LA Times: Publishers Think Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Laden
from the no,-really? dept
While the SF Chronicle may have gone through the stages of Google grief, it appears the LA Times is still very much in the denial stage. In fact, it's such extreme denial, that it's reaching near-satire levels. Robert Niles at OJR points us to an editorial in the LA Times saying that "many publishers" believe that Google and the internet are "a greater threat... than Osama bin Laden." Niles does a good job walking through how ridiculous that statement is, including pointing out that the LA Times refuses to name a single publisher who actually believes that. However, as has been pointed out many, many times, Google is not a threat to newspapers. It's only helping them. It's funny that, on the rest of the internet, tremendous money is spent on "search engine marketing" and "search engine optimization" to get better ranked in Google. Yet, when Google ranks newspapers well, suddenly, it's worse than terrorists. You would think that a newspaper with professional reporters would actually bother to get the facts and understand this -- but apparently that's too much to ask. The editorial goes on to complain about Google's new news commenting feature, because how dare Google actually provide people involved in a story a chance to tell their side? Apparently, all information needs to be guarded by some gatekeepers who don't even seem to understand how Google works. Of course, since the LA Times wants to keep those in the story quiet, you can't comment on the article. However, if I were Google, I'd add a response to this... on Google News, to demonstrate why that comment feature makes so much sense.
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
Filed Under: denial, newspapers
Companies: google, la times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At what point will mass media realize that people who get there news online are quick to figure out when the story sucks? As example, the NY Times blew their wad leading US into war.
If the Google news comments take off, which I doubt, it won't be long until the Wikipedia lies (CIA, Diebold, Demopublicans) start leaving comments to change the style of the stories.
Bleh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lies on wikipedia
You, too, can contribute to the growth of this honest form of education. Join up and put your gripes on their pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahahaha, this sounds like something they would want to keep secret in a board room, not write an artical about. theres no real downside for non-journalists. allowing people to discuss articles written about themselves seems like a great idea, its not journalism but its a step closer to factual, believable news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What????
The LA times publishers are a bunch of 2 year olds who have no conception of reality whatsoever.
You can't reason with 2 year olds, why bother tryimg??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PR
Who would you prefer to get your information from: disinterested reporters who are paid to be objective, or governments and corporations whose sole purpose is to distort reality to advance their own interests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR
Isn't that exactly what "the media" does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR
I don't understand why they don't welcome the opportunity of unlimited space and time that google gives them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR
Indeed. Did anyone imply anything different?
Who would you prefer to get your information from: disinterested reporters who are paid to be objective, or governments and corporations whose sole purpose is to distort reality to advance their own interests?
Kevin, you seem to be confused. You seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive. Google isn't getting rid of reporters (disinterested or not), but simply adding the ability for people to respond. Those comments are clearly labeled and people can weigh them knowing that they come from interested parties.
So, your dichotomy doesn't make sense, because the two things co-exist and make a better overall information source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR
I'd rearrange your comment slightly:
"reporters who are paid {by} corporations whose sole purpose is to distort reality to advance their own interests"
Are you really claiming the new media display no bias? That certainly hasn't been my experience...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you and your readers are pretty amazing.. the fact that someone holds an opinion, (and a strong one at that) that is opposed to yours leads you to believe that they 'don't get' google!!!
how embarrassing... i'm pretty sure that the guys at whatever newspaper is railing against google, get google, and fully understand what google's doing, possibly alot more than you....
you're getting to be rather predictable, and somewhat laughable...
however, as a newspaper, just like any other site, the paper could simply either add a robots.txt file that google would probably abide by, or the paper sould simply call google, and work out a way to be kept out of google's news section altogther...
unfortunately, given the fact that news readership is in a free fall, this wouldn't restore readers... that's a whole different animal!
peace..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"LA Times: Publishers Think Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares about this?
The only relevant discussion took place a week ago, when people were discussing Google's implicit refusal to allow other aggregators aggregate comments to articles.
