Google? YouTube? Somebody else? Our news editor analyzes media coverage on the recent acquisition.

Editor's Note: This article is part of our special series on Google's acquisition of YouTube, with commentary and analysis from practitioners and thought leaders throughout the industry. These include: 

Ranging from the 30,000 foot perspective to the deeply practical, our contributors will help you make sense of the latest shift in the media landscape.

Google Inc. announced on Monday afternoon that it had acquired video-sharing site YouTube for $1.65 billion in a stock for stock transaction. YouTube will operate independently to preserve its brand-- but now it's part of the Google family.

After weeks of speculation, the deal was closed and made public.

But what is the impact of this deal on the technology sector? How does it impact consumers and advertisers? Who are the winners and losers in this deal? How is the media covering the acquisition and what does this mean to the interactive marketing industry?

The New York Times yesterday reported that the biggest winners of the deal were YouTube's founders, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, "who have parlayed their stakes in the 19-month-old start-up into Google shares that are probably worth tens of millions. YouTube's roughly 60 employees are no doubt celebrating as well."

So the start-up, which serves up to 100 million videos daily, will pack up its office next to a pizza place and move to larger, more posh digs. Sound like the dot-com days again? The Times thinks so.

Nielsen//NetRatings reported that YouTube wasthe top video sharing site.

Sequoia Capital, a venture capital firm that invested $11.5 million in YouTube, is the other winner in the deal, according to the Times. Sequoia's stake in YouTube is estimated at roughly 30 percent, which could give it a value of $495 million.

The Times coverage on the deal focused on how the acquisition echoed dot-com boom era transactions. The paper called YouTube the "darling of the internet resurgence known as Web 2.0."

Is Google a winner here? Hard to tell right now, according to the New York Times. Their article, "Adding On to the House of Google," took the angle that Google is not shying away from the tactic of buying rather than building. Google has made more than 15 major acquisitions in areas such as satellite imaging and blogging, but the buying of YouTube is the largest so far.

Although YouTube contains ads, the site has not proven itself as a business model. However, according the Times, "it comes with an established audience."

The acquisition could also boost Google's ambitions to significantly broaden its ad-brokering activities beyond simple text ads on webpages to larger amounts of video advertising online, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Los Angeles Times interprets the deal as Google betting big on video and aiming to expand in a hot market.

YouTube is the most popular video-sharing site on the web and "Google's decision to shell out big bucks for the company will keep it out of the clutches of Yahoo Inc., News Corp., Viacom Inc. and other big-media suitors," reported the LA Times.

The LA Times also took the angle that Google Video, a service launched in January, was not up to par with YouTube. The success of YouTube was due to the simplicity of uploading clips and communicating with video watchers who have similar tastes.

YouTube's move to sell might have been spurred by being exposed to potential lawsuits over copyrighted videos. Earlier this year the site encountered some trouble with NBC Univesal's "Lazy Sunday," a "Saturday Night Live" rap parody that attracted six million views before YouTube removed it, at NBC's request.

Now Google might open itself to lawsuits over copyrighted material. Who would corporations rather sue-- a small start-up or a giant internet company?

The LA Times reported that with these legal concerns looming, YouTube formed licensing deals with the world's two largest music labels, Universal Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, as well as with CBS Corp.

Mark Kingdon, CEO of Organic, Inc., told the LA times, "YouTube is certainly one of the biggest prizes of the year because it's the perfect combination of video and social community."

Steve Rubel, iMedia contributor and author of the Micro Persuasion blog wrote "Google-YouTube is Done-- Who Cares"

"I think it's an important deal, but it's being blown out of proportion," Rubel told iMedia. "The big picture is that social media is mainstream. The story is an acquisition story and one event in a timeline."

Ellen Siminoff, president and CEO of Efficient Frontier, addressed the question of how Google will use its new asset.

"Social networks provide search engines an enormous opportunity to increase reach and distribution. While we will still have to wait and see how Google monetizes the YouTube opportunity, this acquisition is a way for Google to offer its advertisers more relevance by connecting them with a massive and captive audience not only based on key demographics, but also on interest levels," Siminoff told iMedia.

Last month Mark Cuban was quoted as saying that only a "moron" would purchase YouTube, reported Zdnet.

"YouTube has so far avoided any serious litigation, but that was before there was anyone with deep pockets to sue, and Google certainly has deep pockets," according to Zdnet.

John Battelle's Searchblog reports that "The market likes it, and shares of Google are up."

Reuters reported today that Google shares rose 0.4 percent to $430.50 on Nasdaq, a day after the company announced the deal to buy YouTube.

Battelle covered the conference call announcement yesterday by Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Google said that it has plans to include YouTube's video into Google, but there is a "great deal more experimentation and trials to be done."