How The Google Boycott Backfired Bigtime
from the what-are-they-thinking? dept
The whole Google blacklisting CNET reporters thing has taken a life of its own -- to the point that there's already media criticism of the articles about the boycott and even a sarcastic response from CNET itself to the ban. In all of this, Google has remained steadfastly "no comment." David Krane's repeated apologies and refusal to comment has become the standard inclusion into each of these stories. What's amazing is how bad this is making Google look -- and how they refuse to even acknowledge it. It was a bad move from the beginning, but if they just admitted it, and let it go, it would have been fine. Instead, there are now a ton of articles about how Google can't take criticism and about how they absolutely refuse to respond to the privacy questions raised in the original story. While they claim they're upset about the personal information being revealed -- by turning this banning into a story they've only caused that information to be spread further.
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
Wired had this a while a go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wired had this a while a go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wired had this a while a go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, consider this...
Also, they could be making some amends in-house with their privacy policies. Honestly, I don't care if they ever talk to CNet again (I never have liked them), but if they make amends to the search engine with relation to personal privacy (by excluding things like phone numbers and address data), then that is much better. Actions speak louder than words... they can remain silent all they want. If they do this, they come out in a win-win situation. If they apologize to CNet, the problem would still remain, and that's bad PR as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
So: a 'well-known' reporter is not granted interviews? BIG F-ING DEAL!
It sounds more like a pompous ass wants to interview anyone he wants, whenever he wants. Sorry, but sometimes a person or a company doesn't want to deal with a 'reporter' -- for whatever reasons.
Hey, perhaps this 'well-known' reporter has already proven that he has an agenda against the company? Perhaps he has already become known for misquoting or intentionally distorting information in order to make a boring story more sellable for his own benefit.
Who knows? In the end, WHO CARES?
From what I have seen lately, there appears to be a campaign waged by some people to bash Google. (It's all probably engineered behind the scenes by Microsoft, or Yahoo, or the 'Bushies', or the 'Libbies', or Bin Laden, or, heck: *roll-your-own*)
This is a NON story. Boring as all shlt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Will
This story is like a high school grudge between kids (which unfortunately makes it to the real world sometimes) where the "bigger man" simply drops it and doesn't say anything anymore while the other person continues to talk shit behind their back.
Is google supposed to continue fueling the fire? What's the point of that? Whether or not Google did anything wrong is irrelevant at this point. They made a stance (as they have the right to) and they are silently putting an end to it.
Free will... If you ask me, Google is the "adult" in this situation and all the critics, CNET, and that pompous asshole reporter need to grow up, dry their eyes, and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
What we're discussing here is how Google's reaction MADE this a story. Otherwise it would be a non-story. That's what makes it interesting -- and surprising, since Google has been much more PR savvy... and this is giving them quite a black eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not imho
Google gets a chance to learn from its mistake and punishes Cnet for a year.
Google gets more free press and their PageRank increases :P
Anyone with a google bias emotes for the company and the battle rages on.
Google will not be permanently affected by this transgression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
overhype
Yeah, I did read more than the first sentence
:)
"What we're discussing here is how Google's reaction MADE this a story."
OK, but I don't agree that Google's reaction 'MADE this a story'. The 'story' looks like it has been jacked all out of proportion. The anti-google cohorts have overhyped this and struggle to keep it alive, positioning it as some sort of terrible tragedy that is in the public interest. That's complete c-r-a-p.
Like a gang of self-perceived champions of the public interest are making a mountain out of molehill so they have a story to scream and cry about, and so much the better if the 'story' demonizes a well-known and successful company.
I am all for freedom of the press. But sometimes too large a proportion of the press, or at least too much of the available 'airtime' or attention is spent on tangential nonsense like this. And quite often it is manipulated and egged-on by those with an agenda.
Google-bashing DOES serve a purpose for certain parties: there are those who are attempting (in well-financed ways) to exploit any and every advantage opened by damage done to google.
In my eyes, the press itself suffers by overhyping this and being dupes who play into the hands of anti-google interests, much more than google might suffer for whatever PR-related 'mistakes' it may have made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: overhype
Amen. As it is, was, and ever shall be. News is only news to those who think it is, and everything that passes for news is a product of human endeavor, and nearly always with a profit or personal motive behind it.
