For this comparison of print newspaper, a television news program, and an online news site, I chose to cover the Google antitrust hearings. Google is currently under scrutiny about whether or not they rig search results. Currently, about two thirds of all internet searches go through Google. They control about ninety percent of mobile internet searches. The FTC, Justice Department, and the European Union are all investigating this matter.
The rest of the assignment is after the jump break.
Fox Business News Video
“Schmidt: Google Not Rigging Searches” September 21, 2011
After taking Sociology of Mass Media last semester, I saw and read a lot about how Fox has a reputation for being biased. After watching this video, I can definitely agree with that.
A big difference between video news and any kind of news in writing is that you can see expressions and hear the inflections in the reporters’ voices.
In reading the headlines from the hearings, the female reporter repeats some of the defensive statement Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, but after a couple of the quotes, she starts mumbling something about “we’re getting a little into the weeds here, but…”. It sounded as if she were just passing these statements off and saying yadda yadda yadda.
Jordan Rohan, a senior analyst for Stifel Nicolaus & Co. was brought into the studio for this story. He pointed out that, “History has the government going after Intel and Microsoft and other big tech behemoths right at the very moment when they need a little bit of extra cash to pay their bills. That may be a coincidence or it may not be, but clearly Google is in that position right now. They have the target on their back.” Rohan and the two Fox news reporters go on to discuss that this was bound to happen because of Google’s power. They also mention all of the factors that the government would have to prove to get anything more than a settlement out of Google, but that there are too many variables in Google’s search algorithm for the government to easily understand how results are being rigged.
So easily hearing and seeing bias is definitely a weakness of video news. On the other hand, being able to hear and see the reporter could play a positive role as this would make them more persuasive than just writing the story. Another strength would be the ability to get so much information out in such a short period of time. This was a 5 minute video, but the news story would seem far too long for most people to keep interest in if it were in writing. Also, most homes have a television in them, and news channels are included in almost all cable plans, so television news is accessible to most of the population.
USA Today Newspaper
“Google defends business practices before Senate” September 22, 2011
This news story is much shorter. It is mostly fact and statements from people involved in the hearings. In this aspect, the story could be interpreted as biased as despite all the statements against Google, there are no defensive statements included. However, there is no written opinion from the author included, either.
This story has quotes from Google’s rival companies who accuse them of rigging results, including Yelp, Nextag, TripAdvisor and Expedia. A quote from Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman stands out. “Let’s be clear: Google is no longer in the business of sending people to the best destinations on the Web. It has everything to do with generating more revenue.” This is a strong statement as it sums up exactly what this entire hearing is about, while putting Google’s potential negative intentions in the spotlight.
A strength of newspaper as a news medium is definitely the ability to get so much information in a short piece. Having so little space would seem like it would be a weakness, but I got as much information from this as I did from the video, minus all of the opinion. A weakness is that not everyone subscribes to the newspaper, and having to go out to a gas station or store to the paper every day and pay $2 for it each time not very convenient. Plus, a person would have to be specifically looking for the news to get a newspaper, whereas with television a person could just happen to come across a news channel and have it catch their attention, and not have to pay extra for it. Also, most younger people do not read the newspaper, and it is very easy for someone to lose interest quickly and just throw the paper aside.
LATimes.com – Online News
“Eric Schmidt defends Google in Senate antitrust hearing” September 22, 2011
This version of the story was a little longer than the newspaper version. The LA Times definitely took advantage of the possibilities of internet news, as they broke the story up. This made looking at the page less overwhelming and easier to follow. There is little unique information in this article, with the exception of a few quotes. These quotes seem to favor those opposing Google, as they are in the majority.
A definite advantage, if done correctly, to this type of media is being able to link to any related and/or top featured articles. At the same time, this could be a weakness as too many links can clutter the page, or distract the reader and bring them to a different story before finishing the current one. Another advantage is the endless possibilities for formatting if done correctly. Once again this could be a weakness if the page becomes cluttered and overwhelming, or if the pages take too long to load. The internet has so much information, if a website does something wrong, the reader can easily go find a similar article elsewhere. Another weakness is the demographic. More and more older people are learning to use computers, but still, the internet definitely sees mostly younger users. Also, low income families may not have computers in their homes, so online news may not be as easily accessible to them.
So after reading about these hearings, this is how I interpret that the hearing went. I hope that this is what the news outlets wanted me to get out of it, because none of the stories I read described this to be a very civilized hearing.
"You're cooking results!" – Anti-Google
"No we are not." -Google
"You're cooking results!" –Anti-Google
"No, I learned my lesson when I worked with companies that were backing Microsoft when this happened to them." - Google
"You're cooking results. You're evil and only care about money." – Anti-Google
"No, we never rigged any results. Our search results come up different from other sites because we use a different algorithm and we sell consumers what they want instead of just pointing them to where they can get it." – Anti-Google
"You're cooking results! You better stop what you're doing or I'm gonna keep telling you the same thing over!" - Google
"No we are not." -Google
"You're cooking results!" –Anti-Google
"No, I learned my lesson when I worked with companies that were backing Microsoft when this happened to them." - Google
"You're cooking results. You're evil and only care about money." – Anti-Google
"No, we never rigged any results. Our search results come up different from other sites because we use a different algorithm and we sell consumers what they want instead of just pointing them to where they can get it." – Anti-Google
"You're cooking results! You better stop what you're doing or I'm gonna keep telling you the same thing over!" - Google
No comments:
Post a Comment