Google CEO Schmidt practices the art of stonewalling

It's been a busy week in the tech world, but the newsroom highlight of the week had more to do with what was not said. Our own Elinor Mills was dispatched on short notice from San Francisco to Orlando, Fla., to interview Google CEO Eric Schmidt. He was in the land of Mickey Mouse East to tout Google Health initiatives, which hold promise for advancing the cause of improved health care.

(Credit: Elinor Mills)

Elinor came ready to discuss Google Health with Schmidt, as well as other topics, such as what's up with the paid click ad business, the economy, YouTube, and of course, the proposed Microsoft-Yahoo union.

A few minutes before the interview, she was told by a Google spokesman that Schmidt would only answer questions about Google Health.

He certainly has the right to refuse to take questions, but it's unclear what led him to stonewall. Schmidt doesn't seem like a CEO who is afraid to go toe to toe with the press. Perhaps he wanted to make sure the message got out on Google Health, but Elinor had already heard all the details at the Orlando presentation and press conference.

In any case, the context of the event shouldn't exclude Schmidt from responding to the basic questions on the minds of Google watchers, reporters, bloggers, investors, and employees. He is practiced enough in the art of interviewing to evade any question that he doesn't want to answer directly.

He even declined to respond to a question about how Microsoft's health care platform HealthVault differs from Google Health.

The notions of transparency, conversation, and openness are part of the Web culture. Google is the "Do No Evil" company. Speaking to the press without putting restrictions on what can be asked (outside of regulatory prohibitions) is "good." We aren't talking about disclosing state secrets, just responding to what are largely anticipated queries.

You have to wonder what drives such behavior. Is it arrogance or just a bit of control freakishness? Whatever, it comes off as Putinesque, which I doubt is what Google PR or Schmidt intended.

Read Elinor's account of her brief and mostly unfruitful trip Orlando.
See also: News.com editor Jim Kerstetter has some questions for Google and Schmidt.

Dan,
Ho long did you think it would take Goog to become as regal as Apple or (as Siebel was0 in its approach to letting the press ask Eric, Larry or Sergei questions?
My experience Google PR was always over bearing in its control of questions.
I think it's time reporters began getting tough with GooG execs and started asking difficult questions in settings where the execs can't flee. or be controlled by hyper vigilant PR people,
That's an approach that always worked for me.
Good piece Dan and congrats on the well-deserved and long overdue promotion.
Best,
Jim Forbes

[dfarber]

Thx Jim...my take is if you are going to make people available for interview, then let the press ask the questions.Otherwise keep them out of the line of fire. Trouble is there are time when they want publicity. Apple brings out Jobs when they need a magazine cover or he has a major announcement and speaks to a few chosen press friends.
DF

[trench-coat]

Don't look for the promotion to last long.

Your "article" might be slightly better written than Elinor's but it's still the same dead horse... just different packaging.

Putinesque?

Please.

I really hope everybody that reads this actually reads Elinor's piece... it definitely provides insight into why anybody would be quick to say to say to her: "Please, please... just stop... please... and get out... please... for the love of god... please?"

Mayhap she used too many emoticons during the "interview".

: (

[trench-coat]

Seems we could all use a writing lesson or two... the writing and/or proofreading in these comments is just as poor as the writing and/or proofreading in the article.

Yes, I'm even including my own comment in my critique.

From your article: "In any case, the context of the event shouldn't exclude Schmidt from responding to the basic questions that are [on?] the minds of Google watchers, reporters, bloggers, investors and employees."

Mm.

Perhaps the question isn't "Why is Schmidt stonewalling the press?", but rather: "Are we actually qualified to call ourselves 'the press'?"

Quality writing: we *all* need a bit more if we want to claim credentials, eh?

[trench-coat]

... and, further, consider not using brackets (proper journalistic/writing practice) for HTML embeds in comment sections.

But I digress....

[dwillliam]

Dan, your article and other Cnet person's article is the same lame ranting. Just because you didn't get the scoop due to Schmidt's flakiness doesn't mean you should waste digital space (twice). get over it.

for disclosure, I'm not a Google fan but I am an advocate for good journalism. this was weeeeaaaaak.

respectfully submitted.

[dfarber]

dwilliam,
We thought it was newsworthy to tell this story...and it wasn't a matter of getting a scoop. It was being able to ask questions, to have a conversation. If we had know that Schmidt wasn't going to answer questions outside of Google Health, we would have spent time working on other things.
DF

[avlhostel]

Huh? Why whould he be talking about other companies? I don't get your point.

[falkensmaze]

the point is not about what he wants to talk about, but why is he making a point of NOT talking about some companies you misread the article. If someone calls an press conference they its common courtesy to respond to all questions unless you have something to hide ...or FEAR

[avlhostel]

could you have a worse backdrop for that photo?

[vanillacokehead]

This reminds me of a press conference Madonna had a few months ago when her handlers told reporters beforehand that they had to memorize their questions and maintain eye contact with her at all times. I hope this isn't the beginning of an attitude of arrogance from Google and its brass and PR people.

[mkrigsman]

The IT Project Failures definition of corporate arrogance: forcing a reporter to fly across country for a brief interview instead of just letting her drive across town.

Michael Krigsman
http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures

[LuckyUser2]

Background on a photo unsatisfactory, it is unequivocal_

[swagnag]

dan, 2 things: 1) if the media ignored king eric and googledom then google would be begging the media to pay attention. so let google initiatives be ignored. google hasn't done anything worthwhile since the original search pagerank notion -- and yet how many cnetters reported on google base, google this and google that like they were actual businesses or even notable technologies?

2) reporters need to ask questions on point. endless questions about anything can be annoying. there's no 4th amendment right to ask anyone questions.

[keeef091]

Dr. Eric Schmidt has very many mafia friends, some of whom produce p_rn, even child p_rn from captive women and children, which is how Google got sued for profiteering from deliberatly promoted child p_rnography & why they withheld the identities of child p_rn distributors from police. http://endmafia.com