Google goes berserk, continued ...

So I figured the passage of a week and an avalanche of bad press - including an icy snowball from yours truly - might have prompted Google CEO Eric Schmidt to stand up and explain why Google is good for the goose but not for the gander.

Silly me.

"Hi Paul, thanks very much for the follow-up," read the reply from David Krane, Google's ever pleasant but not all that helpful director of public relations. "No, at this time, [there's] still no change in the communications plan."

To continue reading, register here and become an Insider. You'll get free access to premium content from CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World. See more Insider content or sign in.

So I figured the passage of a week and an avalanche of bad press - including an icy snowball from yours truly - might have prompted Google CEO Eric Schmidt to stand up and explain why Google is good for the goose but not for the gander.

Silly me.

"Hi Paul, thanks very much for the follow-up," read the reply from David Krane, Google's ever pleasant but not all that helpful director of public relations. "No, at this time, [there's] still no change in the communications plan."

Forum: When the Googler gets Googled
Your thoughts.

I suppose duck-and-cover can be considered a communications plan, but it has not proven to be a particularly effective one in this case. Not only has Google continued to be lambasted over this episode, worse yet, the company is being ridiculed. There's nothing more damaging for an image than ridicule. Go ask Tom Cruise.

For those just tuning in, much ado is rightfully being made about the fact that Google has cut off all contact with all reporters from one news organization, CNET's News.com, because a writer on its staff had the temerity to Google the CEO of Google and publish her findings to illustrate a story about privacy issues surrounding the search giant. Telling News.com editors that the tactic was beyond the pale, Google informed them that its staffers would receive not a word of information from Google until July 2006.

Thirty years in the business has allowed me to observe - and participate in - many a brawl between the press and its subjects, but never have I seen anything approaching this level of overreaction. The personal data revealed about Schmidt was not all that personal. You learn that the 50-year-old CEO was worth $1.5 billion as of last year, has sold $140 million worth of Google stock, lives in desirable Atherton, Calif., hosted a fundraiser for Al Gore, enjoys art and pilots airplanes.

Now let's be clear: This being a free country, no one is under any obligation to talk to the press (with exceptions that include some professional athletes, who by virtue of their collective bargaining agreements are indeed compelled to suffer the inquiries of sportswriters).

At least based on my e-mail, however, Network World readers clearly understand why Schmidt and Google should clarify their position regarding the use of information gleaned through Google.

"This is bizarre behavior to say the least, and worthy of being a top story until Google explains itself," writes Chris Munger, senior IT manager at the American Academy of Periodontology in Chicago. "How in the world can they react so strongly when they've exposed all the rest of us to the very same thing? It's preposterous to the extreme."

And silence breeds idle speculation, of course.

"I still think there is more to this story," writes Jack Miller, IT director at a consumer products company. "This is as preposterous as Henry Ford owning and driving a Chevy. . . . Given Schmidt's history, I can't see him going off like that, because nothing that vital was revealed."