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

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.
- Tags:
-
Eric Schmidt,
-
newspapers,
-
advertising,
-
editorial
- Share:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us




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.
It's like paying for wikipedia??? Totally non factual info. . . . 99% junk and 1% myth construed to be fact.
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.
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.
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.
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.