Posted on 08/09/2005 7:09:54 AM PDT by Antioch
Miffed after personal info disclosed, including CEO's support for Al Gore. Anyone who has used the popular search engine Google knows how easy it is to collect information on virtually any subject, but the company is apparently not happy about being "Googled" by a reporter getting information about a company executive.
The search engine is now giving the silent treatment to CNET News, after an article featured facts about company CEO Eric Schmidt, facts that were gleaned from using Google. It started last month when CNET News reporter Elinor Mills used the search engine to find out data about Schmidt, bits of which included:
Schmidt's shares in Google were worth $1.5 billion
he's a resident of Atherton, Calif.
he hosted a $10,000-a-plate fund-raiser for Al Gore's presidential campaign
and that he was a pilot.
According to the New York Times, David Krane, Google's director of public relations, called CNET editors to complain once it published the facts. "They were unhappy about the fact we used Schmidt's private information in our story," Jai Singh, editor in chief of CNETNews.com, told the Times. "Our view is what we published was all public information, and we actually used their own product to find it."
Singh said Krane called back to say Google would not speak to any reporter from CNET for an entire year. "You can put us down for a 'no comment,'" he stated in an instant-message interview.
"Sometimes a company is ticked off and won't talk to a reporter for a bit," Singh said, "but I've never seen a company not talk to a whole news organization." The incident is echoing throughout the tech world on the Internet. Jason Stamper, editor of Computer Business Review, notes, "Blackballing journalists is not big and is not clever. I hope I don't have to explain why a free technology press is important to such a forward-looking company as Google. But perhaps given the fact that it was Playboy that Google granted its exclusive pre-IPO interview to, they do seem to have a slightly odd view of the people they will, and will not talk to."
Christian Exodus banned from Google ads
Google blocks ad for anti-Clinton book
Google still runs anti-DeLay ads
Google money engine for Democrats only
Google censoring conservative ads?
Google bars 'hate' sites' ads, but runs porn ads
Not a single one of your links work.
You may notice that every one of your links does not work.
Wanna guess how?
I use Dogpile as much as possible.
I use CLUSTY
I like it better.
Thank you for the tip! I'd never heard of clusty, but I like what I see. It reminds me of Northern Lights which I used to use until it was no longer free.
And proves why I don't Google!
I still use Yahoo .. and I keep say Yoo Hoo - Yahoo!! Are you reading the tea leaves ..??
Thanks, I just added Clusty to my address bar.
I'm trying Clusty.
Thanks! Interesting grouping concept. Adding Clusty too...
What a big baby! Google has no problem giving people access to other people personal information, but when when it happens to them, they cry like a baby. Waa-waaa-waaaa!!!
If Googles's vindictive behavior goes so far as to eliminate CNET News from being indexed in searches, Google may well find itself the target of some well-earned legislation.
Lefties always end up this way. Seems like a variant of the old "Free speech for me but not for thee". There always for something until they're not.
Dogpile first, then Yahoo, then Alta Vista, then Google.
Thanks for the Clusty link.
If Google supports the party that wants to confiscate more of my income, then I will not support Google.
Regards,
LH
I am going to use clusty from now on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.