Media critics are protesting too much about power of Google

Roy Greenslade
8 Apr 2009

Back at the beginning, which means barely a decade ago, Google seemed like the epitome of public-service benevolence. It cast itself in 1960s counter-culture terms, almost apologising for the fact that it was a business rather than a dispassionate helpmate acting as a guide for people trying to find their way through the internet forest.

Much was made of it having been founded by students who were merely trying to create a better and more rational search engine than was then available. It even promoted itself with the slogan "Don't be evil".

In 2004, to underline its humanitarian credentials, it also formed a not-for-profit philanthropic offshoot with a start-up fund of $1 billion.

But look how things have changed now that Google has become the world's most recognised brand, and its largest media behemoth. It is under pressure as never before, and there are plenty of people who accuse it of being evil. Libertarians are concerned about the personal knowledge it covertly obtains about users. There was Henry Porter in this weekend's Observer accusing Google of displaying an "exuberant contempt for people's rights, their property and the past". It is, he wrote, a parasite.

The same word was employed by Robert Thomson, the Wall Street Journal's managing editor and former editor of The Times, when he railed against the search engine for being one of the "tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet". His concern, aired by plenty of publishers, editors and journalists, is that Google is responsible for disseminating newspaper content that undervalues the role of the producer and encourages people to think news can be obtained for free.

Gavin O'Reilly, president of the World Association of Newspapers and head of the company that owns The Independent, has been saying much the same for at least two years. He is an enthusiast for an encryption system designed to circumvent what Thomson has called Google's promiscuity.

Elsewhere, thousands of Britons have been registering their opposition to Google's Street View initiative, claiming that it intrudes on their privacy, and may even act as an aid to criminals. Musicians are outraged that YouTube, now part of the Google empire, refuses to pay the fees demanded by the Performing Rights Society to compensate composers and performers.

This relatively new outburst of hostility towards Google should also be seen in the context of a host of previous complaints that have led Wikipedia to create a special page entitled Criticism of Google. It records the various lawsuits about alleged copyright theft, invasions of privacy and the disgraceful decision by Google to entertain Chinese censorship of its service. It abides by the outrageous Golden Shield Project, a censorship and surveillance scheme operated by the Chinese government that not only prevents its people from accessing Google's full range of content but has also led to the arrest and imprisonment of internet users.

By any standards, this all adds up to a severe indictment of a single company. But are the critics justified? Is Google the ultimate expression of Orwell's Big Brother? In other words, is it evil after all?

I have to say that I'm not as exercised as many of my fellow journalists. I certainly do not condone the deal Google has made with China. But I am totally relaxed about Street View. Pictures of public spaces do not worry me (though I agree that individual faces should be obscured).

I see the battle over music on YouTube as a purely commercial tussle in which the sides are engaged in a prolonged negotiation. There will surely be an eventual resolution. There is not the least indication that Google's knowledge of the sites we regularly access threatens our liberties. Is there any evidence at all that Google have passed on that information to anybody else?

It is nothing more than a digital footprint. (Similarly, I rather like the fact that Amazon - another internet titan that regularly gets it in the neck - knows roughly what books I might like to read, based on my previous orders. I do not feel that this rather helpful service impinges one iota on my privacy). I certainly share some of the concerns of my fellow journalists about Google's news service, though I cannot go all the way with Thomson and O'Reilly. Again though, we may well view their public statements as something of a negotiating ploy.

It may be possible that some kind of financial deal will eventually emerge from the clash between the traditional media owners and Google, just as it already has done with the US news agency, the Associated Press. All sensible editors must surely realise that there are tremendous benefits for newspapers (or, more properly, their online offshoots) in an aggregation service that points people in their direction.

Imagine, if you will, a world without Google. There would be far fewer people visiting news websites because it would take them hours to discover what they wanted. Indeed, they would also not discover things they didn't know existed. The result of smaller audiences would be even fewer advertisers and sponsors for news websites than they currently enjoy. It would be disastrous for the emergence of a new medium born of the old.

Whatever Google's faults, its advantages far outweigh them. Yes, it is big. Yes, it needs watching, as do all companies that seek to become monopolies. But it is not evil.