The information revolution, now available with Flex:
More than 400 magazine publishing and editorial executive plus a sprinkling of agency and advertiser executives gathered earlier this week in San Francisco for the annual American Magazine Conference. With an opening discussion with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a closing conversation with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the conference acknowledged the serious challenges facing the industry but emphasized solutions and growth opportunities.Highlights, ironically, were a luncheon conversation with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and an afternoon visit to the Silicon Valley campus of Google, where publishers were embraced as partners by CEO Eric Schmidt. “Narrative sustains the [media] business,†said Schmidt, “…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 rhetorically asked if “young audiences will want a more interactive experience in print.†Print, he suggested, “will be a smaller component of a much larger online business, serving an audience that consumes in a different way.â€Â
Schmidt suggested that publishers work with Google on “joint projects focused around website dwell time. Google sends people to magazine sites but they spend limited time there.†There is a danger, Schmidt exclaimed, of the Internet “becoming a cesspool,†adding it is in need of high quality content of the type provided by magazines. “In a world of disinformation, which is the future,†he said, “brands are the solution. Brand affinity is hard wired and fundamental to the human condition – who you trust and who you don’t. People want real value, real information, real leadership and messages of hope.†Schmidt’s recommendations resonated not only as a business model but as an appropriate foundation for political campaigns.
As happyfeet, in his own inimitable style, noted yesterday in the comments to an earlier post:
No big deal. Schmidt just wants to preference narratives of hope over “disinformation.†I bet if I ran Google I could make a big impact making sure people mostly just got the correct narratives I think. That’s very savvy for quasi-authoritarian thought control. Very very savvy. Google is our friend and really cares for us.
What happyfeet deftly riffs is the presumption at the foundation of Schmidt’s premise — one that is particularly chilling to those who see the internet as one of the last venues for a free market of voices and opinion. In effect, what Schmidt is bothered by is people’s ability to choose — or rather, that these people, given near limitless choices, misuse that choice and wind up embracing the wrong kinds of narratives (which Schmidt, as a good little wannabe-postmodernist unaware of his own appeals to metaphysics, describes as “disinformation” — the idea being that the ACTUAL truth is out there, in pristine form, and that people like he will guide the peasants toward it. As a necessary function “real hope.”).
What Schmidt is proposing, to those who read between the lines, is a potential collusion between the major search engines and the “quality” purveyors of information — those who present the “correct” lessons in the “proper” narrative form in order to save us from the “cesspool of disinformation” that is likely to corrupt our opinions and direct us away from the golden road of progressive epistemology, which requires the embrace of approved narratives and the rejection of those deemed uncharitable to “real leadership” and “real messages of hope.”
In other words, search engines will direct readers to the very kind of journalists who they’ve rejected in print, and, perforce, reinforce the hidden narrative biases that people have gone to the internet to escape.
What is doubly troubling is that, in proffering such statements, Schmidt is presuming not only to control information flow, but he is likewise proposing to set up an agreed-upon litmus test for what constitutes “value” — as determined by the very people whose claim to such “value” has been increasingly rejected by the marketplace.
In short, Schmidt proposes to rehabilitate the presumptive official guardians of the narrative by steering web searchers away from opposing voices, or those who — based on a certain subjective measure of aesthetics — don’t quite pass muster.
Ironically, these are the very types of “progressives” who once railed against the arbitrary unfairness of the musty literary canon — comprised of the works of those dead white males whose “art” survived primarily (the argument went) by way of collusion among dusty, lockstep literary scholars awash in patriarchal values and blinded by adherence to outmoded conventions concerning what constitutes a legitimate “text” for study.
And yet here they are, having seized the portals to information flow, creating their very own “canons” and prescribing their very own rules. And whereas at least the literary scholars who presumed to argue for a canon had a sustained grounding in aesthetic theory of narrative arts — and could make a plausible case for a “literary” canon vs. a contextual / materialist canon of the kind preferred by new historians — people like Schmidt have, as their sole claim to controlling information, money and a pernicious ideology that is, as I’ve long argued, inexorably totalitarian.
Comment by Carin on 10/9 @ 11:25 am #
It’s unfortunate, but non-elites are simply unable to separate the wheat from the chaff on their own. Googles just wants to help.
Comment by Benedick on 10/9 @ 11:27 am #
Good. I was getting tired of thinking for myself anyway.
Comment by pdbuttons on 10/9 @ 11:30 am #
my brain hurts-you so smart
fredo” that’s not the way I wanted it”
Comment by Dash Rendar on 10/9 @ 11:31 am #
I have a hard time disliking Google despite the douchebaggery of guys like Schmidt. I like how they make high tech thingers and build nice complexes, but that’s part of the appeal of fascism I think: sweeten the deal and make it seem like you’re getting a good thing. Also seems like Schmidt is proposing a corollary to the ‘personal is the political,’ in that the ‘personal is the corporate is the political,’ or something.