Oh, and I'm in favor of that system - I am happy to discard the BS, rather do it myself than any great overseer or agency. Long live freedom of the press, even the crappy press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless it is TOO
When I studied journalism in college, they emphasized a NON-BIASED approach. One that HONESTLY sees and presents ALL relevant points of view.
Upon that basis even the for-profit 'news industry' must be built if we desire to an informed public participating and defending their democratic system of government.
But when the integrity of the 'news industry' becomes dominated by whore-like entities like FOXNews, then we must draw the line.
We cannot tolerate too much 'crappiness' without endangering some very important and fundamental aspects of our society.
"Freedom to be Crappy"? Yes.
But, "Freedom to be SO irresponsibly crappy that it enters the realm of corruption"?
NO!
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unless it is TOO
--------------------
FOXNews: agreed. See? we are know, don't we? We figured it out.
--------------------
realm of corruption? Yeah, corruption is bad. But this is just useless line noise.
--------------------
We cannot tolerate too much 'crappiness' without endangering some very important and fundamental aspects of our society:
Sure we can. And most assuredly will. Safer to allow many sources to weigh in on an "issue" than have some appointed screener of "newsworthiness", no? Yellow journalism, cheap gossip and the ilk has been with us since the invention of the printing press (nod to the Enquirer et al, you know who you are).
People are smart enough to know. They may not care, or they may even like it, but most of them know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrogance
Second, if you haven't noticed or have been living under a rock the past few years, Google owns the news today with their news aggregator. They have no need of the likes of CNET, or anyone else for that matter. Ever wonder just how many users today rely on Google News for their daily content? You can bet Google sure does, which is why they can be as arrogant to CNET, or anyone else, as they well please.
Tangle with a bull and... well, you know what you get. Thumbing your nose at the gatekeeper is a risky affair.
The smart thing would be for CNET to apologize to Google, accept their punishment for the mistake, update company policy to prevent it from happening again, and move on.
...and pray that Google's good graces keeps them in their aggregator.. for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
Yes, this story is blown out of proportion -- that's THE POINT. It was Google's reaction that made it so. If they hadn't reacted this way, it wouldn't have been an issue at all.
And, given Google's history in handling the press, that's why this is surprising. Do they have a right to do it? Sure thing. That doesn't mean it was the right strategic move however -- and the fact that this story continues to live on shows just how badly Google has handled it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
Haha, me too Mike.
Sorry.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
I think it is a subtle way of saying "hey CNET, don't screw with Google or you get shitlisted." I think this is a new way for a young cocky company to gain repect not only from other companies, but also from the masses.
Are people out there going to stop using Google just because they were so hard on CNET and because of this hyped up article is in the headlines? My guess is no.
Google may be handling this situation differently than they have things in the past, but why does that mean it's negative?
Change isn't always bad.
Google's new motto:
"Don't be Evil, and don't F*** with us"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
I don't quite see how this affords Google any additional respect. So far, the almost universal response has been the opposite -- that it's given Google scorn for acting as if they have the right to determine what a reporter can say about them.
No one has to agree with what the press rights about them, and no one has to respond to comments -- but to make a statement cutting off an organization because of a single article you disagree with is vindicative... and that's anything but a sign of maturity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
So it's vindictive. Who gives a shit? So, Google made a mistake. Will it hurt them in the future, unlikely. I disagree that the "almost universal response has been the opposite". Most of the articles I have seen on this topic say the same thing over and over and over. Usually there is no further analysis as to the full implications, if any, of Google's actions. Repeating what other "news" sites have printed, hardly qualifies as a universal response. It's summer and the news outlets are looking for filler. Google and CNET is filler. A minor issue at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
Yes, it was. Certainly not wrong - but certainly not smart either. CNET needs google so it's very much like publishing a critical review about your boss' business methods and expect your boos to be a nice guy about it afterwards. So happens - google isn't such a nice guy afterall. Deal with it.
Was it retarded for google to even care about this article?
Well, yeah...
But in a month this whole thing will be forgotten and CNET will still need google and google will still be perfectly happy without CNET.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott Google Ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THEM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]