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.
Filed Under: denial, newspapers
Companies: google, la times
Comments on “LA Times: Publishers Think Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Laden”
The lack of getting facts and screwing up stories is the reason for the need to provide people involved in a story to tell their side.
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.
Re: Re:
distorted perhaps before it was given to them for a write up. i think google’s stance on airing views of those involved, will put reporters on the stand for writing or getting the facts wrongly. possible. now, we can at least understand newspapers’ apprehension on google’s plan.
Re: Lies on wikipedia
It’s possible you don’t fully understand what Wikipedia is intended to be. As for the “lies” from the CIA and others putting false and misleading articles into play, the owners of Wikipedia now have a method of locking changes out.
You, too, can contribute to the growth of this honest form of education. Join up and put your gripes on their pages.
“The feature implies that the stories aggregated by Google News are incomplete — possibly because of limited space, but also possibly because of bias, neglect or ignorance. News organizations have their flaws, and the added comments on Google may demonstrate that.”
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.
Re: Re:
This might read better as: “It’s not journalism; it’s a step closer to factual, believable news.”
Re: Re: Re:
Why fear discussion if your telling then truth? Unless your full of crap and worried more about sales and being entertaining then truth…
Re: Re:
amen to that!
What????
I’m sitting here-minding my own busniness and all that-and I come across this nonsense.
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??
PR
Often, the “people telling their side of the story” are going to be highly sophisticated public relations machines.
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?
Re: PR
“whose sole purpose is to distort reality to advance their own interests”
Isn’t that exactly what “the media” does?
Re: Re: PR
No. It’s not.
Re: Re: Re: PR
Funniest comment I’ve heard today.
Re: Re: Re:2 PR
Even funnier.
Re: Re: Re:3 PR
Not so funny at all. All news is biased one way or another.
Re: PR
“Disinterested reporters”??? Whoever used that term is either a reporter or is a person who has never known a reporter. Having met and worked with dozens of reporters, I can safely say that few, if any, reporters are disinterested. The bigger problem is that most are either too lazy or overworked to dig into any given story. There is a tendency to rework a PR piece, or to take a side in a story and provide a perfunctory paragraph to the “other side’s” view.
Re: PR
Oh come on. You know that poor overworked reporters working under a deadline can’t always get all the significant factual data, and even if they do, space constraints will force them to be selective.
I don’t understand why they don’t welcome the opportunity of unlimited space and time that google gives them.
Re: PR
Often, the “people telling their side of the story” are going to be highly sophisticated public relations machines.
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.
Re: PR
you have identified each role. nice. but reporters need to check their facts before publishing. oh well, that is if they are covering those honest corporations and governments [if they exist or even if honesty is a mantra]. well, one way or another, someone hides the dirt. i think it would be nice to read them both on Google’s comment section. face off. 🙂
Re: PR
There are no disinterested reporters. All reporters are ruled by their own agendas which is usually anti-american and anti anything that does not make them famous.
Re: 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?”
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…
mike…
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..
am I the only person that realizes Osama bin Laden is misspelled in the title?
Re: Re:
I noticed this too .. hehe It probably should read,
“LA Times: Publishers Think Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Muhammad bin ‘Awad bin Laden”
Hey Sam, it seems pretty idiotic to have a media site and keep it off search engines. What’s the point of having stories if you want them only offered to a select few?
Re: Re:
Good grief, man, you don’t think that they want their finely-crafted journalism sullied by the eyes of the unwashed masses, do you?
Who cares about this?
Who cares what LA Times or its executives think on the issue?
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”).
Just get off the Internet
Seriously, if Google and random people from the Internet reading their site is hurting them so much, then why do they have a website? Just take the thing down already. Then all he “harm” that Google is doing them will stop.
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.
Google may be a bigger htreat than Osama
Whilst I normally agree with TD articles, in this case I think they are wrong. Osama may be a threat to peace and freedom, but Google is a source of competition for the newspapers, since it provides an alternative source of news. if a newspaper is bad enough, then people will switch to other sources of news, including Google.
Osama bin Laden does not compete with newspapers, Google does to a limited extent, and therefore Google are the bigger threat to the newspapaer.
Re: Google may be a bigger htreat than Osama
It’s clear that you do not understand how Google News works. If newspapers want to rank higher in Google News perhaps they should work at improving their articles?
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.
Did any of you actually read the LA Times article
It starts out with that ridiculous statement, but then say most of what you already agree with: google brings revenue to news papers, and they don’t mind. Google ads value. Google doesn’t make much/any money from Google news.
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.
Re: Did any of you actually read the LA Times arti
I think it all boils down to money. Newspapers/media are profit-driven operations. Every media company puts their own political spin on every story. That gets them readership who generally shares the operation’s political leanings. Advertisers support it all by putting their money where the readers are, but also pick their media outlets by political leanings. Google upsets this little game by letting people involved in the story tell their side and pointing out where their statements were taken out of context, etc. by the media. The responses could cause tremendous loss of face for the media.
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?
Re: Did any of you actually read the LA Times arti
Well, they made it. People on Techdirt are talking about how full of it the LA Times is.
Re: Did any of you actually read the LA Times arti
Read… the article? What world are you living in?! =D
This is the FoxNewsAlertOMG!WeAreAllGunnaDIE generation! No time for paragraphs, just the headlines and – maybe, MAYBE – a summary.
Can you all read?
Seriously, did any of you bother to go read the article on the LA Times website? Techdirt is getting to be as bad as ABC, NBC and FOX with the shameless hyping of a news story. Come to think of it, this ‘story’ isn’t even news, it’s spin. Here’s the link to the article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-google17aug17,0,5712024.column?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
go read it for yourselves before you let Techdirt tell you what you should think or feel.
