February 29, 2008 8:00 PM PST

Google CEO Schmidt practices the art of stonewalling

It's been a busy week in the tech world, but the newsroom highlight of the week had more to do with what was not said. Our own Elinor Mills was dispatched on short notice from San Francisco to Orlando, Fla., to interview Google CEO Eric Schmidt. He was in the land of Mickey Mouse East to tout Google Health initiatives, which hold promise for advancing the cause of improved health care.

(Credit: Elinor Mills)

Elinor came ready to discuss Google Health with Schmidt, as well as other topics, such as what's up with the paid click ad business, the economy, YouTube, and of course, the proposed Microsoft-Yahoo union.

A few minutes before the interview, she was told by a Google spokesman that Schmidt would only answer questions about Google Health.

He certainly has the right to refuse to take questions, but it's unclear what led him to stonewall. Schmidt doesn't seem like a CEO who is afraid to go toe to toe with the press. Perhaps he wanted to make sure the message got out on Google Health, but Elinor had already heard all the details at the Orlando presentation and press conference.

In any case, the context of the event shouldn't exclude Schmidt from responding to the basic questions on the minds of Google watchers, reporters, bloggers, investors, and employees. He is practiced enough in the art of interviewing to evade any question that he doesn't want to answer directly.

He even declined to respond to a question about how Microsoft's health care platform HealthVault differs from Google Health.

The notions of transparency, conversation, and openness are part of the Web culture. Google is the "Do No Evil" company. Speaking to the press without putting restrictions on what can be asked (outside of regulatory prohibitions) is "good." We aren't talking about disclosing state secrets, just responding to what are largely anticipated queries.

You have to wonder what drives such behavior. Is it arrogance or just a bit of control freakishness? Whatever, it comes off as Putinesque, which I doubt is what Google PR or Schmidt intended.

Read Elinor's account of her brief and mostly unfruitful trip Orlando.
See also: News.com editor Jim Kerstetter has some questions for Google and Schmidt.
Recent posts from Outside the Lines
Deconstructing Wikipedia at the Berkman Center
The Internet thrives on dark energy
Comcast goes social with Plaxo acquisition
Marc Andreessen dings Google's Friend Connect
Google Friend Connect: The movie
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 15 comments (Page 1 of 2)
by March 1, 2008 3:16 AM PST
Dan, Ho long did you think it would take Goog to become as regal as Apple or (as Siebel was0 in its approach to letting the press ask Eric, Larry or Sergei questions? My experience Google PR was always over bearing in its control of questions. I think it's time reporters began getting tough with GooG execs and started asking difficult questions in settings where the execs can't flee. or be controlled by hyper vigilant PR people, That's an approach that always worked for me. Good piece Dan and congrats on the well-deserved and long overdue promotion. Best, Jim Forbes
Reply to this comment
by dfarber March 1, 2008 6:51 AM PST
Thx Jim...my take is if you are going to make people available for interview, then let the press ask the questions.Otherwise keep them out of the line of fire. Trouble is there are time when they want publicity. Apple brings out Jobs when they need a magazine cover or he has a major announcement and speaks to a few chosen press friends. DF
Reply to this comment
by trench-coat March 1, 2008 7:08 AM PST
Don't look for the promotion to last long. Your "article" might be slightly better written than Elinor's but it's still the same dead horse... just different packaging. Putinesque? Please. I really hope everybody that reads this actually reads Elinor's piece... it definitely provides insight into why anybody would be quick to say to say to her: "Please, please... just stop... please... and get out... please... for the love of god... please?" Mayhap she used too many emoticons during the "interview". : (
Reply to this comment
by trench-coat March 1, 2008 7:35 AM PST
Seems we could all use a writing lesson or two... the writing and/or proofreading in these comments is just as poor as the writing and/or proofreading in the article. Yes, I'm even including my own comment in my critique. From your article: "In any case, the context of the event shouldn't exclude Schmidt from responding to the basic questions that are [on?] the minds of Google watchers, reporters, bloggers, investors and employees." Mm. Perhaps the question isn't "Why is Schmidt stonewalling the press?", but rather: "Are we actually qualified to call ourselves 'the press'?" Quality writing: we *all* need a bit more if we want to claim credentials, eh?
Reply to this comment
by trench-coat March 1, 2008 7:41 AM PST
... and, further, consider not using brackets (proper journalistic/writing practice) for HTML embeds in comment sections. But I digress....
Reply to this comment
by dwillliam March 1, 2008 10:00 AM PST
Dan, your article and other Cnet person's article is the same lame ranting. Just because you didn't get the scoop due to Schmidt's flakiness doesn't mean you should waste digital space (twice). get over it. for disclosure, I'm not a Google fan but I am an advocate for good journalism. this was weeeeaaaaak. respectfully submitted.
Reply to this comment View reply
by avlhostel March 1, 2008 12:53 PM PST
Huh? Why whould he be talking about other companies? I don't get your point.
Reply to this comment View reply
by avlhostel March 1, 2008 12:54 PM PST
could you have a worse backdrop for that photo?
Reply to this comment
by vanillacokehead March 1, 2008 2:20 PM PST
This reminds me of a press conference Madonna had a few months ago when her handlers told reporters beforehand that they had to memorize their questions and maintain eye contact with her at all times. I hope this isn't the beginning of an attitude of arrogance from Google and its brass and PR people.
Reply to this comment View reply
by mkrigsman March 1, 2008 7:25 PM PST
The IT Project Failures definition of corporate arrogance: forcing a reporter to fly across country for a brief interview instead of just letting her drive across town. Michael Krigsman http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
  • About Outside the Lines

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

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Most popular stories

  1. CBS to buy CNET Networks

  2. Images: Microsoft telescope puts universe on your desktop

  3. Intel Germany executive reportedly confirms Atom-based iPhone

  4. Xbox 360 hits 10 million sold in U.S.

  5. Photos: Microsoft previews 2008 Xbox games

Latest tech news headlines

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman

Green Tech

One More Thing by Tom Krazit

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh

The Social by Caroline McCarthy

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland

Resource center from News.com sponsors

advertisement
On GameSpot: Banjo and Kazooie return on the Xbox 360
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: