• On MovieTome: Megan Fox on TRANSFORMERS 2!
October 13, 2008 6:33 AM PDT

Google's Schmidt: Brands to clean up Internet 'cesspool'

Posted by Dan Farber
  • Font size
  • Print

Google CEO Eric Schmidt

(Credit: Dan Farber)

According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the Internet is a "cesspool" where false information thrives. As reported by AdAge, Schmidt was addressing his remarks to magazine executives who were on a pilgrimage to the Googleplex.

The cesspool is one of the byproducts of the Internet. With no barriers to entry and nearly frictionless production and distribution, it's easy for false information, lies, doctored images, and other forms of deception to infiltrate the Internet. Web crawlers aren't particularly good at making judgments about the truthiness of digital matter, and the wisdom of the crowd can't keep up with the river of data streaming online.

Schmidt gave the magazine publishers hope for their future. Brands, he said, are the way to rise above the cesspool, and of course he is right. The corollary is that advertising via Google and its brethren is an essential way to build and sustain a brand.

But brands, even those with long, venerable histories and massive ad budgets, can be decimated as we have seen over the last decade and in the current economic nuclear winter, with banks, automakers, publishers, and retailers fading away.

Offline revenues, especially for newspapers, have been in steady decline, and online revenues are not making up the difference. As a result, there is less editorial investment from so-called mainstream media in the primary and investigative reporting that is often fodder for blogger refactoring. But the blogosphere and newer online publishing entities, such as GigaOm, Politico, TechCrunch, Huffington Post, and VentureBeat, are bringing new, or at least alternative, voices into the mix, contributing far more to the good side than to the cesspool.

Schmidt and the magazine publishers reportedly expressed concern about the cost and quantity of what high-value (exemplary journalism) content. "Narrative sustains the [media] business...but the future of high-quality journalism is a huge problem. A reasonable prediction is that there will be fewer voices. More money is needed to fund high-quality work," Schmidt said as reported by the Huffington Post. With a major economic contraction underway, funding high-quality work will become even more difficult.

Relying solely on advertising revenues hasn't proven to be a winning strategy for most publishers. Unfortunately, Web users come from a place in which paying for content is not part of the culture. If people are willing to pay $4.99 for six hamburger buns or $3.50 for a simple cup of coffee, why aren't they willing to pay for content they value? One can only assume that people are willing to settle for content of generally less value that is free of charge--or that hamburger buns are more essential to life than a good, well-researched story.

Dan Farber is editor in chief of CBS Interactive News, which includes CBSNews.com and CNET News. He has more than 25 years of experience as an editor and journalist covering technology. E-mail Dan.
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 14 comments
by Republic512 October 13, 2008 7:11 AM PDT
He is absolutely wrong. The Internet is the base for the Information Age. To me the Internet can fuffil an amazing human leap, that is, connecting every human on earth to the Internet. The goal should not be, "We want to make more money so let's limit the amount of people giving information and increases the price, therefore less information is being provided and now at a cost which leaves people to get information at a price. Google is using artificial scarcity to make more money. Google is becoming more and more sick as it goes along. Google's moves are always towards the billions and it's said to see such brilliant minds lost away in the dollar.

Google listen! We look at Google as a service. Things are free because we decided to use Google over others The Internet must be a free, open, and plentiful place for information to be following.
Reply to this comment
by doconn7 October 13, 2008 7:12 AM PDT
I don't think I have ever seen a good well researched story. It's just a catchy head line and a hundred ads! Once you click the head line they have your click through so the content doesn't matter. Why pay for that?
It's like paying for wikipedia??? Totally non factual info. . . . 99% junk and 1% myth construed to be fact.
Reply to this comment
by kennethpdavis October 13, 2008 7:32 AM PDT
I'd love to have sites with conscienciously vetted, researched, edited content and I will (and do) happily pay when such content is available.

Most sources these days are giving their content away for free. Then they lay off reporters, editors, and other staff because they can no longer afford them, causing content to suffer. It's a death spiral.

