Google Gets Snippy With Reporters
from the talk-to-the-hand! dept
A well known reporter recently told me that Google refuses to grant him interviews with their executive staff because they don't see any benefit to the company at all. The company is doing great, rolling in money and everyone knows all about them already. So why should they grant interviews? Especially if the reporter might (gasp!) ask tough questions? It seems that, in another case, they've taken this policy a step further to punish a news organization that wrote an article they didn't like. Someone at Slashdot actually read all the way to the bottom of an article about Google's need for a new chef (this is news?) where the reporter notes: "Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story." That previous story was one discussing how people could find out all sorts of private info about others by doing Google searches. That's a story that's been done plenty of times before, but this time the reporter used Google to track down some info (nothing too shocking, honestly) about Google's own CEO, Eric Schmidt. It's not clear if the complaint from Google is about finding the info on Schmidt, the general point of the article or (perhaps!) because the reporter got some of the fairly important details wrong (there's a correction saying the original article implied that Google's desktop search was sending data about what's on your desktop back to Google -- which is completely false). Even if they're legitimately pissed at shoddy coverage of their company, it still comes off as a bit arrogant to refuse to talk to anyone at News.com for a year.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
High Tech PR
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: High Tech PR
They put a man's worth (in the billions) and his home address.
Criminals have never been accused of being that smart. Could it be possible that maybe you shouldnt paint a big bullseye on the home of someone worth a lof oy money for any thieves, nutcases and kidnappers?
Sure, they could get the information themselves, but let them. Maybe he has children and doesnt like the idea of a big news source that they had been cooperating with endangering them any more than just being rich already does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My take
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
And you know this is completely false because... google says so?
good one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
The issue (and what makes it newsworthy) is the reasons *why* they've decided not to talk, and the fact that they've apparently put a complete one year ban on talking to reporters at that organization for any reason. It certainly suggests an attitude out of Google that seems a bit more arrogant than it need be.
Sure, reporters can get annoying, but it's fine to just say no comment. But to say "we won't talk to you for a year" comes off as being quite obnoxious. Google can get away with it for now, seeing as they don't need press coverage -- but situations change, and burning bridges with the press in that way seems like an odd strategy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RT whole FA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
What I did imply was that this was not a smart move, and I'll stand by that. It's the arrogance of the move that makes it newsworthy to us. It also seems newsworthy to many others, if you look around the web today. You don't have to agree. That's why you have your own site. :) But, it's really up to those of us here at Techdirt to determine what we find newsworthy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RT whole FA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
> What I did imply was that this was not a smart move, and I'll stand by that. It's the arrogance of the move that makes it newsworthy to us.
Yes, the 1-year ban is different from a 1-off "no comment", indeed. And I wouldn't have said so much `arrogant' as suggesting that it could be a patently immature response, unless, as someone else has pointed out, giving a rich person's address qualifies as a good reason for it.
It's news-worthy in terms of potentially answering the question `how evil is google?'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
we will no longer conduct interviews with techdirt.com until august 2006. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get Real
The other thing that most people don't realize is that Google is essential an advertising company. They have placement inventory and they sell it. That sort of position usually doesn't last, and there are plenty of examples of this around. I used to work for a company called Organic Online, which, in the late '90s, controlled 60% of online banner ads. Needless to say, they don't anymore.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in thread ]