Is Google too powerful?

BBC.UK ^ | February 21, 2003 | Bill Thompson

[WaterDragon]

Everyone's favourite search engine now owns the world's most popular blogging tool.

With its purchase of Pyra Labs, Google now runs Blogger and with it the weblogs of hundreds of thousands of opinionated net users.

The story of the buyout was, appropriately enough, broken on a weblog by journalist Dan Gillmor, shortly followed by an 'official' announcement on his personal blog from Prya Labs co-founder Evan Williams.

Then the blogs and technology news sites went wild, making this the net news story of the week, if not the month.

Not journalism

We should not get carried away by all this.Ridiculous comments, such as Dan Gillmor's claim that "with the advent of weblogging, the readers know more than the journalists" only stoke the fires of hyperbole and do not help us understand this new tool.

Blogging is not journalism.

Often it is as far from journalism as it is possible to get, with unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip masquerading as informed opinion.

Without editors to correct syntax, tidy up the story structure or check facts, it is generally impossible to rely on anything one finds in a blog without verifying it somewhere else - often the much-maligned mainstream media.

The much-praised reputation mechanism that is supposed to ensure that bloggers remain true, honest and factually-correct is, in fact, just the rule of the mob, where those who shout loudest and get the most links are taken more seriously.

It is the online equivalent of saying that The Sun newspaper always tells the truth because four million people read it, and The Guardian is intrinsically less trustworthy as it only sells half a million.

Without editors to correct syntax, tidy up the story structure or check facts, it is generally impossible to rely on anything one finds in a blog without verifying it somewhere else - often the much-maligned mainstream media.

The much-praised reputation mechanism that is supposed to ensure that bloggers remain true, honest and factually-correct is, in fact, just the rule of the mob, where those who shout loudest and get the most links are taken more seriously.

It is the online equivalent of saying that The Sun newspaper always tells the truth because four million people read it, and The Guardian is intrinsically less trustworthy as it only sells half a million.

Google's plan

This is not to deny the significance of blogging, or the value that comes from having the unmediated opinions and experiences of millions of people available online.

Blogging left the geeks behind long ago, and the wide availability of easy to use tools like Blogger, Movable Type and Grey Matter has allowed anyone with an interest and some time to create their own online journal.

I just do not subscribe to the view that this challenges 'proper' journalism, even if it does mean that sloppy reporting and analysis based on incorrect assertions are more likely to be challenged by the online community......(snip)

TO READ COMPLETE ARTICLE, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

[tubebender]

Bump for some discourse...

[Riley]

Without editors to correct syntax, tidy up the story structure or check facts, it is generally impossible to rely on anything one finds in a blog without verifying it somewhere else - often the much-maligned mainstream media.

< groan >

Yeah, no politically-motivated 'gatekeepers' to filter dangerous right-wing ideas from the masses. No, it isn't 'journalism'. It is editorial commentary at best. It is conversation, as much as it is anything else, most of the time.

The most important skills you can have on the Internet are critical thinking skills. Absent those, a person is just another dufus with a computer.

The marketplace will decide. Blogs that are interesting, informative and well done will thrive. Blogs that lack those qualities will not get bookmarked, contributed to, or passed around.

[fight_truth_decay]

I use http://www.ask.com. For web and news search, I get better results.

[xm177e2]

Just another hit piece on the blogosphere. No, individual blogs are not in and of themselves credible. But Glenn Reynolds isn't just read because he gets a lot of links, he gets a lot of links because he's got an awesome blog. People gravitate towards the quality web sites. The idea that all political websites are small and shrill and short on facts is just wrong.

The whining about how maligned the big media is is also pretty lame. "waah, waah, some bloggers are pointing out how biased the BBC is. It's not FAAAIIIIRRR!!!"

[bluefish]

I think it is weird myself that "blogging" is somehow credited by some people as contributing to the demise of the mainstream press. It isn't. It is things like Free Republic, Talk Radio and Fox News. These are the mediums that reach a critical mass of people with an alternative viewpoint - a viewpoint that is held by a greater majority of people that give a crap. This is why the gig is up for the mainstream leftist propagandists.

I've probably looked at no more than two "blogs." I don't go back b/c they are simply one person. So who cares. "Bloggers" are nothing more than hobbyists with an inflated view of their own contribution. I personally am quite opiniontate, but my ego isn't large enough to feel like I need to start a blog. No, it is sufficient for me to post my opinions here and a on a few other specialty forums. The difference here is that my opinions are open to public scrutiny. My ego isn't protected behind the veil of control that a blogger has.

More power to them. However, with millions of blogs, how do they expect that they will ever mean anything?

[martin_fierro]

Often it is as far from journalism as it is possible to get, with unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip masquerading as informed opinion.

I'll remember that the next time I read unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip in the NYT.

[edwin hubble]

Is there any indication that this buy-out by Google will bring any censorship?

Any threat by Google to shut down 'offending' bloggers?

[WaterDragon]

Not according to the article.

[gg188]

We all know how honest and unbiased mainstream journalists are.

[MattAMiller]

The most successful blogs are usually the most reasonable and thoughtful. A blog equivlent of Micheal Savage would never be widely read. I think they've done a lot to elevate debate and bring it to widen participation.

[Cicero]

Naturally when you read something on the internet you have to crosscheck it and evaluate it. Reputation can also be important. But that's equally true of anything you read in a newspaper, hear on the radio, or see on TV.

For example the BBC, from whose pulpit this fellow preaches, used to be pretty solid and reliable. In recent times however, it has been crudely propagandistic, stupidly politically correct, and vilely antisemitic. I'd rather get my news here in FR.

[ChadGore]

Re So much information. So little wisdom.

"The problem with our liberal freidns is not that they know so much, but that they know so much that isn't so."
-- Ronald Reagan

[Thinkin' Gal]

The most important skills you can have on the Internet are critical thinking skills.

A+Bert memory lane bump!

[OhREALLY?]

{{Bloggers claimed credit with helping topple former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott from his post last year after several Washington pundits used their Weblogs to highlight racially divisive comments Lott had made in praise of Senator Strom Thurmond, comments overlooked by mainstream journalists}}

http://www.msnbc.com/news/873952.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1

[jokar]

On the front page celebrate diversity ? No news search, no news search. No thanks I'll stick with google.

[Cindy]

I don't read "blogs" and do not search for "blogs" on Google. Google is the best search engine on the 'net right now, BUT, as time rolls on, someone else will come out with the next best search engine. That's just the way it is.

[George W. Bush]

the demise of the mainstream press...It is things like Free Republic, Talk Radio and Fox News.

You left out that these sources are claiming the younger, upwardly mobile and politically active consumers in greater proportion than libmedia can. Therefore, they also take the ad share as well. A lot of the howling over Fox/Rush is about the ad money that is drying up for ABCNNBCBS news. The present market isn't big enough for those four to survive now. It's not even big enough for two of them.

[Centurion2000]

What the hell is a blogger ??