Much ado about Google and CNET
Tags: Marketing, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Journalism
David Kirkpatrick at Fortune seems outraged that Google stopped giving information or interviews to CNET after it wrote an article containing 14 pieces of personal information about its CEO, Eric Schmidt. He then goes on encourage both Google and Apple to emulate the openness of Microsoft because it lets its employees blog and has an aggressive PR function. Huh? Does he really believe that employees are unbiased journalists or are likely to reveal inside information about executives or unreleased products? And isn't this the same Microsoft that fired an employee for posting pictures of Apple computers arriving at Microsoft? I think we could do without emulating that type of behavior.
I understand what David is trying to get at. He wants journalists to have the freedom to write what they want. I'm all in favor of that myself, having been an analyst who has written critical articles on some very large companies, including Microsoft. But in the Google case, it seems to me that there is no freedom issue involved. CNET remains free to write what it wants. Google is free to refuse them access as it sees fit. Both parties know there are consequences for annoying the other.
But it is important to remember: there is no constitutional right for reporters and analysts to have access to public companies or their executives. My guess is that Google felt it needed to tell CNET it had crossed the line by publishing not only Eric Schmidt's net worth, but where he and his wife live. If you were worth $4 billion, how would you like to see your address published in major media? This is the sort of ad hominem writing that should have consequences other than a phone call saying, "We think that was out of line." Attack the company and its strategy, that's fine. Cause personal inconvenience and harm to the people working for or running the company, that's just an abuse of the job.
I think the best quote on this whole issue is Mark Twain: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." But the corollary for people who buy ink by the barrel is "Don't alienate your sources." While CNET should feel free to publish what it wants, it needs to realize that it is not the only media outlet writing stories about Google. And Google is within its rights to remind CNET of that, even if it gets slightly less ink.
David Kirkpatrick at Fortune seems outraged that Google stopped giving information or interviews to CNET after it wrote an article containing 14 pieces of personal information about its CEO, Eric Schmidt. He then goes on encourage both Google and Apple to emulate the openness of Microsoft because it lets its employees blog and has an aggressive PR function. Huh? Does he really believe that employees are unbiased journalists or are likely to reveal inside information about executives or unreleased products? And isn't this the same Microsoft that fired an employee for posting pictures of Apple computers arriving at Microsoft? I think we could do without emulating that type of behavior.
I understand what David is trying to get at. He wants journalists to have the freedom to write what they want. I'm all in favor of that myself, having been an analyst who has written critical articles on some very large companies, including Microsoft. But in the Google case, it seems to me that there is no freedom issue involved. CNET remains free to write what it wants. Google is free to refuse them access as it sees fit. Both parties know there are consequences for annoying the other.
But it is important to remember: there is no constitutional right for reporters and analysts to have access to public companies or their executives. My guess is that Google felt it needed to tell CNET it had crossed the line by publishing not only Eric Schmidt's net worth, but where he and his wife live. If you were worth $4 billion, how would you like to see your address published in major media? This is the sort of ad hominem writing that should have consequences other than a phone call saying, "We think that was out of line." Attack the company and its strategy, that's fine. Cause personal inconvenience and harm to the people working for or running the company, that's just an abuse of the job.
I think the best quote on this whole issue is Mark Twain: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." But the corollary for people who buy ink by the barrel is "Don't alienate your sources." While CNET should feel free to publish what it wants, it needs to realize that it is not the only media outlet writing stories about Google. And Google is within its rights to remind CNET of that, even if it gets slightly less ink.
posted by Carl Howe at
6:10 PM
| View blog reactions
| 
