A little over a week ago, there was quite a lot of chatter regarding Google's stock market valuation. It culminated in the announcement that Google's stock valuation had passed Time Warner's thus making Google, briefly, the most valuable "media company" in the world (Google Most Valuable Media Company). A debate then ensued as to whether Google, which produces little original "content" in the traditional sense, was really a "media company". Digital Deliverance says they are (Yes, Google is a Media Company). The article points out that many other "media companies" don't produce much in the way of original content, but simply distribute others' content.

For examples, how many American radio stations generates original content? Very few. Most of the hourly news programs aired by American AM and FM radio stations aren't created by those stations but are audio from wire services or networks. Although stations in the top markets do have news reporters on air, the bald fact is that most of the 6,000 radio stations in America no longer have any reporters either on air or even on staff. Most air nothing but content that originates elsewhere. Nevertheless, pundits consider those companies to be media companies despite their lack of any original content. [emphasis in original]

Although I'm not really sure what a "media" company is. There are companies that produce content. There are companies that distribute content. Often, companies do both.

Even though many companies perform both functions, these functions should often be analytically distinct for a variety of legal, regulatory, market and social purposes. Calling all these companies "media companies" does not emphasize this distinction and frequently obscures more than it reveals.

So, yes, Google is a media company. But that doesn't mean that "media company" is a useful category.

via Online News Squared