Google News Now Has Feedback, Editing and More Risk

Image from Google Blogoscoped

Google News in the US has added a new feature that, while promising, is sure to be controversial. Google plans to roll it out globally once they iron out the kinks.

Any person mentioned in a news story that Google News indexes can email in their comments to news-comments@google.com. Those who do so will be asked to verify their identity and organizational affiliation. There's more in the Google FAQ here and here.

Once Google approves the comments, they are posted and are attached to the story as an addendum, as you can see from the image above or live on the web here. It's unclear if these comments will also roll up into Google Universal Search results.

This is certainly a boon for PR professionals who have longed for a way to respond to what is largely an automated system. Wikipedia needs a similar mechanism. Google is also fairly liberal in the sources it aggregates. It includes lots of homegrown sites and blogs. This approach, while managed manually, certainly gives companies and subjects a voice on a critical site that is increasingly a big gateway for lots of news/blog content.

Still, there are some big outstanding questions. For example: can a PR agency comment on a source's behalf (assuming they represent them) and if so how is our affiliation verified?

Beyond these questions, the move is even more significant because it turns Google News into an editorial product rather than simply an aggregator. The Google News team now makes decisions about what responses go up and what gets left behind. Think about that. What if Google somehow gets scammed with an email spoofer and posts a comment they shouldn't, for example.

Google gets points for opening up their platform to comments from sources but I would had rather have seen them make it more democratic and have this open to everyone. In being selective, the move is more fraught with risk as Google begins to make editorial decisions that might not be popular. A better way to manage this might be to have a system that lets everyone comment, yet also delineates those from official sources that are mentioned in a particular story.

Comments

[Wayan]

Wow! Now this is an amazing change for the math-minded Google. I'm not sure if I like it though. It seems to short-circuit the current content generation loop that makes the Internet, and blogsphere specifically, so interactive.

Instead of writing a post that better explains a quote in the press, public figures will just email Google to respond. This gives Google more exclusive content and editorial control, but reduces the value of independently published content.

[Steve Rubel]

Wayan, here's another thought - Google could turn this into a Techmeme-like product that shows you official comments and in-bound blog links. They have all the assets.

[Michael Tangeman @ Media Mindshare]

Steve, very interesting information and I hope people pick up on the significance of this. First, it gives an interactive, social component to a news aggregator -- not a combo aggregator/ranking system, that lets readers choose, but still a step toward social media on the Google news site.

Second, it introduces an editorial gatekeeper function, not as in a "news desk editor" but more like an op-ed page editor, or subeditor who filters the "letters to the editor" and determines the legitimacy or suitability of those that will actually appear.

I've long felt that the blogosphere and social media will "order" itself with certain standards of participation and behavioral norms, much the same way that the early political pamphleteers evolved into the mainstream journalism that we're all familiar with. For those who are interested, it's something that Nicholas Lemann explored in his somewhat condescending essay in the New Yorker last year, "The Amateur Hour" (tinyurl.com/2a2axe).

The recent discussion around the need for a blogging "code of ethics" is one indication that this kind of evolution is underway. Now, the introduction of a "gatekeeper" function for virtual "letters to the editor," i.e. comments, at the online news site of one of the standard bearers for the new media is, I think, another.

[Steve Rubel]

I am thinking about this more and see even more risk as I ponder.

Let's take this scenario. Say there's a story about you and you object to your characterization. So you go to Google News to elaborate and explain what transpired between you and the journalist (in your view). Google then obliges and posts your comment.

Now as far as I understand it, the journalist has no way to respond back? Cmon. They should open this up yet ID all the players involved. The site is too high profile not to.

[Tish Grier]

Unless Google anties up and spends some money on people to go over their comments, the chance of them allowing anyone to comment is moot. The whole problem with reader comments to news stories is a lack of money for good moderation (in some cases, it's also the back-end stuff, but the fact remains that not everything can be moderated by machines.)

Now, additional comments form sources within the articles might be nice, but they're still going to have to veryify (or restrict how comments are posted) or risk some astroturfing and sock puppetry.

[Doug Haslam]

Will the original sources of the article -- the news sites/magazines/blogs-- be concerned that conversation is being taken off their site? Some will, especially the blogs. Others won't but perhaps they should.

[francine hardaway]

I think the issue will be the intellectual property of the original sources. How will the writers of the original stories follow them to be able to answer back? What alert or notification system is there that someone has commented on them in Google news?

And this does directly compete with TechMeme. Will they separate it into categories? Then it will compete with TechMeme, and with all other aggregators of vertical news.

Fascinating news to wake up to. Thanks for tellling me

[Eoin Purcell]

Steve,

Doesn't it also remove some of Google's defence that it is driving traffic to media sites?

Surely comments is a method of making Google News Stickier and keeping attention on their pages rather than the pages of the content owner!

