gregbo (gregbo) wrote,
gregbo
gregbo

Why do we trust Google?

The issue is discussed in a First Monday paper by Lee Shaker, a PhD candidate at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. The key point made by the paper is that mainstream reporting on Google, such as is done by the New York Times, is generally uncritical of the company, focusing on its phenomenal (financial) growth and popularity.

There have been arguments made that the blogosphere is a better source of information than traditional media. While this may be true to some extent, bloggers aren't reporters, at least in a conventional sense. They aren't obligated to be unbiased, or neutral, with regards to the subjects they cover. (Arguably, newspapers don't always live up to neutrality standards.) So to individuals who are looking for objective reporting, blogs may not be a viable source of information. Furthermore, there are far more blogs than there are newspapers. A single individual cannot possibly keep up with all of them, even those that cover Google. There are certainly plenty of blogs that are critical of Google, but chances are the public at large will read few if any of them. This means that until an issue warranting serious Google coverage comes up, such as the AOL data leak, Google will probably continue to be perceived in an extremely positive light.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment