What I don't get is that I see Eric Schmidt strutting around in all kinds of media these days, how come no one ever asks him about his role in this shit?
- why pay a writer to write a whole article when you can just reprint a press release with slight edits?
- they live in fear of "losing access" because they have nothing else to cover
- kool-aid-drinking sells
E.g., can you imagine TechCrunch announcing a new startup and then criticizing its concept? it would make startups would think twice about giving them any releases, writers would be able to produce less content, no kool aid.
outsider media, on the other hand, can land on the other end of the pendulum of being overly cynical, paranoid, underinformed etc.
I actually think a lot of media has both sets of problems at the same time. They will take press releases or whatever and reprint them coated in identical thin layers of snark and generic cynicism, without providing any real criticism or context.
E.g., can you imagine TechCrunch announcing a new startup and then criticizing its concept? it would make startups would think twice about giving them any releases, writers would be able to produce less content, no kool aid.
On the other hand, that's the only thing that would make me read TechCrunch and take them seriously.
Alternately, perhaps the media don't report this because it's simply too complicated or nuanced for a sound bite, or irrelevant to their audience. Who wants to hear some of the most highly-compensated people in America complain about their employers conspiring to suppress their already unimaginable-for-many salaries?
How could they not know? While Mr Schmidt was CEO, it was a three way decision makin process as I recall. I'm of the opinion that something this big, with such large long term consequences, would surely have been discussed among equal decision making partners.
Comments
What I don't get is that I see Eric Schmidt strutting around in all kinds of media these days, how come no one ever asks him about his role in this shit?
Cynical view: The media does not challenge the powerful and the wealthy, they merely act as PR hacks.
industry media is usually fawning
- why pay a writer to write a whole article when you can just reprint a press release with slight edits?
- they live in fear of "losing access" because they have nothing else to cover
- kool-aid-drinking sells
E.g., can you imagine TechCrunch announcing a new startup and then criticizing its concept? it would make startups would think twice about giving them any releases, writers would be able to produce less content, no kool aid.
outsider media, on the other hand, can land on the other end of the pendulum of being overly cynical, paranoid, underinformed etc.
I actually think a lot of media has both sets of problems at the same time. They will take press releases or whatever and reprint them coated in identical thin layers of snark and generic cynicism, without providing any real criticism or context.
On the other hand, that's the only thing that would make me read TechCrunch and take them seriously.
Alternately, perhaps the media don't report this because it's simply too complicated or nuanced for a sound bite, or irrelevant to their audience. Who wants to hear some of the most highly-compensated people in America complain about their employers conspiring to suppress their already unimaginable-for-many salaries?
If they smell Googles blood in the water they will be after them just like Murdoch does the BBC.
I still remember a HN thread which suggested that Larry/Sergey fire Eric Schmidt for this.
How could they not know? While Mr Schmidt was CEO, it was a three way decision makin process as I recall. I'm of the opinion that something this big, with such large long term consequences, would surely have been discussed among equal decision making partners.
Which is absurd because Eric continues to collect huge compensation packages from Google "for contributing to the company's success".