Instead they should be raising prices to the point where they are sustainable. If they can't do that, then they are no more dead than they would be through the other strategy.
Reply to this comment
by stonneflute October 13, 2008 8:20 AM PDT
The last bastion of free speech. Let's make 'em pay for it. Power corrupts, Mr. Schmidt. Who is the final arbiter of the "truthiness" of anything? Who will you be hiring to do the vetting in this cesspool? I hope that, likeWatergate" we do without the plumbers.
Reply to this comment
by drenullyn October 13, 2008 8:29 AM PDT
I think you hit the nail on the head when you made the analogy on hamburger buns and coffee. However, I think that since we Americans have a shrinking middle-class which is constantly struggling to afford bills and groceries, then constantly gouged by the more luxurious commodities of Starbucks coffee and restaurant prices, that we simply don't find a higher value (or even have a budget for...) having those daily newspapers thrown on our doorsteps.
Reply to this comment
by kflak October 13, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
Google Addwords is one of the main drivers behind the Internet 'cesspool' Schmidt is complaining about. Dan, with 25 years of experience you should be able to write a better story.
Reply to this comment
by oypingppei October 13, 2008 9:25 AM PDT
Who would pay $4.99 for brand name hamburger buns if the generic buns were being offered for free a few feet away on the same shelf?
Reply to this comment
by SteveW928 October 13, 2008 9:45 AM PDT
A few point....
1) Why would paying for news make it more reliable? Certainly, that is a cynical question, but I think makes a valid point. To get more accurate, objective news, takes both good research AND enough ethics to actually attempt to be objective. The first you might be able to address with money if the media industry were structured to reward careful research and reporting. The second has more to do with how broken our society is... money isn't going to fix bankrupt ethics.
2) It is super easy to give McD's or Starbucks your $5 bill and get your food/drink. To pay news agencies on the Internet, you have to sign up for an account and have yet another billing thing to track on your credit card, etc. If there were some easy way to pay any internet source small amounts of money... I suppose people would be more likely to pay for such good information (if it were really good)... AND
3) This assumes that there is some good information which is better than the free stuff out there to buy. Being in academics, I do realized the value of properly researched and peer-reviewed material. The problem is that very little of this exists in the general news media that the average person consumes. I suppose some people have always paid for things like the National Enquirer, etc. but I never have. I tend to take my free glance at the cover while walking to the checkout.... laugh a bit... and move on. The same is true these days for a good majority of the media. It really isn't worth any more than to me than being exposed to some advertising in order to get it.
Having said this.... I DO subscribe to a few information sources in areas where I need well written, accurate and honest information. I just don't see much of this in the main-stream media worth paying for.
Reply to this comment
by Don Key October 13, 2008 11:16 AM PDT
Last time I checked, I wasn't required to enter in my sensitive bank accounting information to buy a cup of coffee. I take a 5 out of my pocket and I'm on my way.
Reply to this comment
by HintonBR2 October 15, 2008 5:26 AM PDT
I think another thing to be considered is that the Internet has changed the way we consume the information. In times past there were a limited number of information sources and so there was a need for them to be good. The Internet has exponentially increased the number of information providers so I balance what I hear by reading from multiple sources which are more readily available that in times past. That is one of the benefits of the Internet - Multiple sourcing or better yet crowd sourcing. I still believe there is a place for journalism, etc..., but I doubt the business model is going to be to take how things were done with the print business and convert it to the web.
Reply to this comment
by svetzy02 October 15, 2008 9:49 AM PDT
"One can only assume that people are willing to settle for content of generally less value that is free of charge--or that hamburger buns are more essential to life than a good, well-researched story."

The problem is, we have no guarantees as consumers that the mainstream media is reporting information that is any more reliable than anything else we read online (anyone who has ever been mis-quoted or misrepresented in a newspaper will understand). And since we can get most things online for free (which is a good thing), then we are not willing to pay to read information that we are not sure is any better.

And besides, food satisfies a fundamental need, whereas news GENERALLY does not.
Reply to this comment
by pescado October 22, 2008 9:36 PM PDT
The Internet is a cesspool?

What about cable news networks?all of them from CNN to MSNBC and Fox News?that only report the portion of the story they want you to know?

I agree that the Internet is full of false information, but who is going to decide whether or not something is presented "the right way"? I'm in the journalism industry, and trust me, the amount of power the editor wields is frightening. Any story can be spun however the editor sees fit.
Reply to this comment
by pescado October 22, 2008 9:37 PM PDT
Those question marks in the second paragraph are supposed to be dashes. I guess that's what I get for posting on a Mac. ;-)
by hoodphil November 3, 2008 9:11 AM PST
Hello! Despite the foregoing criticism of MSM, what we have here is a binary decision. There is either ad-supported media (network TV, over-the-air radio, newspapers, magazines, Google) or customer-supported media (video games, movies, books, etc.). There is no third option. If you want journalism of the quality of Atlantic Monthly, Le Monde, Wall Street Journal, Toronto Globe & Mail, you're going to have to fund it with advertising or subscriptions. I just read half a dozen top blogs this morning. It's ludicrous to suggest they do as good a job as our nation's newspapers. Just as it's ludicrous of Schmidt to suggest that nonprofits will fill this role.
Reply to this comment
advertisement

In the news now

Apple: DRM-free tunes, unibody MacBook Pro

roundup At Macworld, Phil Schiller touts 10 million songs sans DRM, plus 69-cent songs, a unibody 17-inch notebook, iLife updates, and more.


Countdown to CES

special coverage The tech community descends on Las Vegas as the Consumer Electronics Show gets ready to kick off in all its gadgety glory.


About Outside the Lines

Dan Farber is the editor in chief of CNET News. He has covered technology for more than two decades, and he previously served as editor in chief of ZDNet, PC Week and MacWeek. Outside the Lines explores the intersection of business and technology.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Outside the Lines topics

Subscribe to the EIC² podcast

Editors Dan Farber of News.com and Larry Dignan of ZDNet, square off in EIC² in this weekly podcast. The two editor in chiefs talk about the big tech stories of the day and provide insight and analysis.

Subscribe to this podcast using an RSS reader other than iTunes

Subscribe to this podcast using iTunes

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right