August 17, 2007
The L.A. Times tells its readers: 'Shut up'
By Robert Niles
16 comments | 
Archive Link
Many publishers consider the Internet, and Google in particular, a greater threat to their livelihoods than Osama bin Laden.
Who are these publishers, exactly? The Times' David Hiller? Ignore the straw man here and the reader is still left with The Times' belief that a search engine company which has helped millions of people around the world more effectively find the information they need, and that has paid publishers billions of dollars to create original content (full disclosure: including OJR and me, personally) is a greater threat to journalism and Western capitalism than a murderer who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
Wow.
After The Times lit its credibility on fire with that statement, one shouldn't need to dissect the rest of its ridiculous editorial.
But I will. ;-)
Among those who have taken particular offense at Google are some current and aspiring newspaper publishers, including Sam Zell (who's in the process of buying Tribune Co., owner of the Los Angeles Times), who once famously asked, "If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?"
Well, does Zell think Google is worse than bin Laden? I do not see that claim in what he said. Furthermore, I, and several other news industry executives, took apart Zell's myopia here in OJR when he made that ill-informed comment last spring.
Up to now, Google's news site hasn't been a moneymaker for the company, at least not directly. There are no ads on Google News, just links to stories on websites run by newspapers, magazines and other news outlets. Those links prompt people to spend more time on the news media's sites, potentially increasing their ad sales.But Google now is doing yet another thing that's bound to get under journalists' skin."
Umm, perhaps I shouldn't speak for others here, but, as a journalist and a publisher, I like readers to spend more time on my sites, "potentially increasing [my] ad sales." That doesn't get under my skin at all.
This month, it announced plans to let people and organizations comment on the stories written about them. For example, if The Times ran another exposé on conflicts of interest within the Food and Drug Administration's drug-approval process, Google News would provide a forum for the FDA and any researchers or drug manufacturers implicated in the story to respond, unedited.
Goodness, we wouldn't want the sources in our stories to have a chance to respond, would we? /sarcasm
The feature implies that the stories aggregated by Google News are incomplete -- possibly because of limited space, but also possibly because of bias, neglect or ignorance. News organizations have their flaws, and the added comments on Google may demonstrate that.
Finally, a point of agreement. Reader comments on online news stories give readers the opportunity to provide a needed check on reporting flaws. No journalist should ever presume that a single news article ever is complete.
But Google's effort may have a happier side effect: It may illustrate why journalism is more than just aggregating information -- and why Google News isn't really its competition after all.The essence of good journalism is asking the right questions. Google, however, won't ask anything of those who submit comments. According to the company's announcement, its only interest is that the submissions are authentic, not that they're relevant or even truthful. As a result, the comments section is likely to be larded with spin, hype and obfuscation. A seemingly heartfelt comment may carry the CEO's name, but the words will probably have been typed by corporate flacks.
Another point of agreement: "The essence of good journalism is asking the right questions." No, Google won't ask those questions, but its technology will enable readers to ask those questions, of reporters and of each other. And allows reporters to come back and ask follow-up questions of the readers who questioned the reporter in the first place.
This is is point that journalists who have spent their lives publishing in a one-way medium too often fail to grasp: That online reader comments are not a one-way medium, in the opposite direction. They are a two-way conversation, in which reporters can, and ought to, participate, as well.
Nor should The Times condemn Google for sins that many traditional journalists have committed. "Stenography" journalism runs rampant at newspapers which have cut reporting staffs to the bone. Readers of Dan Froomkin's outstanding White House Watch will be familiar with many examples of Washington-beat scribes dutifully "reporting" U.S. administration spin, with no effort to provide context or determine truth.
Furthermore, is the reader of this editorial to assume that The Times never runs quotes from CEOs in its paper that were in fact written by corporate spokespersons? If The Times' editorial writers truly believe that, I suggest they take a trip over to The Times' newsroom sometime.
There will be some valuable responses too, plugging holes in stories or correcting mistaken impressions.
Third point of agreement here. So why, then, is The Times attacking this technology which would plug holes in stories, correct mistaken impressions, enable readers to ask questions of reporters and provide a check on reporting flaws?
Google, however, won't help readers separate the factual wheat from the public-relations chaff -- a reminder that Google may strive to be the world's index, but it's not journalism.
If The Times wants to criticize Google's implementation of reader comments, that's fair game. Many good publishers have shut off reader comments because they didn't want the hassle of handling them. But plenty of system administrators have developed systems to allow readers and/or editors to filter comments, so that readers can separate the wheat from the chaff. By not acknowledging any of those, however, The Times allows its editorial to stand as a condemnation of the concept of enabling online comments to news stories.
So let The Times readers be warned: The Times doesn't get it. It hasn't enabled comments on its own news stories (previously criticized in OJR), nor does it like the idea of others linking to and commenting on its stories.
