Harper's Magazine Publisher Shakes Verbal Fist At Google; Romanticizes Own Profession; Quotes Teletubbies
from the this-is-the-most-'angried-up'-his-blood-has-ever-been dept
John R. MacArthur, the publisher of Harper's, is at it again. Last year, MacArthur bravely stood up against "the internet," attacking it for a whole laundry list of evils, including copying and distributing the works of others (often at no cost), dumbing down the level of discourse, and generally not being the Respected Print Business.Now, he's back and he's narrowed his focus to one company: Google. After spending a moment cheering on French ISP Free for its short-lived ad-blocking internet service (to better choke off arch-nemesis Google's ad revenue), MacArthur gets down to brass tacks: namely, how awesome his mag is and how much he fails to understand what Google actually is... or does.
As publisher of a magazine that specializes in substantive, complex, and occasionally lengthy journalism and literature, and that also lives off advertising, I’ve long objected to Google’s systematic campaign to steal everything that isn’t welded to the floor by copyright — while playing nice with its idiotic slogan “Don’t be evil.”"Long objected" apparently means whipping up a once-a-year rant aimed vaguely at "The Internet" and filled with self-serving blasts of journalistic piety and rheumy-eyed nostalgia. Google (and its "smaller rivals") provide "logistical support" to pirates and "repackage" the output of hard-working, life-risking journalists, according to MacArthur, having apparently mistaken search engine results for a web scraper's "blog." These people Google "steals" from are gods among men -- from the "humblest newspaper reporter" to the "most erudite essayist." Oddly, he fails to mention the "most intrepid voicemail hacker" or the "most thorough plagiarist" or the "most accurate gun permit cartographer."
Even if he had included a few lowlights, somehow they would have been Google's fault. Because Google makes the world worse.
This for-profit theft is committed in the pious guise of universal access to “free information,” as if Google were just a bigger version of your neighborhood public library. Acceptance of such a fairy tale lets parasitic search engines assert that they are “web neutral,” just disinterested parties whose glorious mission is to educate and uplift.This might be your problem, Jack. You're expecting Google to "educate and uplift" and it's more interested in indexing the web in order to give you relevant search results. Google's search engine is a tool and you're expecting it to be the teacher from "Dead Poet's Society." Relevance is more important to people who are looking for something than some utopian ideal that "educates and uplifts."
Yes. It's all very annoying and unhinged and bordering on trolling, but MacArthur really outdoes himself with this paragraph, one that indicates his biggest frustration with Google might be that he seems to have no idea how to use it effectively.
This is nonsense, of course. Google’s bias for search results that list its own products above those of its competitors is now well-known, but equally damaging, and less remarked, is the bias that elevates websites with free content over ones that ask readers to pay at least something for the difficult labor of writing, editing, photographing, drawing, and painting and thinking coherently. Try finding Harper’s Magazine when you Google “magazines that publish essays” or “magazines that publish short stories” — it isn’t easy.I'd really, really, really like to see MacArthur produce a little evidence to back up his claim that Google gives priority to "free content" sites over those with paywalls. Just a hint, paywallers: if you lock it up, it's no longer searchable. There's your problem. If Google can't crawl it, it won't appear. Just something to consider. And I really love the tossed off "thinking coherently." Because people giving away their work for free are idiots, apparently.
And, yeah, just try to find any major magazine using those ridiculous search terms. (Here's a beautiful rebuttal.)
If I was looking to submit an essay somewhere, I might use something like those terms, only phrased much less stupidly. There are several ways to find Harper's, but getting it to the front page involves typing in the magazine's name. And if I already know that, what do I need with a search engine?You know how I get all my news? I Google for "world wide web sites about what happened in real life in the recent past"
— Alexis C. Madrigal (@alexismadrigal) January 18, 2013
One other way many people discover quality long-form writing is through aggregators like Longreads, The Essayist or The Browser. From that point, they move on to the magazines themselves. These filters, curated by humans, do what search engines and meandering anti-Google rants can't: connect quality journalism and essays with readers. Quality aggregation (and effective search engines) save these readers the most precious of commodities -- time.
From this point, MacArthur's post devolves into infantile name-calling using infantile terms while trying to make the point that the internet (being Google) is turning us into babies who just want free stuff while making billionaires out of Google's executives. Here's a mercifully brief sample:
It’s no coincidence that Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and Yelp sound like toddler gibberish from the Teletubbies. Whenever I hear these silly corporate names invoked with sanctimonious awe, I imagine Dipsy, Laa-Laa, Po, and Tinky-Winky singing their hit single “Teletubbies say ‘Eh-oh’ ” as they shake the change out of some two-year-old’s pocket.If unchecked, where will this all lead, according to The Last Honest Essayist?
