Evil that Google Doeth

"Don't do evil" isn't good enough for journalism.

by Bruce Schimmel

As my life flashed before my eyes, my fears about Google grew to a rage. Across my screen, my cyberlife unfolded as I recently accessed, via my Google account, my search history. Years of it. Every query I'd ever made, page after page, kept by the genie with the goo-goo eyes. Perhaps they might say they kept it for me — though I don't remember giving permission.

I felt violated. As a professional journalist, it was worse than being robbed. I felt betrayed. Spying on my moves and sucking out my thoughts, my cyber-spider had become a vampire.

Being sucked dry by Google is a common feeling for journalists and publishers, who accuse Google of destroying an industry that many believe is essential to democracy. In fulfilling its mission to organize the world's knowledge, Google seems to be running afoul of its own prime moral directive: "Don't be evil."

Now, certainly, Google isn't the only search engine. Nor is it the only entity vacuuming up the ad dollars that pay for journalism. But in the matter of monopolies, size matters; and Google is the undisputed giant. At a recent FTC hearing, newspaper magnate Rupert Murdoch essentially accused Google of theft. Back in May, Jim Spanfeller, then of Forbes, decried "the parasitical nature of [Google's] business model."

So, having feasted on journalism, you might conclude that Google is in the news business. But that's not true, the company says. They insist they're not journalists, despite the role they play on our screens.

Which is true, in a sense, because about 97 percent of Google's yearly revenue of $21 billion comes from advertising. By way of perspective, the entire amount spent on advertising in America — including newspapers, magazine, broadcast and the Internet — in 2007 (the latest year available) was about $150 billion.

Yet, despite its size, Google also shakes off the claim that it's harmed the news industry. Google is "good for journalism," claims Marissa Mayer, vice president of Search Products and User Experience (hey, that's her title). The company "provide[s] a valuable free service to online newspapers," by directing readers to them, and by returning some $5 billion in shared-ad revenue.

Which is a bit like they're stealing your wallet, then tossing back cab fare. It has enraged some into demanding that Google subsidize journalism, by way of restitution.

Monopoly-busting and restitution aside, I think the company keeps ducking the mantle of journalism because it would create a serious ethical problem. Not "being evil," while acceptable for an ad agency, doesn't cut it for a journalist. Merely avoiding evil would be laughably inadequate in a newsroom.

Journalism's well-established ethics demand a higher standard. The job of a journalist is to seek the truth and serve the public good. And, at the moment, that would be a stretch for this hungry goliath.

So, whether or not they want to, Google must accept that they've blundered into the world of journalism. Especially, now, as the company rolls out a new collaborative news-gathering tool called Google Wave. These accidental journalists need to own up to what they've become. Because, as things stand, by doing nothing, evil is winning.

(bruce@schimmel.com)