Comment by pdbuttons on 10/9 @ 11:32 am #
if my depends came w/ a cup holder
bliss?
Comment by SevenEleventy on 10/9 @ 11:32 am #
China lurvs Google!
Comment by Dan Collins on 10/9 @ 11:33 am #
‘See the savage beast, with the pointed tail, that crosses mountains, and pierces walls and armour: see him, who pollutes the whole world.’ So my guide began to speak to me, and beckoned to him to land near the end of our rocky path, and that vile image of Fraud came on, and grounded his head and chest, but did not lift his tail onto the cliff.
His face was the face of an honest man, it had so benign and outward aspect: all the rest was a serpent’s body. Both arms were covered with hair to the armpits; the back and chest and both flanks were adorned with knots and circles. Tartars or Turks never made cloths with more colour, background and embroidery: nor did Arachne spread such webs on her loom. As the boats rest on the shore, part in water and part on land, and as the beaver, among the guzzling Germans, readies himself for a fight, so that worst of savage creatures lay on the cliff that surrounds the great sand with stone.
The whole of his tail glanced into space, twisting the venomous fork upwards, that armed the tip, like a scorpion. My guide said: ‘Now we must direct our path, somewhat, towards the malevolent beast that rests there.’
Comment by McGehee on 10/9 @ 11:34 am #
The googles, they do… everything!
Comment by happyfeet on 10/9 @ 11:34 am #
Why is Nancy Pelosi addressing the annual American Magazine Conference anyway? That’s not keeping their eye on the ball but their circ trends say they kind of need to focus on the basics these days. Nancy couldn’t sell a dozen copies of her book so I’m not really sure what she brings to a conversation about increasing readership.
Comment by pdbuttons on 10/9 @ 11:36 am #
everytime I try to look into Henry Waxmans eyes
I just stare at his nostrils
Comment by Sdferr on 10/9 @ 11:37 am #
Um, Nancymoney (by which I intend, yours and mine), I would presume, hf.
Comment by ducktrapper on 10/9 @ 11:39 am #
… but with a smiley face. Relax it won’t hurt a bit. Resistance is futile.
Comment by cranky-d on 10/9 @ 11:40 am #
Once google became so large a portal for information, it was probably inevitable that they would start to filter it to suit their tastes. They already are filtering, of course, just not as blatently. There’s something about having that much power that seems to drive out any egalitarian notions from humans, or at least push them aside “for the greater good.” Progressives seem to be major players in the arena at all times, but whenever the Repulicans start feeling their oats they bring out the pron ban hammer.
May I suggest clusty.com? They seem to come up with pretty good hits, though I blush to admit that while I consider google’s business practices horrid, I still use their product, if only out of familiarity.
The concept of “branding” is both interesting (to me, anyway) and useful. PW is itself a brand, as are the handles used by the commenters here. We learn which brands on the internet, and brands in the comments, that we wish to consume, and which we want to avoid. That, in and of itself, is neutral. Once an information source as large as google starts deciding which brands we are handed, then it becomes a problem.
Comment by Dash Rendar on 10/9 @ 11:42 am #
I think Schmidt is also playing a dangerous semantic game. What’s the likelihood that ‘Daily Kos’ will be classified as a magazine, whereas a site like Red State one of those purveyors of disinformation.
I wonder what magazines Schmidty reads. Prob The Nation, Newsweek, Time, The Economist (maybe).
Comment by cranky-d on 10/9 @ 11:48 am #
Google already selectively decides which blogs are “blogs” as opposed to “news sources.” Not surprisingly, they favor the lefty sites as more likely to be “news sources.”
Comment by MC on 10/9 @ 11:49 am #
Maybe they could have a section of the internets for us that all goes under scare quotes.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/9 @ 11:50 am #
Wired, which would be one of those magazine thingers, puts this gloss on it…
Adweek:
Palin-esque. Fuck you. But the “particularly in the United States” is more of teh creepy.
Comment by Techie on 10/9 @ 11:53 am #
“Palin-esque”
They really are that terrified of her in 2012, aren’t they?
Comment by cincimaddog on 10/9 @ 11:54 am #
Gee, Schmidt get make money while (he supposes) the masses blindly follow him down the trail of “enlightenment”.
Does Mr. Schmidt have a nickname, like “BIG BROTHER”
Comment by urthshu on 10/9 @ 11:54 am #
At least he’s thinking business and not that google is some kind of open university thing. When they start thinking they’re in the edumukashun bidness its all downhill from there
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 10/9 @ 11:54 am #
Yeah, the Palinesque comment surely deserves a fuck you. It’s refreshing. But people like to be fed bullshit, so they’ll take bullshit instead of honesty.
