Commentary
Google Results Trigger Misplaced Outrage
- by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, April 14, 2009
That post, in the form of a letter to Davis -- mother of speedskating champion Shani Davis -- repeats allegations that she has accused members of the speedskating federation of being white supremacists and neo-Nazi genetic mutations.
Healy wasn't the only one to level such allegations. The Australian paper The Age also attributed similar statements to Cherie Davis, while the Associated Press, Chicago Tribune and others wrote that she had accused the speedskating federation of racism.
But none of those outlets appear at the top of the search results pages for Google queries on Cherie Davis. Healy's blog does -- and Davis feels aggrieved enough to file suit for libel.
The case shouldn't get far for many reasons. Google is immune from libel suits based on material created by users. Also, the statute of limitations for libel in Illinois expired in February 2007, one year after the post was made. Additionally, the statements wouldn't be libelous unless Healy acted in reckless disregard of their truth -- which could be hard to prove given that The Age made similar statements.
But leaving aside the merits of the libel claim, Davis's complaint clearly reflects a concern that Google is returning a page that she doesn't like high in the search results. And, in that sense, her complaint reflects the same concern that the Associated Press raised last week.
That organization also doesn't like the way Google returns search results. Last week, AP chief Tom Curley told Business Week that Google "has a wacky algorithm" for news stories. "It does not lead people to authoritative sources," he said.
The AP frames its concerns in terms of copyright infringement and misappropriation of "hot news," but it's hard to imagine how the organization would attempt to enforce that in court, where fair use determinations vary from case to case and judges haven't yet determined what constitutes "hot news" in the Internet era.
On Monday, the AP released an FAQ about its view of intellectual property that gripes about search engines' role in distributing the news. "When consumers look for news today on search engines, they often get directed in a random fashion to a wide variety of news sources, blogs and other Web pages. Searches on breaking news topics such as floods, earthquakes and shootings don't dependably produce results from authoritative local news sources, and often not even to those media responsible for producing the news stories," the company writes.
That document says that the AP will work with the media to "create a set of search-optimized pages that will guide users to the most timely, authoritative coverage related to their searches."
If this means that the AP will work with search optimization companies in lieu of filing misguided copyright infringement lawsuits, that's probably a good result. Cherie Davis, also, could have worked with a search engine optimization firm to create a Web page that would appear high in Google's search results. Or, as Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, suggested, she could have hired a reputation management service "to obscure several year old content that hasn't been recently refreshed."
In the meantime, it's not likely that Google is going to change its Page Rank system simply because some people aren't happy with how they appear in the search results.
Wendy Davis is a Senior Writer at MediaPost. You can reach Wendy at wdavis@mediapost.com
It looks like everybody's trying to rig search results, including the AP. I'm quickly becoming disillusioned by their complaints about news results. Clearly, "to create a set of search-optimized pages that will guide users to the most timely, authoritative coverage related to their searches," really means "get people to use us." It's now about marketing the news, not disseminating it.
Since when do the biggest and richest news sources get to define themselves as being the most “authoritative” source for news? We have already seen a once highly admired professional media become dominated by corporate interests. Giving the “professional news media” control over how content is discovered on the Internet pushes us one step further toward total domination by big business conglomerates that already have too much control over how we think. The Internet is the only way I can find out what’s really going on in the world. If I end up getting all my news from a handful of media companies (who love to hire journalists that can only think in two dimensional sound bites and repeat government sponsored versions of reality) my knowledge of current events will dissolve into nothing but worthless dribble. It’s sad that as a teenager forty years ago I could get more in depth analysis in 30 minutes of nightly news than I can get today in a week of digging for the facts on my own. The issues raised by new technology are becoming increasingly complex and technicians are the least suited when it comes to understanding the legal implications and social ramifications that their technology have on the rest of us. Our only defense is a judicial system that understands what our constitutional rights really mean. I can only hope that the judicial system eventually places rational and meaningful limitations on the way that big business manipulates technology to satisfy its own ends. If they properly interpret the Constitution they will do just that. Concerns over fair-use are legitimate concerns but giving major news outlets control over how we search for news is overreaching by any measure. Whoever controls the news controls all our perceptions. Freedom of press does not denote freedom to control what I get to see, only what they get to publish. Search will eventually give us richer means of finding news sources. That is the right way to improve the current experience which I think we all find unsatisfactory. I want more results not less and media moguls need to stop trying to control my access to information that I want which is not limited to their own opinion of what they consider “authoritative”.
Dumb Dumb Wendy, why are you so outraged that you had to harass these people twice in one day? You obviously have no first-hand knowledge about the situation.
Bruce May's comments regarding 'authority by default' -- ours as a nation, surrendering facts for quasi-entertainment instead of truth-seeking behind the issues that shape our lives--reflects the acceptance of mainstream media as much as convenience as a ubiquitous presence. I completely agree with his observations and concerns for the peril of a weakening judiciary -- or threat of same - in the face of corporate mandate and influence. As technology continues to pervade our lives, something inside each of us should hunger for some solitude, if for no other reason than to think deeply and process - the old fashioned way -- our own thoughts, our own 'information'.