Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ZDNet UK Begs for Google's Forgiveness

Posted by Zonk on from the a-little-snark-with-your-breakfast dept.

prostoalex writes "In light of the recent CNet ban by Google folks at ZDNet UK are now not sure whether they will get the same treatment, being a CNet company. But, just in case, they apologize profusely: 'Acting under the mistaken impression that Google's search engine was intended to help research public data, we have in the past enthusiastically abused the system to conduct exactly the kind of journalism that Google finds so objectionable. Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts, let alone in capriciously using them to illustrate areas of concern. We apologise unreservedly, and will cooperate fully in helping Google change people's perceptions of its role just as soon as it feels capable of communicating to us how it wishes that role to be seen.'"

7 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Tantrum by ChilyMack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Punishing a media outlet for publishing freely available non-sensitive information sets a very bad precedent. Imagine if the government could get away with that. My feeling is that Google got far too used to the press eating up their every action and was shocked - shocked - when someone had a criticism. Perhaps their corporate philosophy needs to be broadened into "Do no evil, and don't pander to your inner brat." It's good that the folks at ZDNet aren't sucking up to Google. On the other hand, they might be provoking a playground brawl.

  2. C/Net was right to question Google by greyfeld · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you haven't read "A World Without Secrets" by Richard Hunter yet, I would suggest you do so. This is just the kind of questioning we need to have happen. Don't you ever wonder WHY they need your information, WHAT they are doing with it and HOW will it affect you when you give it to them? You should be!

    http://worldwithoutsecrets.gartner.com/section.php .id.49.s.1.jsp

  3. Ouch. That stings. by millennial · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Clearly, there is no place in modern reporting for this kind of unregulated, unprotected access to readily available facts..."

    BUUUUURN.
    Actually, this reminds me of a story I read on LiveJournal (flame suit engaged.) Someone's account was deleted because they posted someone's home address without their permission. Funny thing was, the guy's address was readily available on his own web site. Nevertheless, the poster's account was terminated, and he was told that he had violated the TOS for LiveJournal. (He also wasn't refunded the fee for his paid account.)

    Found it! Where's Meta?

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
  4. Ok, this is only marginally relevant... by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But did anyone catch that Eric Schmitt's email address is EricSchmidt1@yahoo.com?

    Check for yourself.

    Say what you will about the guy, but he's got a sense of humor.

  5. Re:I'm sure it'll end with a hug and a pink slip. by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's the second. This is just wrong of google and does this mean the benevolent giant is really a bully in disguise. Sorry, google is a search engine that is used for all kinds of "interesting" things. If google doesn't like it, then they can pack up and go home. sheesh.

  6. C|Net article took an unnecessary extra step by snowwrestler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That step was to use Google's CEO as the example. Whether or not you can find information on Eric Schmidt is NOT the story from a journalism perspective. The news story is how easy it is to find personal information on the Web using search engines. And this is a well-trod story, so it's ongoing coverage, not a breaking story. It calls for a feature treatment.

    If written for a public audience, a proper feature treatment illustrates the story with examples gleaned from the general public. By focusing on Google and Google's CEO, this is clearly written to get the attention of Google, NOT as a general news article.

    Journalistically, this was a crappy article--poor idea, poor execution. It clearly was written to generate controversy and get under Google's skin. The writer probably thought they were being edgy and in-your-face--demonstrating their journalistic cojones by sticking it to a well-known powerful company.

    Well, that's a great attitude for a journalist, but it only works if you're breaking a story. In this case, the story offers no new information or no new angle. Really, no one is surprised that the author was able to find so much info about Eric Schmidt--it's old news. So it's really just what the old-school guys call a hatchet job. The only reason it's gotten any play at all is because of Google's response, not the story itself.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  7. The Transparent Society by Khelder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Another highly recommended book on this topic is The Transparent Society, by David Brin. (Yes, the same David Brin who write sci fi.)