As I said at the opening of OJR's annual unconference last spring, journalism should noy be defined by its process. Journalism ought to be defined by its end result: fresh, accurate information that helps its readers see a truth that they did not before.
Smart news organizations need to be blowing up their old ways of producing journalism -- not just publishing it, but reporting it as well -- in order to better provide more accurate and insightful journalism to beat the increased competition from millions of new content publishers online. To do that, publishers need to hear fresh perspectives, from their employees... and from the public.
But what does The Times tell them with this editorial?
"Shut up."
More about:
Comments (16) • 
Email to a friend
Responses via 
Technorati • 
Google Blog Search
Share on 
del.icio.us • 
Digg
Comments:
From Reg Crowder on August 17, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Oh dear. Yes. The people who write editorials at The Los Angeles Times are indeed out of touch with (1) their own readers, (2) the Internet and (3) Osama bin Laden.Raising the image of Osama bin Laden in this context seems strange, at first glance.
If the L.A. Times bothered to ask, they would know that a surprising number of their own readers now describe the Sept. 11th attacks as the "9-11 Reichstag Fire."
If they kept up with the Internet, they might know that the FBI's "Wanted" poster for bin Laden says nothing about the Sept. 11th attacks:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
(The FBI's explanation is that they have no evidence connecting bin Laden to the attacks.)
Conspiracy buffs argue that the Sept. 11th attacks were either sponsored by the Bush administration or that the Bush administration "allowed them to happen."
Incredible? Maybe. But how incredible is it for the L.A. Times to effectively tell their own readers to shut up? How incredible is it for the L.A. Times to be completely ignorant of how Google, a public company which files mountains of reports with the SEC, makes its money?
How incredible is it for the L.A. Times to still find itself confused, frustrated and angry about Internet entrepreneurs in 2007?
I'm not what you call an "early adopter" of technology. I had the feeling I was the last person in California to get onto the Internet when I signed up for my first account IN 1995. Do the math. That was 12 years ago.
So maybe this bizarre reference to Osama bin Laden is closer to reality than the editorial writer intended. If Google brings the L.A. Times to its knees, it's because the L.A. Times "allowed it to happen."
-- REG CROWDER
http://www.MediaBistro.com/RegCrowder
From Thomas Armagost on August 17, 2007 at 7:52 PM
The editorial editor of the L.A. Times and Sam Zell should get a room.From Robert Niles on August 17, 2007 at 10:48 PM
If I could get my former colleagues in editorial writing to agree on a few conventions for the craft, near the top of that list would be... Don't make comparisons with:They're all ultimate evil. No one and nothing is worse than them; once you reach a certain level of evil, which they've all reached, IMHO, there's no point to be made even in making comparisons among them. (And this list is by no claim of mine comprehensive.)
To imply that something is worse than this crew necessitates trivializing them, which defeats editorial writing's primary goal, to provide accurate perspective. Indeed, if a comparison is made, any reminder of this crew's crimes will sound shrill, as they stand so far outside the range of the offenses that any other editorial subject might have committed.
Comparisons to Nazis, bin Laden, et al, serve only to enflame. That is the work of hacks like Bill O'Reilly, and not the pros that newspapers ought to employ. And they serve to shut up thoughtful conversation, when editorial writing ought to elicit it.
From Rob Craft on August 18, 2007 at 4:53 AM
>Don't make comparisons with:># Hitler
># Nazis
>...
>They're all ultimate evil.
..pretty much exemplary of the kind of value judgement that can underlie even the most scrupulous journalism.
A good illustration of why strong dialogue with the real world is important, lest writers start looking inside themselves (or to god) for their truths.
From Kim Pearson on August 18, 2007 at 9:08 AM
From what I've read, Google news will allow the subjects of the stories on its site to comment. This strikes me as something different from a normal commenting policy and raises lots of questions in my mind.Will they exercise any form of moderation of the comments to prevent the dissemination of libelous or threatening communications? If so, will they use human moderators? What will that do their business model?
If they don't moderate, how will they even know whether the comments are really from the people cited in the stories?
And what is really behind this move? Was Google under some kind of pressure?
From Mongo Lloyd on August 18, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I think it is highly dangerous to allow open access to facts and sources. The popularity of hate mongers like Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are testament to the fact that the masses can't be trusted with raw data -- millions of people will end up believing all the wrong things.Facts and sources should only be available to those who are sufficiently enlightened to transform them into Truth. I am totally convinced that openness and transparency in news reporting are like Hitler, Pol Pot and Ann Coulter all rolled into one. We can't allow people to verify the Truth as we give it to them -- who knows where they'll take it! We must retain control of the Truth at any cost!!