Comment by Thomass on 10/9 @ 11:57 am #
Not more irony (as in with the music example), more projection.
Comment by pdbuttons on 10/9 @ 12:01 pm #
schmidt-nazi prison guard?
just sayin-he’s a white dude-que?
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/9 @ 12:34 pm #
Google has a disturbing recent history of controlling which content is returned for searches, and particularly which position in a search list that content is referenced.
They’ve already made it clear that prefered sites, presumably those that have advertising agreements with them, get more prominent refernce.
It seems that Schmidt’s chilling comments clearly point to Google becoming more of a gateway to information and opinion than simply a reference; isn’t the spirit of a search engine supposed to be as a reference tool?
Just more proof of the left’s obsession with controlling the narrative regarding issues, rather than fostering dialogue on issues as well being tolerant of differing points of view…
Brought to you by the most transparent, tolerant, ethical, and honest post -iseologues in our nation…
Comment by Mikey NTH on 10/9 @ 1:34 pm #
I agree. We shouldn’t have a cesspool of disinformation – the disinformation should be neatly organized and well-packaged.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 10/9 @ 2:26 pm #
Or – meet the new gatekeeper, just like the old gatekeeper.
Comment by RR Ryan on 10/9 @ 2:35 pm #
Messages of hope? Huh?
Comment by B Moe on 10/9 @ 2:35 pm #
The reason all of us were attracted to Google in the first place is because it made it easy to find what we wanted to find. If they make it a place to find what they want us to find it can lose customers just as quickly.
…one thing to look at is whether journalism should be a for-profit enterprise….
Here we go again. Journalism is always going to be a for-profit enterprise, the only question is who profits.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 10/9 @ 3:04 pm #
And the little pamphlet scribblers? These bloggers?
Hate speech – all of them.
Comment by Akatsukami on 10/9 @ 4:00 pm #
There’s probably a “Beer Googles” joke in here somewhere, but I’ll let someone else find it.
Trackback by Just Another 24 Hours on 10/9 @ 4:25 pm #
The Internet is a Cesspool of Disinformation Says Google CEO…
Google CEO Eric Schmidt referred to the Internet as a “cesspool” at the annual American Magazine Conference. He argued yesterday that the Internet is becoming a breeding ground of misinformation.
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “”, url: “” …
Comment by guinsPen on 10/9 @ 6:07 pm #
There is a danger, Schmidt exclaimed, of the Internet “becoming a cesspool
,!!!â€ÂComment by guinsPen on 10/9 @ 6:09 pm #
Blast.
There is a danger, Schmidt exclaimed, of the Internet “becoming a cesspool
comma!!!â€ÂFixed.
Comment by guinsPen on 10/9 @ 6:13 pm #
Newspapers I can do without.
Cesspools, not so much.
Comment by guinsPen on 10/9 @ 6:13 pm #
Magazines, even.
Comment by guinsPen on 10/9 @ 6:28 pm #
Newspapers with which I can do without.
Google It !
Comment by McGehee on 10/9 @ 7:06 pm #
Newspapers and magazines aren’t septic safe, may be part of the problem. They should print on a lighter grade of paper, something that’ll dissolve more quickly.
Comment by meya on 10/10 @ 6:35 am #
I’d say a lot, if not most, of the information traveling on some protocols of the internet is junk. At home I have a program that labels it as so, and moves it to a special folder. On my gmail account, google does that for me. Likewise with blogs. I don’t know what the numbers are for a blog like this, but start up your own blogspot blog (lots of junk in those too) and see how many junk comments you get compared to non-junk.
control the narrative indeed.
“In short, Schmidt proposes to rehabilitate the presumptive official guardians of the narrative by steering web searchers away from opposing voices, or those who  based on a certain subjective measure of aesthetics  don’t quite pass muster.”
You’d be a fool to think he’d do this for free.
Comment by McGehee on 10/10 @ 6:37 am #
#38 would be a good guess.
Comment by meya on 10/10 @ 6:43 am #
“#38 would be a good guess.”
Someone would need to update the filter.
Comment by Old Grouch on 10/10 @ 11:40 am #
“…whether journalism should be a for-profit enterprise.”
i.e., Air America as opposed to NPR
Pingback by Day 5: Still no reply from YouTube on 10/17 @ 10:22 am #
[...] find out who I should be talking to shows me that YouTube — and Google, who we already know is interested in controlling what you get to read – cares little about their users, and is willing to delete and suspend first, and (not) ask [...]