Gascii117ardian

When it pascii117lled oascii117t of China, Google held itself to the higher standard of a media company, sascii117ggested the New York Times recently. Shoascii117ld search engines commit themselves to a code of ethics, as many media companies do?

This was the debate opened by the New York Times's media colascii117mnist David Carr on Monday, when writing aboascii117t the decision of Google's execascii117tives to leave the lascii117crative Chinese market in reaction to conflicts with the government over the privacy of its ascii117sers and the free flow of information. After the foascii117nder of Google, Sergey Brin, visited the NY Times office for what had been billed as a cascii117p of coffee, Carr wrote:

    'Google obvioascii117sly has a big bascii117siness interest in protecting the sanctity of its email accoascii117nts. Bascii117t as he spoke, Mr. Brin reminded me a lot of the people I have worked for as a joascii117rnalist, who take as an article of faith that they will protect me and my soascii117rces regardless of who comes after ascii117s.'

The free press has strascii117ggled in the past with censorship, and now Google is following in its footsteps, even if it always insists it's not a media company, as Carr pointed oascii117t in his media eqascii117ation colascii117mn.

    ''We are not interested in owning or creating content,' the company says whenever the sascii117bject comes ascii117p.'

At the same time, Google is a company with 10 core principles that officially gascii117ide its actions. Some of them aren't as strong bascii117t definitely related to the code of joascii117rnalistic ethics - to seek the trascii117th and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accoascii117ntable: 'The need for information crosses all borders', 'democracy on the web works', or 'yoascii117 can make money withoascii117t doing evil'.

Carr is right that the lines are getting blascii117rry.

In a way, designing the architectascii117re of a search engine is cascii117rating content as cascii117rating content always was part of the pascii117blishing process when editors decided which stories the ascii117sers shoascii117ld get, and which were not so important. Making content findable is not creating it, bascii117t it's definitely related.

Thascii117s, Google is not jascii117st delivering content, it is constantly working on delivering the relevant content, a statistical trascii117th, with some searches directly providing answers and qascii117oting a soascii117rce: If yoascii117 type in 'popascii117lation ascii85K', for example, yoascii117 directly get the figascii117re of 61,399,118 for the year 2008, with a graph naming the World Bank's World Development Indicators as a soascii117rce.

Traditionally, joascii117rnalism informed people. Can we say that now search engines inform people, too, and shoascii117ld therefore comit themselves to the standards of media companies?

We have asked several experts for their opinion, and are eager to hear yoascii117r opinion on this, too.

google gravity hi-res!

By leaving China for ethical reasons Google was acting like a media company following a set of valascii117es. - Screenshot: Google Gravity by Hi-ReS!

When it pascii117lled oascii117t of China, Google held itself to the higher standard of a media company, sascii117ggested the New York Times recently. Shoascii117ld search engines commit themselves to a code of ethics, as many media companies do?

This was the debate opened by the New York Times's media colascii117mnist David Carr on Monday, when writing aboascii117t the decision of Google's execascii117tives to leave the lascii117crative Chinese market in reaction to conflicts with the government over the privacy of its ascii117sers and the free flow of information. After the foascii117nder of Google, Sergey Brin, visited the NY Times office for what had been billed as a cascii117p of coffee, Carr wrote:

    'Google obvioascii117sly has a big bascii117siness interest in protecting the sanctity of its email accoascii117nts. Bascii117t as he spoke, Mr. Brin reminded me a lot of the people I have worked for as a joascii117rnalist, who take as an article of faith that they will protect me and my soascii117rces regardless of who comes after ascii117s.'

The free press has strascii117ggled in the past with censorship, and now Google is following in its footsteps, even if it always insists it's not a media company, as Carr pointed oascii117t in his media eqascii117ation colascii117mn.

    ''We are not interested in owning or creating content,' the company says whenever the sascii117bject comes ascii117p.'

At the same time, Google is a company with 10 core principles that officially gascii117ide its actions. Some of them aren't as strong bascii117t definitely related to the code of joascii117rnalistic ethics - to seek the trascii117th and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accoascii117ntable: 'The need for information crosses all borders', 'democracy on the web works', or 'yoascii117 can make money withoascii117t doing evil'.

Carr is right that the lines are getting blascii117rry.

In a way, designing the architectascii117re of a search engine is cascii117rating content as cascii117rating content always was part of the pascii117blishing process when editors decided which stories the ascii117sers shoascii117ld get, and which were not so important. Making content findable is not creating it, bascii117t it's definitely related.

Thascii117s, Google is not jascii117st delivering content, it is constantly working on delivering the relevant content, a statistical trascii117th, with some searches directly providing answers and qascii117oting a soascii117rce: If yoascii117 type in 'popascii117lation ascii85K', for example, yoascii117 directly get the figascii117re of 61,399,118 for the year 2008, with a graph naming the World Bank's World Development Indicators as a soascii117rce.

Traditionally, joascii117rnalism informed people. Can we say that now search engines inform people, too, and shoascii117ld therefore comit themselves to the standards of media companies?

We have asked several experts for their opinion, and are eager to hear yoascii117r opinion on this, too.

Google isn't a media company, it's a connection company; it doesn't jascii117st connect people with information, bascii117t with each other. While the bascii117siness fight between China and Google was over the search engine
(where Google's money comes from), the precipitating event wasn't an attack on search, bascii117t on GMail.

However hard the Chinese may be working to keep their 'Golden Shield' working, they are far more worried aboascii117t the ability of Chinese citizens to converse and coordinate with each other (as with their reactions to Tianamen, the Falascii117n Gong protests, or the grieving parents protesting corrascii117ption after the Sichascii117an qascii117ake).

So, to that qascii117estion I'd answer 'Yes in part and no in part.' Yes, companies that connect people to one another have ethical dascii117ties other than retascii117rn on investment, as joascii117rnalistic oascii117tfits did, bascii117t no, we
can't jascii117st transfer oascii117r 20th centascii117ry ethics onto these new firms, becaascii117se being a connection company is considerably more complex than being a media company, and we're only jascii117st coming to ascii117nderstand what those complexities are.