Google seems to behave very differently when it suddenly thinks it "owns" something content-wise (in this case, comments from "relevant parties").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just get off the Internet
But of course they won't do that. Because then they would have to come to terms with the fact that their business model is dying. And that the dying is not Google's fault. They don't want to do that, so instead they wine and complain hoping that they can coerce some type of handout from Google or the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google may be a bigger htreat than Osama
Osama bin Laden does not compete with newspapers, Google does to a limited extent, and therefore Google are the bigger threat to the newspapaer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google may be a bigger htreat than Osama
Based on your argument that Google is a source of competition for newspapers, the Yellow Pages is a source of competition for any business, since it provides a listing of alternative businesses. Thing is, I don't hear Joe's Pizza complaining that the Yellow Pages is worse than Osama. Most businesses seem to understand the purpose of the Yellow Pages: to advertise your business. Google is no different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did any of you actually read the LA Times article
The only assertion the article is making is simply this: unedited replies from those involved in the story isn't really 'news' or journalism. It's just people trying to cast a better light on themselves. The article argues that, albeit interesting and novel, these comments aren't useful.
Why the article starts with Bin Laden etc etc ... who knows, it has so little to do with the opinion, one would guess it's just a punchy lead in, to get you reading... or to get on tech dirt.
Those crafty journalists, hijacking Bin Laden to get their articles higher rankings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did any of you actually read the LA Times arti
The real questions are:
1) How does Google decide who is involved in the story and obtain proof-of-identity?
2) Where can I buy tickets to the ensuing fights over slander, libel and who knows what other legal potholes the involved responders get themselves into?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did any of you actually read the LA Times arti
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did any of you actually read the LA Times arti
This is the FoxNewsAlertOMG!WeAreAllGunnaDIE generation! No time for paragraphs, just the headlines and - maybe, MAYBE - a summary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you all read?
go read it for yourselves before you let Techdirt tell you what you should think or feel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you all read?
Been there, done that. I didn't find anything inaccurate in the Techdirt summary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you all read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can you all read?
Hmm. What you read as blatant sensationalism is a pretty standard use of an ellipse to shorten a quoted sentence to highlight the key points. It wasn't used for sensationalism at all.
And then the quote about no publisher actually thinking that way but the article lists one lonely publisher..
Actually, no, it doesn't list a publisher who thinks that. It lists Sam Zell who is trying to buy a newspaper and has complained about Google, but nowhere does Zell ever say that he thinks Google is a bigger threat than bin Laden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you all read?
You guys usually run a fair operation here, but you're wrong on this one. Your write-up implies that the LA Times is in some sort of "denial" about Google when in fact, the opinion piece supports TechDirt's position on the Google/Newspaper thing. From the article:
Also, the use of elipses absolutely changes the meaning of the quote. The actual article quote:
Now the "publishers" might still be wrong, but removing that italicized portion changes the entire nature of the quote. Your ellipsed version almost implies that Google employees are going to run around with bombs strapped to their chests. And yes to imply such a thing would be ridiculous.
The editorial writer was merely saying that publishers believe that Google threatens to make them obsolete and out of a job, which is a far saner (though possibly still wrong).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can you all read?
Regardless of the ellipse, it's clear that whoever thinks (or rather claims to think) this, is applying MAFFIA like tactics of over-exaggerating by such a magnitude it's simply ridiculous.
And the retarted part is that objectively, it might be a correct statement, just as, if I were a baker, a new bakery opening down the street would be a greater threat to my livelihood than Osama bin Laden...so even though it might be factual true, it's so intellectually dishonest it's pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an earlier reply points out, technically it does make sense. Google is more of a direct threat to newspapers than Bin Laden, since he's unlikely to systematically target every single newspaper in the US, but google may offer actual competition. That doesn't mean it is a good point, however. A car on the street is more of a threat to my life than Osama Bin Laden, it doesn't mean it makes sense to loudly proclaim it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A car on the street is more of a threat to my life than Osama Bin Laden, it doesn't mean it makes sense to loudly proclaim it.
Because if you did people would probably consider you to be ridiculous and unreliable, like the LA Times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Theye are not even comparing like threats to their business, unless either Bin Laden is selling ads and showing news clips, or Google is threatening to blow them up. Possibly a better comparison to the stupidity of their statement is that London Irish rugby club is more of a threat to Arsenal FC than the Baltimore Orioles are, which is sort of true in the same way: the rugby club competes slightly for winter sports audience, ad revenue, and TV time, but the Orioles are in a different country in a different season and have nothing to do with the situation at hand, and are therefore less of a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Die Already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buggy whips
Newspapers have an advantage over buggy whips; you need them to line bird cages and mask off for spray painting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Rule The World!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Rule The World!
Of course that is saying absolutely nothing about google....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read The Friggin Article
Oh and it points out many flaws with the whole 'you can respond to articles about you' think that should be obvious. Such as people claiming to be person X when they aren't ect ect.
