Media on Media
: Will be on MSNBC at about 9:15a ET on nazi sites (out of the high-school shooting murders); plan to mention the GoogleNews dustup.
17 responses to “Media on Media”
-
… the amount of dust equivalent to that generated by a mouse sneezing into an anthill. :)
-
A couple of posts down, you asked when the internet will be the next in line for “regulation.” Well, on this morning’s news shows during the talk about this shooting all I heard from the commentators was questions about how we regulate the internet so kids are not exposed to these sites. Sigh.
-
Jeff, I found an interesting beta site called nowpublic.com, which is really trying to do something with citizen journalism. I thought of you, because their “newsroom” area has a big, featured quote from….Jeff Jarvis.
I guess someone’s listening. :) -
“GoogleNews dustup?” I see:
JARVIS HAS SPOKEN.
GoogleNews is bad, mm’kay
/JARVIS HAS SPOKEN
So you, LGF and Instapundit are now the arbiters of what we can and cannot see on News sites. -
Snark, snark, snark, snark….
Reducto ad absurdum is always a great way to go, Big Gay Al…..sure beats having to say anything interesting on the topic. -
Jeff – I’m having a hard time reconciling some of your (apparent) positions:
a) The government (for, of, and by the people) has no business regulating media content (broadcast or otherwise).
b)The people should pressure GoogleNews into only aggregating non-questionable news sites.
c)Yet, news aggregation should be valued becuase it reflects “the distributed nature of news and media in the future.” -
Well Jeff, Google is now checking on the radical sites in question:
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-03-23-n82.html -
I just hope that Jarvis mention’s Dave Niewart’s site, because Niewart specializes in drawing the connection between the growing acceptability of hate-inspired rhetoric among right-wing conservatives.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
When the Limbaugh’s and Coulters and Savages and Malkins are considered “mainstream”, the “nazi” sites are no longer as far “out of the mainstream” as we should be able to assume they are. -
Jeff:
Enough already with the “Google News dust-up.” This is such a non-issue.
Google provides a remarkable service for free. It’s private property; why not just leave it alone. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, that all. Please don’t try to extend some public obligation to Google, youíll just end up ruining it.
Find another issue. Drop this one. -
Nazi site or LGF? — you decide:
Context: LGFers talk about a planned trip to California:
#278 Iron Fist 3/21/2005 07:37PM PST
Yeah, the PRC [ed “people’s republic of California”] has some nutcase laws on knives. Blade has to be less than 2″ long, but it can be a switch. Go figure.
That actually makes it more dangerous, not less. If I have a big fighter, I’ll try and cut off some fingers or something. Hell, they can generally sew ’em back on. A little blade means femorals, kidneys, brachials, and carotids. I have to go for the kill-shot because the blade can’t perform the disabling strike.
Not to mention the fact that most people are going to wilt if I pull out an 8″ fighter.
A 2″ blade doesn’t look lethal. Go in just above the pubic bone 1″ to the left of the naval, yank it 1″ to the right of it. 100% dead. No chance of survival.
The target is the aorta just before it bifurcates into the femoral arteries. If you miss and just get a femoral, oh well.
Personally, I hope they stay home.” -
Yehuda: This is a journalistic issue.
-
Yehuda:
“Enough already with the “Jeff calling out the Google News dust-up.” This is such a non-issue.
Jeff provides a remarkable service for free. It’s private property; why not just leave it alone. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, that all. Please don’t try to extend some public obligation to Jeff, youíll just end up ruining his site.
Find another issue. Drop this one.”
Wan’t that fun?
And Michael – It’s really not hard if you would stop batting at strawmen:
(1) The government can actually coerce behavior (regardless of “by the people” crap). The first amendment protects us from that; therefore the government shouldn’t use its coercive state opower to regulate speech.
(2) Average people cannot coerce behavior. Therefore it is not a first amendment issue to use market forces (i.e., customers) to request changes.
(3) Aggregation is a good thing; however, it is hypocritical and kind of bizarre that GoogleNews’ aggregation disallows mainstream sites on the basis that they are fringe, while simultaneously accepting sites like the Nazi site. GoogleNews would be a better source if it did not do this; therefore those who would like to rely on GoogleNews should request (not coerce by law) that they change this practice. -
Paul,
As opposed to the growing acceptance of hate-filled rhetoric among left-wing conservatives? -
I really haven’t followed this issue that closely and don’t know the detailed mechanics of how Google News aggregates its source sites, but as a matter of general principle Jeff and the other Jeremy are right.
This is a matter of legitimate journalistic (I would venture “editorial”) criticism.
Google is a mainstream (to the extent anything on the web can be considered “mainstream”) source of information that reaches millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people. Let’s also not forget that, like any other media giant these days, it is a publicly-held, for-profit corporation worth billions.
Therefore, if Google is going to engage in the business of providing “News” to its audience, it is only fair (indeed necessary) that it be held responsible for exercising some modicum of editorial control over the information that it conveys to the public as “News.” People would be all over Fox News or the NYT if they reported information straight off some Nazi wesbiste along with, say, information from the wire services, without providing any context or drawing a disctinction between the two. Google should be treated no differently.
Not only are consumer pressure and boycotts not equivalent to government censorship, they are themselves exercises of free speech by the consumers. It’s not called the “marketplace of ideas” for nothing. -
The hard part here is defining exactly what GoogleNews is/does: do they “report” news (in the sense of how the NYT or FOXN report), or do they simply provide “access” to what others report (merely a gateway).
Put another way, should GoogleNews be a place one can find for only certain news reporting, or a place where one can find all news reporting. Are they a portal to all that’s out there, or a gateway to only the “good” stuff? -
If the good stuff is the likes of Nazi.org or Daily Kos, then I conclude that Google is a gateway to garbage.
-
Michael: Right now, they are already filtering out the stuff that GoogleNews editors do not think is from a good source.
SO when you ask “should GoogleNews be a place one can find for only certain news reporting, or a place where one can find all news reporting. Are they a portal to all that’s out there, or a gateway to only the “good” stuff?” – well, it’s kind of a trick question. I’m not sure what they “should be” between the two choices you give – that’s kinda up to Google, although I have my opinion.
But since Google has already made that decision, the question for me right now is, “since GoogleNews has decided to only provide certain reporting, and filter out sources that are inappropriate, is their inclusion of Nazi and UFO sites appropriate”? If I decide no, I can complain to GoogleNews, or stop using them. I assume Google would rather hear input than lose users, but I could be wrong.
