latimes.com still has head up butt re: the internets

The stupid Times editorial:

>>>
It's not journalism
Google's latest effort highlights the difference between what it does and what newspapers and magazines do.

August 17, 2007

Many publishers consider the Internet, and Google in particular, a greater threat to their livelihoods than Osama bin Laden.

Among those who have taken particular offense at Google are some current and aspiring newspaper publishers, including Sam Zell (who's in the process of buying Tribune Co., owner of the Los Angeles Times), who once famously asked, "If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?"

continued @

the Times


And a great point by point rebuttal of the Times' paranoid ignorance:

>>>>

The L.A. Times tells its readers: 'Shut up'

Commentary: A Times editorial attacks the concept of reader comments on news stories, declaring Google a greater threat "than Osama bin Laden."

By Robert Niles
Posted: 2007-08-17

The Los Angeles Times this morning insulted its readers in a stunning editorial that compared Google with Osama bin Laden and showed why Times editors simply do not understand the medium that is growing to dominate the news publishing industry. A point by point rebuttal follows:

Many publishers consider the Internet, and Google in particular, a greater threat to their livelihoods than Osama bin Laden.

Who are these publishers, exactly? The Times' David Hiller? Ignore the straw man here and the reader is still left with The Times' belief that a search engine company which has helped millions of people around the world more effectively find the information they need, and that has paid publishers billions of dollars to create original content (full disclosure: including OJR and me, personally) is a greater threat to journalism and Western capitalism than a murderer who killed 3,000
Americans on 9/11.

Wow.

After The Times lit its credibility on fire with that statement, one shouldn't need to dissect the rest of its ridiculous editorial.

But I will. ;-)

more @

Online Journalism Review