Bad move Mike. You should have done some research. Guess this article is hipocracy in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read The Friggin Article
I'm willing to bet that most Americans don't even think about the Iraq issue unless its brought up on the news. After all, we were attacked once a few years ago and our soldiers chased Osama away and can't find him. To most Americans that's 'good enough' and will sadly move on like nothing ever happend.
Makes me wonder why our politicians keep getting us into wars when the American people are so apathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only thing we know for sure...
2) anyone whose ever been interviewed for a story and seen that story go to print knows how distorted the result can be, both intentionally and unintentionally.
3) pity the historians that use newspaper stories to evaluate historical events and context.
4) whether you are reading history or the news: use your judgment. The only thing we know for sure about the content is that it's an interpretation based on an interpretation of an event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Randall is right. NO ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE LA T
Randall's comment above is correct. This TechDirt piece is crappy TechDirt spin on what the LA Times Editorial was actually saying. What exactly in the linked editorial implies that "LA Times is still very much in the denial stage" of anything?
The Times editorial in no way implies that the LA Times itself is anti-Google. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. It's just that this editorial says nothing of the sort.
Please everyone, read the linked editorial before rushing to judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Randall is right. NO ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Godwin's Law all over again
Thus, by Godwin's Law, anyone invoking such a comparison automatically looses the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Killed the Paper Star...
This sort of "technophobia" is also kicking here in Europe...
Some papers, for instance, adapted themselves some years ago and now their online versions are profitable and leading their segments...
Other... Well: Internet Killed the Paper Stars...
Regards from Spain,
Http://paquito4ever.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Laden
Therefore, you cannot blame anyone, especially the publishers and news media who grumble.
Moreover, this company believes it is right to violate other companies' copyrights and trademarks and make money from them.
As long as the company owns the search engine that provides the Pay per click service that enables its customers to violate copyright and trademark laws, they are guilty (aiding and abetting) and should be made to pay for it.
This company is so cocky it is still in denial of this.
I guess the only way to stop this menace of other companies' trademarks would be for the affected companies to team up together and file a $1 trillion dollar class action lawsuit against them and get the best attorneys to fight them.
Maychic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LA Times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WEB2.0
I do not like those buzz words like Web 2.0, Business 2.0 etc., however in order to communication, you have to conform to their protocols, otherwise they might think you are speaking in a foreign language. So far Web 2.0/Internet 1.0 lead by Youtube, FaceBook, same Amazon, New Yahoo! and New Google is successful, though at not successful as Web 1.0/Internet 0.0 led by Old Yahoo!, Ebay, Amazon and Old Google. Why? Not a big surprise anymore when from Web 1.0/Internet 0.0 to Web 2.0/Internet 1.0 as opposed from nothing to Web 1.0/Internet 0.0.
I believe the next after Web 2.0/Internet 1.0 is Web 3.0/Internet 2.0, however we’d better to call it Internet 2.0, since at that time, Web is not that important any more. Why?
Web 1.0/Internet 0.0 - Informed, you as a reader
Web 2.0/Internet 1.0 - Inform, you as a writer
Internet 2.0 (as opposed as Web 3.0/Internet 2.0) - formation of Information, you as a reader, writer, and much more
- BTW I am writing this post while I am watching a lecture C++0x (yes, C++0x) on at Univ. of Waterloo made by Prof. Bjarne Stroustrup - Prof. Stroustrup, think about C++ 3.0, borrow somthing nice from Ruby, the world is way too different now as opposed to 1980s
Frontier Space - http://www.hwswworld.com/space
Frontier Blog - http://www.hwswworld.com/wp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Threat to livelihood
Of course this is a case of "they said" or I heard it from "this guy" But on the assumption that someone was actually stupid enough to make reference to that terrorist s.o.b., I wonder this:
Would the "many publishers" be making the same comparison if their newspaper buildings were turned into smoking craters by his minions?
Because we all know that Google is out to kill everyone who does not like their search engine, the same way that Al-Qaida tries to slaughter everyone who does buy into their religious views.
Of course, they would probably blame Google Earth for giving the terrorists the locations to hit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the denial stage
The points of the piece were a) Google is no threat to newspapers economically, but just the opposite; and b) the Google News comments should be read critically, 'cause Google sure isn't doing any fact-checking. You can argue with me about those points, but that's all the editorial was trying to say, in its own inelegant way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]