Eoin

[Amanda Money]

Steve, I completely agree with the points you make on this, especially "A better way to manage this might be to have a system that lets everyone comment, yet also delineates those from official sources that are mentioned in a particular story."

I have appreciated seeing how on blogs such as yours, TechCrunch and Mashable that allow open commenting, the community of readers acts as open editors to defend valid points or call-out invalid, off-the-wall points made by other readers. Blog editors regularly post their reaction to comments but whether they agree or disagree with them, the comments stay live on the page. This builds the community interaction and builds trust with the readers that not only is their opinion valued on the site but that top editors actually read and react to what they are saying. This encourages much more longterm engagement.

It is interesting that Google may make the cost of engagement so high (having to send an email and wait for editorial review) for readers that it's no longer worth the effort.

An implication I see this semi-closed commenting system having is that we as PR practitioners may lose thought-provoking insight from readers whose comments are lost in editorial review or who shy away from going through the entire process to voice their opinion.

[Rex Hammock]

Gee. And I thought Google was going to slow down their hiring binge. How many people will it take to handle this? Also, as much as I'd like to think Google is doing this because "they get it," I think there may be some effort here to shield themselves from liability issues. If they give a person who is quoted the ability to respond, they may be able to reduce the overhead of constantly responding to take-down notices or nuisance lawsuits. Perhaps its cheaper to have interns monitor comments than paralegals monitor take-down requests.

[William Morris]

I'm looking forward to the reactions from the reporters and editors whose product is aggregated on Google News.

I also wonder who in my field -- higher education pr -- would use this. Most institutions I am familiar with shy away from any online communications method that they can't control. Post a statement on a university Web site? Sure. Enter the fray of conversation? Not so much. The fact that this is more controlled is going to be tempting for some folks, though.

[Amanda Mooney]

Willam,
Really interesting point. Perhaps this will encourage more institutions and corporations to engage in online conversation if there is at least some level of editorial review.

[Simon Taylor]

RE: Can a PR agency comment on a source's behalf?

Google News is not just posting commment from sources quoted in the article, they are also accepting comment from people they deem as 'experts', ie third parties - that's the open door to PR agencies, third party endorsers and industry commentators.

From Google News Help: "The story may be about you or your organization, you may be quoted, or we may have determined that you are an expert in the topic of the story."

[marshal sandler]

Math Minded Google is really very word minded ! Their efforts to create content in a managed form
have been very successful ! This latest effort has the look of a very sophisitcated test !
Thanks to Mr Rubel for monitoring the NEW MEDIA! As long as we get it is good ! How they do it
is with plain dam hard work and Thought ! The real mystery is they choose to embrace the Math we
tend to ignore in the process of binding time ! We should all than Alfred Korsibski who created the science of General Semantics ! I am sure the Googlers have read him !

[Munir Umrani]

Steve,

While your question "can a PR agency comment on a source's behalf (assuming they represent them) and if so how is our affiliation verified?" is valid, this is an example of where a PR firm should let the client speak in his or her own voice. I know shaping a client's response is part of PR's job; why not just take a chance that the client, if educated about his or her product, organization or mission, can adequately defend it or clarify erroneous information, if necessary.

[Munir Umrani]

Steve,

While your question "can a PR agency comment on a source's behalf (assuming they represent them) and if so how is our affiliation verified?" is valid, this is an example of where a PR firm should let the client speak in his or her own voice. I know shaping a client's response is part of PR's job; why not just take a chance that the client, if educated about his or her product, organization or mission, can adequately defend it or clarify erroneous information, if necessary.

[Danny Sullivan]

Steve, reporters are free to comment on stories. I'll have a follow-up about this shortly. I'm sure PR people can speak too, but I'll follow-up on that.

Determining what makes "an expert in the topic of the story" (Google News Help) requires a subjective decision. Who makes that decision at Google News and what criteria are they using?

How long before a PR agency pitches a client to Google News as an expert... and has it happened already?

[kob]

Controversial is right. Where is the editorial justification for this? What need is being filled? What problem is addressed?

Two questions immediately come to mind: If Google is checking to determine whether the writer has been mentioned in a story, isn't Google taking editorial responsibility for their comment as well? Will Google icur obligation to correct errors, false claims and distortions?

[Wayan]

Thinking more about this and reading other's comments, I am growing very uncomfortable with Google allowing "an expert in the topic of the story" to comment. I see new stories on controversial topics, and any product related story, becoming bombarded with conflicting opinions and questionable facts that no Google staffer will have the ability to referee.

That is unless Google buys the NYT staff to police Google News. Hmm... now that's an interesting thought... Google New Times!