From Robert Niles on August 18, 2007 at 3:25 PM
"Facts and sources should only be available to those who are sufficiently enlightened to transform them into Truth"Sorry, but that's the scariest thing I've read on the Web in quite a while. Nope, count me in the "facts should be available to all, and all should have a voice" camp.
BTW, I'd like to direct OJR readers to Jeff Jarvis' take on all this. He has, as usual, a strong point: In short, he thinks The Times was trying to be ironic with its eddy lead.
Interesting, but the lead still seems more like a lazy cheap shot to me.
From William DuBay on August 18, 2007 at 3:58 PM
The LAT editors are correct, readers' responses to newspaper articles are not journalism. They are, however, a matter of public debate. That should be a matter of concern to all news publishers.The reason so many people are turned off by the news is that they are turned off by politics. They believe government is not responsive to the needs, opinions, and pressure from citizens.
The Internet has thankfully opened up the possibilities of public debate. More and more it functions as a forum for town-hall, Jacksonian debate.
The Times handling of letters to the editor is quaintly 19th-century and functions as a form of censorship. Nothing turns off participation more definitely than not seeing one's opinion expressed in the newspaper. The fact that so many readers persist is tribute to their love of journalism, not their rejection of it.
There is no reason the Times cannot publish readers' reactions to articles on the Internet. It would be wonderful if they could articulate issues as they develop by organizing original articles and threads around them.
It is not rocket science, and it would go a long way in making journalism more responsive to the needs of democracy.
The editorial is typical of the Times' historical attitude towards readers. To read the LA Times, you would think that Los Angeles was a 19th-century British colony. The paper reflects extremely little of the life, language, color, or diversity of this immense community that we love so much.
From cao zenghui on August 18, 2007 at 6:01 PM
from china ,the same discuss?????,«?????»??????????Google news???????????????????????,????????,??????????,??IwfWcf,??????????????????,??,??????????????,??????????????,??,??????,?????,?????????http://www.caozenghui.cn/?p=210
From Roger Karraker on August 18, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Yes, the editorial is nuts. But I'm confused on another score. The editorial repeats complaints from publishers that Google links to stories in the publishers' papers. But my understanding is (was) that Google's bots only index sites that specifically allow bots. To close a site to bots the sysadmin need only a single line of code.At least that's what I used to d when I ran private blogs/sites that I didn't want indexed. Has this changed?From Tom Mott on August 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM
If I said I have more chance of being killed by lightning than being killed by Osama bin Laden, would all of you jump on that statement? If Starbucks said they were more worried about Peets Coffee than about Osama bin Laden, would you jump all over that?In ANY industry, a strong competitor is likely going pose more of a threat to your livelihood than Osama bin Laden.
Declining newspaper circulation is fact, and one of the main reasons is that readers can now get their news for free on the Internet from multiple sources rather than paying to get it in a daily paper like the L.A. Times. Yes, the L.A. Times may be behind the times. Yes, they may be out of touch with their readers. But the point still remains: the revenue model that newspapers relied on for over 100 years doesn't work anymore, and one of the main reasons is that people have the Internet available at their fingertips. I'm not say that's a BAD thing. Of course it's a GREAT thing. But it certainly is forcing the L.A. Times (and other papers) to scramble to figure out a more viable business model.
From Sharon Bernstein on August 19, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Just one thought - and with all respect - if you read the actual editorial instead of the quotes posted here, you will see that the Osama Bin Laden reference carries a different meaning than the one suggested here.From Robert Niles on August 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo today offered an example of another head-scratching moment on The Times' opinion pages.From Travis Henry on August 20, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Awesome: Josh Marshall, "I grant you that the blogosphere needs better bloggers. But, as usual, the need for better critics seems even more acute."From Jon Garfunkel on August 20, 2007 at 3:52 PM
On your last comment, Robert, as per that latest column, in the words of Ed Cone, "Skube, Don't."I don't think that Osama bin Laden is out of bounds. He's still *at large*, remember (and thus, someone to fear.)
But this would have been a better headline for this piece: "LAT: Please bring back the wikitorial!"
And then you could have sit back and watched the merry pranksters of OJR write a new lead:
"Many publishers consider the Internet, and Google in particular, a greater threat to their livelihoods than..."
"Perez Hilton."
"Perez Hilton's hair."
"Stories about John Edwards's hair."
"the return of Don Imus to the air."
"the election of a President they can agree with."
"the crashing of the real estate market and all the ad dollars in brings."
I give up. shreditorial!
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
RSS Feed
From Jeff Shrewsbury on August 17, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Note to LA Times Editors: If you're so worried about The Google and The Internets stealing your content or allowing people unfettered comment, here's the simple answer:Shut down your websites.
Go ahead. Make your content available only in your print product and see how well that works. It's the only way you'll ever be able to completely control who sees your content and how it's used.