« The Trouble with REITs | Main | Google's "Company a Week" Plan »
Latest Stories
- Pete Peterson on Subprime, Bailouts, etc.
- Yahoo's Jerry Yang Needs to Get on With Things
- The Mortgage Bankers Association Mortgage Problem
- Graphical Look at Real House Price Declines
- Alan Greenspan vs. His Critics
March 17, 2006
Foot. Mouth. Google.
Which sucks more: The FCC, or Google media training? That's my only question after the mini-imbroglio over Google senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin's nutty public comments this week.Mr. McLaughlin was speaking on network neutrality at the VON conference and, apparently role-playing, he said that the "FCC sucks". The commment was first run by media as if McLaughlin held that view himself, and he has since clarified, saying that he was merely repeating the view of techno libertarian opponents of net neutrality, which he is not.
Fair enough, but it was a dumb thing to do. Why? Some reasons:
- He is a senior Google rep, not some anonymous Slashdot poster
- You should never say things in a public forum that can be excerpted and make you look childish
- Google has developed a rep recently for talking out of its hat, so the company should be on its best behavior around media, not being silly and pointlessly provocative
Sphere It
| 
Digg it
| 
Bookmark it
| 
Stumble it
Okay, that too, but Google knows about our broken media culture and choose to insert foot in mouth on a regular basis anyway.
This really feels to me like the foot wasn't inserted in the mouth; the foot was put out there and the media grabbed, twisted, and shoved it into the mouth. Google's mistake (in my mind) was in apologizing instead of sticking by its guns in a situation where it seems it is clearly in the right. Surely if a company as secure in itself as Google can't tell the media to do their jobs well, we're in a deep, deep hole, no?
So wait -- I'm not supposed to ever talk in public about the other side's arguments? I wasn't role-playing -- I said that if the forces of truth, justice, and the American way are going to make progress on net neutrality, we'd better know what our opponents are arguing, and have good responses. I then listed the top 5 arguments of the anti-net-neutrality forces. In my clearly naive view of the world, I should be able to say that in public without fear of being misquoted. Or...?
--andrew
oh come on PK, these people aren't robots. would you rather have them communicate through press releases? i find straight talk refreshing.
@Andrew: Why did you wait a few days to address the so-called "misquote instead of contacting people immediately;" why did you address it by posting a response to Om Malik's blog instead of working through your PR staff to directly contact those who used the quote without the context provided by Light Reading's reporter in the story?
Why are you still addressing it through third party blogs instead of your company's own?
David: " why did you address it by posting a response to Om Malik's blog instead of working through your PR staff to directly contact those who used the quote"
Google used the same tactic when announcing the click fraud class action settlement.
It's pathetic. Google lives in a bubble and thinks it can sanctify itself by using the "alternative media", such as blog comments that nobody one reads. Andrew McLauglin is an experienced PR pro and should know better.
As Paul said, Andrew has nobody but himself to blame for this. Foot, meet mouth.
Or is it (c) our irresponsible and broken media culture?