[req2]

You're hasty applying the troll label, and slow to support any of your arguments.

As I mentioned above, "It's not given that this is better for newspapers than open search engine access, nor that this preserves the production of "beneficial" news."

Can you explain why media companies "greatly benefit" from being excluded from major search engines? Can you show why this means that "beneficial" investigative journalism continues, increasing the overall welfare of citizens moreso than open access for search engines? For that matter, can you show that newspapers do more "long form" and expose more government corruption than bloggers do in aggregate? What if newspapers accept this deal and transition to more "blog" articles and fewer "investigative" articles, leaving citizens with "no" investigative articles and no single search destination?

Being first mover doesn't give you the right to assert every piece of your argument.