This unending assault of babble potentially could lead to revolutionary conditions in which the new writer-teacher proletariat rises up to overthrow the Internet oligarchy and the politicians and government agencies who protect it.I think MacArthur greatly overestimates the size of this theoretical revolutionary force. And be sure to note that he's conveniently pulled teachers into the ranks in order to boost his already-monumental self image. Journalists, writers, teachers: the last hope for humanity in the face of Big Search.
It's not so much that MacArthur clearly doesn't understand what he's attacking. This happens several times a day all across the internet. It's that his masturbatorial (like an "editorial," only more self-serving) rant projects an egomaniacal picture of the Publisher/Writer/Journalist as the Savior of Culture. This picture (usually a self portrait) has been painted many times before with a variety of ever-broadening brushes. Creation = good. Aggregation = bad. Google = evil. The arguments never get any better or smarter and do little else but expose the authors as short-sighted pessimists ineptly guarding swiftly vanishing turf.
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: internet, john macarthur, journalism, magazine, search
Companies: google, harper's
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Wrong, MacArthur. Google is just a bigger version of your neighborhood public library's card catalog.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I knew the intertubes were meant for porn all along. John u little devil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
o o
l
\_/
Indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he can't keep his mouth shut
It would be quite entertaining in between Righthaven and Pretenda Law news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
probably pretty easy since the better the pay wall the harder it is for google to crawl...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For e.g., the ny times "paywall" was in part not an unmitigated failure because it's so bloody porous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search
- Quote from the not so distant future.
(obtw, what the heck is a Harper? What a stupid name for a magazine, is it about people who play harps?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search
At a guess, I'd say it is someone's name. In fact, a quick look at Wikipedia says that both Harper's Magazine and Harper's Bazaar were created by the publisher Harper & Brothers which later became HarperCollins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harper?ref=dictionary&word=harp#
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google promotes it's own products?
A company that promotes it's own products? The horror! Except, of course, that's not actually happening. Go ahead and check for yourself. I just googled "free email" and Google's own Gmail product was the 7th result. Even Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail had higher rankings than Gmail.
But let's not have reality get in the way of a good ol' bitch & moan session. Now get off my lawn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google promotes it's own products?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who accuse Google of theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People who accuse Google of theft
Why do you think all this new-fangled copyright legislation is always based on accusations and not proof?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People who accuse Google of theft
If cornered, they fixate on the ad revenue Google makes from searches on their stories - but also leave out the fact that this is new traffic generated by Google in the first place. Not to mention that they too can monetise it if the content is worth enough to the user to click and read the full article..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how does he know so much about Teletubbies?
Is that irony or hypocrisy? I'm never sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And how does he know so much about Teletubbies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And how does he know so much about Teletubbies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And how does he know so much about Teletubbies?
But if he's 56, and the Teletubbies started in 1997, even kids that are 20 now would have been 5 at the time.
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And how does he know so much about Teletubbies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And how does he know so much about Teletubbies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In another vein, it does seem fair to call SEs "scrapers", albeit they are content neutral...they just catalog webpages, create keywords, etc. Being "scrapers" in a general sense, why do they block "scrapers" attempting to "scrape" the SE sites directly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I understand your question, you are asking why does a search engine block other search engines from scraping its pages?
That takes me to the first part. You seem to misunderstand or oversimplify what Google does. What you describe is what the old search engines did before Google came along.
What Google does is rather sophisticated. They figure out the popularity of a site by the links within the web of pages and links. If a lot of other sites don't link to something, like Harper's Magazine, then it isn't popular. If something truly is popular, lots of web sites are going to link to it. Or at least talk about it. Google figures out how relevant your web site is based on not only what it contains, but on what other people say about it, and how many say so. Beyond popularity, Google also has taken relevance to a new level. Google is able to figure out what you want from a search query with uncanny accuracy.
But all that said, yes, Google just indexes web pages and returns what it thinks you want based on your search. If Google didn't do as good a job at this, then people would use competitors. Google started with nothing and unseated several powerful established competitors. Come up with an even better way to figure out what people want and return links to those pages, and you could unseat Google. (Or get acquired by someone.)