[Ethan Wiener]

Have your users readers check this out:
BigString (http://www.bigstring.com), the new free webmail program, offers revolutionary features. When you send mail from your BigString account, you are protected.
Privacy: BigString is like an automatic shredder for your email. You can self-destruct or change an email that's already been sent or read. Don't leave your messages sitting in peoples' inbox forever. Get a free BigString email account to protect your privacy.
Control: BigString's exclusive, patent-pending technology enables you to prevent your personal or business information from lingering indefinitely in someone else's inbox. It also restricts private pictures or messages from being indiscriminately spread throughout cyberspace! Now your sensitive photos can't be posted to unseemly web sites or printed for circulation amongst total strangers.
Take it Back: With BigString email, you can reword a message fired off in anger or haste or completely delete it! You can recall a botched résumé for revision or erase a tasteless

[Mike]

Continuing in kob's live of reasoning:

Now does Google become legally obliged to reveal sources, at least through IP addresses and such? Thinking of the Valerie Plame and Pentagon papers issues with shield laws.

Also, does Google become responsible for defamation and slander? Traditional news outlets are covered, as may be blogs according to some recent hews, but is this a blog or a new-traditional news outlet or is something else happening here?

Legal obligation, and then ownership and copyright problems seems to be vastly open for new judgments here. I hope free speech and Google are sufficiently protected, which may be a pipe dream in the current environment.

[Vera]

Lots of good issues addressed in the comments here.
The issue that concerns me the most is the selective authorization of comments. Somehow that doesn't sound as though it's going to be a transparent process.

Vera

[Bill Hobbs]

A risk for Google: If a story subject posts a comment alleging libel/defamation and Google then doesn't remove the story, could it later be sued as a co-defendant in a libel/defamation suit against the original publisher of the story?

Still, I'm intrigued at the concept.

[Tom O'Leary]

Can't seem to get trackbacks working for this blog. My thoughts below:

Google News Solicits Views
http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=1080

All the best

Tom

[Paul]

Agreed. Should be open to all. Power to the people!

[Bruce]

Thinking about Wayan's comment more, this really does turn google into an actual media outlet of sorts. I am not so sure I like that.

[Wayan]

Looking at my Google Newe hits http://news.google.com/news?q=%22wayan+vota%22 I do not see anything I need to correct just yet, but I know there are others that strongly disagree with my views. How would I know if my quote or story is contradicted by a Google News comment?

Will Google alert me if someone wants to comment on an article I am quoted in? Or wrote? Will there be some type of RSS feed of posted comments/commenters? And what input (if any) would I have on the comment approval process?

And last but not least, don't we already have a good news commenting process? I call it "blogging"...

[kob]

What's really curious is that Google's announcement was written by two software engineers. The engineers didn't explain why they were doing this. It's as if the all powerful Google has enlisted some of its scribes to read its latest edict to the assembled masses.

This is like two scientist announcing that they've decided to clone humans. The only explanation they give for doing so is simply this: because we can.

I find a cold chill in Google's announcement. It comes from its impersonal and distant tone and but most importantly its failure to explain to its audience why there is a need for this.

If Google's move take readers away from content generators how is that different from a tax imposed by a king of old?

[William Morris]

In my previous position, I did a lot of work with faculty experts. This was a large, urban, liberal institution. As I consider how the general public might react to the comments of these experts, I become more worried but that worry has at the edges of it a glimmer of hope.

The hope is that if this catches on, it will cause citizens to be have even greater awareness of the voices that appear in the media. That it will cause people to think about who is commenting (and what their affiliations are), the motives they might have for commenting and what discourse methods/tactics are used by the source in the comment.

My worry is that this will accelerate the erosion of the value of genuine expertise in the public sphere. Yes, it's important to understand that academics have motives and that not all of those are pure. On the other hand, some academics (and experts affiliated with other credible institutions) are actually careful to speak from experience and research and are civil and circumspect in what they say; some are not. And sometimes those who are and those who aren't are at the same higher education institution, nonprofit organization or think tank.

Yes, one of the great things about blogging is that those who have expertise on a subject but don't have PR folks out there getting them into the media can get their messages out. On the other hand, there is something to be said for an expert who has the time and resources to really study an issue and have the training to present commentary on his or her area of expertise well.

I think what this all means for PR practitioners is that we will need to really protect the experts we pitch and be strategic about which inquiries we respond to. That's always been the case, but the proliferation of conversations (print and online journalism, network and cable news and talk shows, blogs, Google news, public speaking opportunities, etc.) means that protecting the exposure levels and credibility of an expert becomes more interesting.

[David S. Evans]

Sounds like one way to add value to the content Google is getting from publishers and, I guess, provide advertising opportunities for Google. Since Google News is free to publishers and drives traffic and revenue to their ads Google must have some strategy up its sleeve to get advertising revenue from this site. Perhaps this is a start. I have a bit more on this on my book blog at Catalyst Code. Thoughts here or there on how Google plans to make money from this Google News would be appreciated.