisements in a news source, but the Huffington has shown that that can be done tastefully. So why doesn’t Google advertise? Simply put, because it doesn’t have actual editors. The Huff Post has the advantage of being able to curate content, choosing what to include or not include, and how to word things. They can also work on articles, finding the best place for readers and for clients. Google News, in its own words, says “The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.” In other words, no human touch.
The final difference between the two aggregators is a matter of layout. Just as a master cook would labor over the exact placement of his filet, both Huffington Post and Google pursue their news goals in their distinct style of organization. The Post has an interlocking stream of different articles, ranging from side to side and up and down, continually providing new content. In addition, the top or “front page” articles all focus on the accompanying picture, which serves as an easy hook for readers’ eyes. Also inset into the flow are the “Presented By” advertisements and social media interactions, further spicing up the variety. More than variety, though, this colorful arrangement is pleasing to the eye, and naturally pulls people from one story to the next in a trail of discovery.
Google News, on the other hand, has a methodical line-ordered layout, each article in line with its neatly sized picture, and nicely edged to provide one top-to-bottom. The focus here is on the headlines: each is brought out from the text in bright bold blue, and clearly conveys the point. It’s no coincidence these headlines sit at the center of the page: they are the center of Google’s aggregating service as well.
Here again are found two very different purposes: one is information, and the other emotional engagement. Google seeks to make all its information visible and easy to navigate, professional and scholarly. Informative. Huffington, on the other hand, looks comparatively shoddy and juvenile, but moves viewers’ attention from one article to the next in a very intuitive, pleasing, almost conversational manner.
But the central question is not what each of these sources is like, but which is better, and why? Well, the simple answer is that it depends on if you prefer information or emotion, but this is very unsatisfactory. Given that most humans read news, discover content in order to learn or know more, it seems that the Huffington Post is the better aggregator. It gives more impact to the stories with its marketing, has a streamlined advertising that, if you’ll pardon the pun, “ads” to the experience, and has a more organic, natural, organization.
Marketing, Advertising, and Organization are all the garnishes atop Google News and the Huffington Post, and it seems that we can judge their steaks by those garnishes. Both aggregators come out as useful for their own purposes, but the Post has the edge.