Finally, if a site doesn't like Google (or other search engines) looking at its pages, just create a robots.txt file. Or put up a paywall which is an even more effective way to keep people out.
Either a robots.txt file or a paywall tend to work, but the best way of all to keep people from reading your site is to not put it on the web to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Still curious about Google's business model for making $$, as noted at #13 above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was answered. Google sells ads for revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Google sells is called SEO, or Search Engine Optimization. You can pay Google to make the result of a search in New York for "Dog Grooming" to have your business, your website, as the top link. That way, its easier to get customers, you're more well known.
Your business could theoretically still end up naturally as the number one result for a search in New York for Dog Grooming, but only if your website was already widely talked about and widely linked to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
> defending [PROOF NEEDED]
> their satanic landlord here. [PROOF NEEDED]
> What a bunch of zombies [PROOF NEEDED]
> not knowing how unethical Google operate its business. [PROOF NEEDED]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I give you free ice cream, just go to bed with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because using the dictionary is hard.
With the exception of Google which is a misspelling/bastardization, those are all perfectly cromulent words.
Google: Derived from googol, a ludicrously large number.
Yahoo: An uncultured oaf or an interjection of excitement. Yahoo! Inc. were probably going for the latter.
Bing: Storage pile or bin. Also a type of cherry.
Yelp: A high pitched cry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because using the dictionary is hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because using the dictionary is hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because using the dictionary is hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEADLINE CORRECTION
Oh, but with proper capitalization (poof!)
There.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The top hit is a story about Harper magazine - written on Techdirt LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess it's not surprising that he actually knows who the teletubbies are, and what they sound like.
[It's that his masturbatorial (like an "editorial," only more self-serving) rant projects an egomaniacal picture of the Publisher/Writer/Journalist as the Savior of Culture.]
I'll save my own culture interests thanks ... I don't think I need the editor of Harper's for that cause, well you know - I can find it on the web anywhere.
I actually had to go and look at Harper's to see what they publish. I wouldn't pay for that ... on the other hand, I might pay for TechDirt if it came right down to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And Mike's got the Insider Shop so you can contribute financially to Techdirt if you like without having to do so in order to bypass a paywall, thus practicing what he preaches about Cwf+rtb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"One wonders if he knows the real reason no one is finding him on Google is because he just isn't relevant.
Just relax and stop thrashing mr dinosaur... we need more oil."
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/18/harpers-publisher-says-telet.html#comment-771807855
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this the same egotistical idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the same egotistical idiot...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/03255018085/harpers-publisher-presents-platonic-id eal-specimen-im-old-fogey-elitist-anti-internet-luddite-columns.shtml
Around the same time last year. Hey I think we found a new nickname for him. He's the Groundhog. He comes out once a year to make an idiotic proclamation and then goes back into his hole and we don't hear anything from him the rest of the year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the same egotistical idiot...
I took a peak at the comments on his most recent article linked by Tim. In short, he's getting slaughtered.
These types of people just don't get it.
Adapt or Die.
Figure out a way to succeed in the 21st century or be relegated to has-been status.
The internet doesn't take prisoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the same egotistical idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who is he talking about?
because the dream of the internet (which is us the proletariat, who could perhaps be called writer-teachers if we all blog??) IS to overthrow the politicians and government agencies who protect the oligarchy.
but i am easily muddled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
low balling it
Impressive troll is impressive. MacArthur really hits all the "high" points from neutral search to Google not having any cost to likening Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt to Hearst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: low balling it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
low balling it
Impressive troll is impressive. MacArthur really hits all the "high" points from neutral search to Google not having any cost to likening Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt to Hearst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amusingly, Harper Brothers started as pirates
(excerpt from http://www.answers.com/topic/publishing-industry)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong, MacArthur. Google is just a bigger version of your neighborhood public library's card catalog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a real journalist has to say
-- H.L. Mencken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Testing the theory
Maybe twelve seconds is too long? Must be Google's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course they don't opt out; the expect top rankings even given ridiculous search terms. All while lamenting the evils of the search engines that send customers their way free of charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And with all those people linking to harper's website, his pigeonrank, I mean pagerank, is bound to increase as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it is called "Harper's"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article Summary
"This guy is old, and he talks about old things. Like, 20 years old, and sometimes older. Nothing good happened back then, because then wasn't now. And plus, his website isn't free enough. Everything should be free, and the right to make infinite copies of anything is a universal right that we should all enjoy. Except for Ben Bernanke."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]