Re: Can you all read?
Yes.
Been there, done that. I didn’t find anything inaccurate in the Techdirt summary.
Re: Re: Can you all read?
HaHa then I guess you should go back to school and take some classes in critical thinking. Nothing inaccurate…How about the 3rd sentence of the techblurb article? the intentional “…” instead of using the actual words from the LA Times article is a blatant sensationalism. And then the quote about no publisher actually thinking that way but the article lists one lonely publisher..cmon, use your brains, please…I beg you…it’s not too late.
Re: Re: Re: Can you all read?
How about the 3rd sentence of the techblurb article? the intentional “…” instead of using the actual words from the LA Times article is a blatant sensationalism
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 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.
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).
Re: Re: Re:3 Can you all read?
I don’t think anybody in his/her right mind would interpret the ellipse as if (meaning) Google employeees are going to run around with bombs…nor does the ellipse make me think the newspapers/CEOs are trying to say that, or even thinking it.
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
Whatever the article actually says, the first sentence is absolutely ridiculous. It’s a petty attempt to sensationalise what is basically a boring story, and it says a lot about how the minds of most journalists work these days (“Boring story? CONTROVERSIAL, UNRELATED COMMENT!”).
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.
Re: 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 people would probably consider you to be ridiculous and unreliable, like the LA Times.
Re: Re:
grrr, should have been
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.
Re: Re: Re:
A random business which happens to compete ever so slightly for ad revenue and which could tell other people about my competitors is more of a threat to my business than someone who if I am very unlucky may blow up some of my reader, if I am extremely unlucky may blow up my office, and so unlucky it is not worth worrying about may blow me up.
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.
Re: Re:
Well, yes, Google offers competition, in the sense that it links to news stores from around the world. What people need to realize, however, is that Google is not itself competition. It’s doesn’t publish news, it just points to news.
The article never claimed that Google was a threat to anyone’s life; it pointed out that many publishers consider Google to be a threat to their livelihoods. Which just means that those publishers need to get with the times and adapt to the world of today. It’s not 1979 anymore.
Die Already
After reading the a few news stories, CNN and friends, and then blog commentaries if I don’t have it right then stuff it. But just like hip hop should drive the old business model out of business. Hopefully in a few years the internet and Googles will drive newspapers out of existance. Time for a new model of how we receive our information. So whine on LA Times your days are numbered.
Buggy whips
“You know, at one time there must have been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I’ll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw.”Danny DeVito Other People’s Money.
Newspapers have an advantage over buggy whips; you need them to line bird cages and mask off for spray painting.
Google Rule The World!
Hey I think Google is awesome. Heck they should take over the world, they would do a lot better job than all those other idiots in power now!
Re: Google Rule The World!
I second that motion.
Of course that is saying absolutely nothing about google….
Welcome Google
I for one welcome our new Googilian overlords.
Read The Friggin Article
Someone else said it already, but obviously most of you (including Mike :sadface:) read the article. The article isn’t even really attacking Google. It’s more akin to what Mike has been trying to say, that it’ll show the News sites that Google News isn’t competition.
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.
Re: Read The Friggin Article
Cant edit cause I’m too lazy to log in (Cowmonaut btw) but the first statement about Osama bin Laden being less of a threat isn’t really all that surprising. Do you mean to tell me that you personally feel that Osama’s henchmen are going to suicide bomb your house at night?
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.
the only thing we know for sure...
1) the article in the LA Times wasn’t that bad.
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.
Google a bigger threat to newspapers than Osama? Hmmm, think about that. If Google gets its way, Google will be pushing newspaper stories out to the world. If Osama gets his way, I seriously doubt he is much interested in a free and truthful press. Daniel Perl discovered how islamic militants feel about western media.
Randall is right. NO ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE LA T
Sorry to yell, but I just wanted to get noticed 30+ replies down.
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.
Re: Randall is right. NO ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE
Thankfully there are a few of us here(woefully few) that actually know how to read and understand what we have read.
This is Godwin's Law all over again
I would say comparing your opponent to Bin Laden is essentially the same as comparing him to Hitler. By that I mean the comparison serves the same purpose, to demonize your opponent because you do not like their policies, even though the comparison is absurd.
Thus, by Godwin’s Law, anyone invoking such a comparison automatically looses the debate.
Internet Killed the Paper Star...
As with the music industry, fears around the technological change provoke this kind of reactions…
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
Thanks for the tidbit.
Oh no, whatever will we do!! A new device, called the Printing Press threats us scribes who make money copying books, it must stop!!
I love Google!
I worked for the LA Times in the 80’s. You guys…come on. Google is the best!
truth
What about truthiness?
Google Is Worse Than Osama bin Laden
The burning issue is that this company makes billions of dollars yearly using other peoples’ content and telecommunication network.
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
found this thanks to iGoogle 😉
LA Times
The LA times are a bunch of America Hating communists. anything they say is not worth the paper it is written in.
WEB2.0
What’s Next after Web 2.0?
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
Threat to livelihood
“Many publishers consider the Internet, and Google in particular, a greater threat to their livelihoods than Osama bin Laden.” – quoted from LA Times article
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…
In the denial stage
I’ll take it as a sign of bad writing on the part of the editorial writer (uhh, that would be me), but this post *totally* misreads the editorial, as several folks above have noted. The bin Laden reference was hyperbolic and, as I see now, regrettably so — it was meant to imply how irrational publishers have been about Google. Speaking of publishers, Mike, haven’t you written extensively about book publishers fighting Google? And there’s no lack of references online to newspaper publishers wistfully making remarks like Zell’s. So I think “many” is a justifiable shorthand in this case.
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.