For a company that has accomplished so much brilliance, Google sure can be mind-numbingly stupid.
Latest case in point: Google is refusing to accept an advertisement from a Yale group advocating the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Here's the ad:
Help Impeach Cheney NOW
Nonpartisan, the time is here.
House JC 202-225-3951 Demand ACTION
Although it is being framed as such by the rightfully angry liberal blogosphere, this is not a free-speech issue. As with all publishers, Google has every right and responsibility to set its own standards for accepting or rejecting individual advertisements. The company also has a responsibility, if not a legal obligation, to set and apply such standards in way that shows they aren't drinking during the daytime.
Someone needs to take the keys away from whoever made this call.
Here's Google's explanation as provided by Ralph Lopez on DailyKos:
At this time, Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group, or organization. In addition, this policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that advocate against a group protected by law. As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site. Please note that both your ad and keywords have been suspended at this time.
Taken at face value - always a risky proposition in such matters - the explanation would seem to preclude political advertising of all forms, not to mention ads that criticize anyone for anything, since we're all protected by law (albeit to an alarmingly lesser extent every day). In reality, Google did not become a multi-zillion-dollar behemoth by being quite so picky about which ads it will and will not run. Here's a sampling of ads that Google has accepted:
Impeachment of Cheney
Better World Links
Information & Resources
Should Bush Be Impeached?
Iraq, Torture, Wiretaps, Lies
Sign our Petition to Congress!
democrats.com/impeach
Impeach the President
The Case Against
Bush and Cheney
What's the difference between those ads and the one Google rejected from the Yalies? ... You tell me.
While this episode is most likely a simple demonstration of Google ineptitude, the company also has posted a decidedly mixed record when it comes to kowtowing to official government censorship, most notably in China and Thailand.
But many times it's just poor judgment that accounts for this type of foolishness, as with substituting pre-Katrina Google Maps imagery for what the place really looks like.
Google can afford to do better. And the world that has come to depend on Google needs it to do so.
|
|
Free speech
It is a free speech issue. They don't seem to be breaking any laws, but they are limiting the free speech of their customers.
Re: Free speech
You misunderstand what "free speech" means in the United States.
The right to free speech is a restriction on what the government can suppress. The government, as long as it is abiding by the constitution, cannot prevent you from, or punish you for, expressing yourself. It is not a restriction on what the private sector can suppress, nor is it an obligation that a company must help you exercise your rights.
But that being said, it doesn't mean that Google is doing the right thing. One way to address this is to lobby them to change their behavior. Another is to pass *laws*, which are different from *rights* specified in the constitution, that require them to behave a certain way.
So this is certainly a legitimate issue, it just isn't a "free speech" issue.
What about when government
What about when government officials influence a corporation to suppress (a la Google) a viewpoint that is derogatory to said official? Or promote (a la Fox News) the unquestioned propaganda of said officials?
It seems to me you can only have freedom of speech when you have a press that serves the needs of the public before the needs of their share holders.
When media companies were privately held it was in their best interests to heed the former and serve the public, their customers. Now that the media is in the hands of a few consolidated mega-corporations, they are by law obligated to take whatever means (legally) necessary to ensure the maximum return for their shareholders. This includes kowtowing to government officials who make the policies that effect their bottom line.
Take a look at the corporations that have benefitted most over the past seven years. If they're not in Bush and Cheny's stock portfolio, they are certainly in their pockets.
Bad, but not due to public ownership
Well if you can show that government officials influenced Google to retract the ad because it was politically undesirable when Google otherwise would have let it run, then you have a good point. There might be more to the story. But I don't think the article was asserting that; I think it was simply complaining that Google did it.
I don't agree with your statement that a media outlet serves the needs of the public better if it is privately held. All companies, public or private, have shareholders/owners. There is *always* an incentive for a company to act in the best interests of its owners over its customers. (Presumably, if a company acts against the interests of its customers too much, they will leave, and that will be bad for the owners.) It is just that in public companies there are many more owners, and there is an open market in shares, so the best interests of the owners are actually *more* likely to be aligned with the best interests of the general public. To help ensure this, the SEC requires more visibility and more accountability of a public company's actions. Private companies can and do act more in the interests and at the whims of their owners than public companies.
I agree that media companies have changed over the years, and are more motivated by politics and greed than by any sense of duty to be fair. But I believe this is part of an overall trend in our culture. Advertising, politics and greed are now considered perfectly acceptable motivations, whereas in the past there was at least a little feeling of guilt that people should live to a higher standard. Today people just don't care about objectivity or fairness as much as they used to, neither the media, nor their customers. It is unfortunate.
History lesson?
Something that's being overlooked in the discussion of "free speach" and corporate liability and obligation to it's principals is how media, specifically the print media (only because it's an easy one to use), treats advertisements, because that's what this story is about.
Simply put, have you ever been to Hearst Castle? Ever gone back and looked at the papers content from when W.R. was running the organization? It had nothing at all to do with free speech, because his papers tended to be above average tabloids in terms of content, with a great deal of bias on how things were reported. How about McClatchy? Does it ever puzzle you why the tabloids are so successful, and do you really believe the headlines of Elvis sightings? How do you think the conglomerates got the seed money to become conglomerates in the first place? Advertisements and selling that ad space at a pretty good markup.
As to the criticism of private media vs. media giants, the idea of fair and unbiased reporting, in general, is a statement of ideal, and a relatively new one at that. There is no reason for the media to ever take it to heart, and history is proof that it's not done very often. There are certainly a lot of claims made that they are fair and balanced, but there are also stories of Santa and the Easter Bunny. If you really want fair and balanced, you're going to need to find it on your own, because I don't think it exists anywhere.
Google is doing what it does to make money. If someone from the Government "leans on them" to pull an ad, so what? It means nothing more than Google is now part of the "establishment", and if you don't like what they're doing, let them know and go read someone else's online news. If you don't, then it's your fault that they think they have a green light to continue, because silence is acceptance. And just out of curiosity, why does it need to be the Government that's to blame here? I do think that Mr. McNamara's claim that Google accepted everything in the past is too broad of a generalization, but there is some truth to the claim. However, they are also allowed to change their mind whenever they feel like it, because after all, it is their company.
This is not a free speech issue, constitutionally or in terms of what obligation a media company has in terms of being "fair" as to what type of advertisement it allows. The real issue here is, they rejected an ADVERTISEMENT, not a news story, or even an op-ed piece. If it really bugs you, do something about it that will, at the very least, let the folks at the mega-corp know you disagree with their decision. It's a bit like voting. If you don't, then don't complain about who gets elected.