5 ms·
This is an interesting fact but I can't draw any conclusions from it without context, and neither can the author. It's only meaningful in relation to how often
by mwfunk 12y ago
This is an interesting fact but I can't draw any conclusions from it without context, and neither can the author. It's only meaningful in relation to how often other individuals or groups meet with the president.
There needs to be a name for this kind of thing, where two facts are stated but the whole point of the article is an unspoken accusation implied by those two facts.
#1: Google met with Obama a lot, #2: Google has faced a lot of regulatory scrutiny over the last few years. #3: ?
Obviously the implication is that Google and or the president were engaged in some sort of shady shenanigans, but the article never really comes out and says it. It's more like it just dumps some facts out there without context, shrugs its shoulders, and says, "could be coincidence...OR IS IT?!?".
I guess it counts as FUD but I associate that term with marketing. There must be a journalism-specific term for it.
- drussell 12y agoIt looks an awful lot like paying the piper. But I agree that it's not good form to draw conclusions without context.
- brighteyes 12y agoThe context is given later in the article - the amount of meetings rose around the time of the FTC investigation into a possible lawsuit against Google. And that lawsuit was eventually dismissed. Google spends the most on lobbying in Washington these days, more than any other company. It's true that it's hard to draw a direct line between money spent on lobbying and results, or on number of meetings in the white house and results. But it is still worth reporting on. The amount of money that large corporations spend on politics, and the amount of influence they have, is very large in the US. And Google is now at the forefront there. That's important for the public to know.
- Kalium 12y ago> I guess it counts as FUD but I associate that term with marketing. There must be a journalism-specific term for it. Lazy journalism?
- magicalist 12y agoThe original WSJ article (just search for "Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House") is even more ridiculous with this. It lists a bunch of meetings that coincided with significant events in the FTC investigation, underlining a supposed connection between the two, then proceeds to mention the fact that the logs for each of these meetings (and sources that were in the meetings) say they had nothing to do with the FTC investigation (and involved people that couldn't influence the FTC investigation) and did have a lot to do with other things going on at the time, changes in STEM, patent reform, healthcare.gov, etc.
- dragonwriter 12y agoIts appropriate to use a marketing term, since it is political marketing.
- stouset 12y agoCould call it "beckening".