Facebook 'smear' shock: Journos aghast!
Why didn't they call us first?
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
Newspaper readers will be appalled to discover that a blushing, innocent maiden in Silicon Valley has had her reputation besmirched by a wicked rival. Facebook's PR agency attempted to spin a blogger to write an unfavourable story about rival Google. It's caused an outpouring of distress from Her Majesty's Press today, acting at their most chivalrous.
Since Google famously employs no PR staff, and never engages in any lobbying of any kind whatsoever, maintains an honourable distance from government, and certainly never attempts to undermine rival companies or business sectors through such lobbying - the press is aghast. As it should be!
Both the Times and the Guardian put it above the fold on the front page. To the Times, it's a slur. To the Guardian, it's a smear. It even merited a spot on BBC Radio 4's Today program. Surely reparations of historic proportions must now be paid to Google?
Or perhaps not. But the reaction of editors and producers to the story is both comical and revealing.
Personally, I don't quite trust a company unless I get a frank competitive analysis of its rivals, from the horse's mouth. In a competitive market, these can and should be quite scathing. You listen, learn, take the claims with a huge bag of salt, and get the other sides of the picture.
I make an exception for companies, Intel and IBM, for example, for whom ongoing antitrust concerns have rendered them circumspectly silent when the subject of rivals comes up. They don't dish the dirt. Neither can afford to be careless with its talk, which can then be used to reopen settlements, and I don't expect them to change their policy of no-dishing, just for me. Sometimes PR staff will feed you what they hope to be the germ of a story. It rarely is.
"This is being seen as a pretty underhand tactic," said Rory Cellan Jones at the BBC.
No, Rory. What on earth do people think Public Relations companies actually do? Knit cardigans for orphans up in the Afghan mountains? Train muscular teams of emergency workers to hand lift people out of rubble when there's an earthquake?
"Why would Facebook want to launch a smear against Google?" an equally puzzled Evan Davies asked him.
"In these days of social media, this is going to come out very quickly," insisted Rory.
Er, no. Social media is all about planting stories that are dubious, or untrue stories on Twitter. And in any case, it only "comes out" if the PR company is incompetent enough to cold call a blogger, as it did in this case, with whom it had no relationship.
So why is this fairly standard practice suddenly front page news? As I pointed out above, Google is big enough to look after itself; its "outreach" work includes creating and sponsoring the "Net Neutrality" movement via front groups, and influencing UK IP policy - despite paying no taxes here. The BBC itself seems unable to describe "Neutrality" accurately, as a synthetic, modern media creation.
Hoisting the Facebook "smear" onto the front page is fascinating. It supposes the journalists are too stupid to realise they're being spun, and the audience is too stupid to spot a planted story when they see it. But readers are incredibly sophisticated at this, and news has been an interactive guessing game of who planted what long before "interactive" technology came along.
Perhaps the journalists like to see themselves as whiter-than-white, butter-wouldn't-melt types - when the reality of a large commercial news operation is endless PR freebies and envelope drops from friendly PRs, particularly on the Sunday business pages.
The prominence given to this also suggests the papers take Google's "Chocolate Factory" estimation of itself, as an innocent toy factory with nothing but altruism in mind, at face value. And by extension, Facebook has been seen to sully the pure, unspoiled garden that is the world of Web 2.0 companies. How dare they?
It's one daft thing to expect Web 2.0 to make the world a better place - everyone is now weary of such utopian piffle. But to expect the world of Web 2.0 companies to be purer than pure?
Give me a break.
PR companies wouldn't exist at all if we didn't want to read the stuff, or if such stories weren't effective. The staggering hypocrisy of the posh press, pretending otherwise, is a sight to see.®
COMMENTS
Just because it is commonplace......
doesn't mean it's okay, or that we should accept it. On the rare occasions that this type of PR smear campaign is proven the companies responsible need to be highlighted, mocked and punished by any laws we can throw at them. It's the only way people can send a message that it's not acceptable behaviour.
That the media are so aghast (or appearing to be) at this may show naivety or worse, but the fact that they are highlighting a practice which I believe most people find repulsive is a good thing.
'Tis the evil interwebs
I don't think the journos in question have a particular brief for or against Google or Facebook. I think they just know that they can blog for days about the latest internet spat and save themselves having to do some real work.
The biggest effect the web has had on older media forms seems to be a complete removal of the ability to prioritise something important over irrelevant tat and gossip.
This is to be expected in the online world where bloggers can't see past the end of their own obsessions but the print press only defence against becoming the junior media partner was lost when it turned against any remaining quality professional reporting and embraced the world of crowd-sourcing, blogging and social-networking.
So we end up with a bunch of self-referential and self-reinforcing cliques determining what is news and what the news is. They dictate what subjects are of interest and then they determine what the accepted truth is about those subjects.
Its hardly surpsrising that there seems to be less and less room for any middle ground between the fanbois and the haters - "pick your side and rant away" seems to have replaced "all the news that's fit to print".
You don't see it because you're in it?
As titled, I think the writer here is showing disagreement to press reporting moral indecency because he's actually in this circle thus it becomes harder to see why other press are making it news worthy when it IS clearly not uncommon to him as he had said.
Personally I do think this smear campaign is news worthy because the majority of plebs in this world does not like being duped.
Whether the plebs are normally intelligent enough to decide by negating media influence is another thing. But this sort of act essentially amounts to the level of false advertising.
Another thing of note is that this story spreaded within the social networks and places like twitter hours before it became general news. I know this because I participated in the spreading of this news, further enforcing the fact that the general populace thinks this is an indecent act that needs to be known and should be acted upon.
I won't give credit to any other media firm aside from the original leaker, the press seem to me simply picking up something that has gotten major attention on the net and made it general news.
And finally food for thought, what's to say any article we read about this story now on the opposite view is not a PR attempt at repairing the damage from the original leak.
Paris 'cause I sense a cat fight.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
