I know it sounds like one of Larry's post titles, but I was struck by this article about news outlets buying ad space on google and yahoo for searches about the Virginia Tech shooting. I was going to post about the number of flagpoles I saw this week at full mast, but this takes it one step further.
Read the whole article here, but here are the last 2 paragraphs:
One potential problem for news organizations is that keyword ads "can also leave you looking crass -- that you're tapping in for a business purpose on a tragedy," said Danny Sullivan, editor of the SearchEngineLand.com newsletter. "It could make some people's eyebrows go up ... 'Did you have to go after that particular term?"'
But Sullivan added that if news sites have "substantial information" to share about a search term -- even if that information is, after all, a commercial product -- "I would err on their side of that -- that it's not so bad."
Is it really not so bad? Is this any different than what news stations or even newspapers have done for years, putting together flashy logos to depict human tragedy? Is it more sinister because it involves considering what search terms people will use in order to sell your advertising? And who is making the decisions to do this? Is it the NY Times or CNN or is it Proctor & Gamble and IBM who are buying ad space both in TV land and in cyberspace? How cold have we become as a nation that we're willing to sell human tragedy and call it "not so bad?"
PLEASE NOTE: The Gunshot Google image at the top of this post is not actually from Google. I created it to drive home the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment