Work in Progress, Worklife, Workplace, TIME

Google yourself to uncover the lies

This weekend, The New York Times' ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, wrote his column about how the Internet age is screwing the subjects of erroneous or misleading articles. He writes:

A business strategy of The New York Times to get its articles to pop up first in Internet searches is creating a perplexing problem: long-buried information about people that is wrong, outdated or incomplete is getting unwelcome new life.

He cites the case of a New York City human resources official whose resignation amid an unrelated case of fraud--fraud he had helped uncover, in fact--made it appear in news reports that his leaving had to do with the fraud. Today, he worries clients who Google his name continue to receive that impression, as the Times article reporting this misimpression is the first to come up in such a search.

Even as a journalist--or maybe especially so--this strikes me as particularly heinous. Wrong information is related about you in a news article, so thousands, maybe even millions, of readers form a skewed impression of you. Then, because the media outlet has the money and man power to make use of search optimization tools, that erroroneous article continues to pop up in perpetuity on the Internet. Among other the victims of this double trauma, according to Hoyt:

A person arrested years ago on charges of fondling a child said the accusation was false and the charges were dropped. The Times reported the arrest but not the disposition of the case. A woman said her wedding announcement 20 years ago gave the incorrect university from which she graduated. She is afraid prospective employers who Google her will suspect résumé inflation. A woman quoted years ago in an article about weight loss said, tearfully, that she never was a size 16, as the article stated. The husband of a school administrator in the Midwest complained that a news brief reporting her suspension was published after officials had already publicly said she did nothing wrong.

Sure, it hurts that family or friends might think you're fatter than you are. But to me a graver injustice awaits job seekers or business people who have been falsely portrayed in a news piece. That woman whose alma mater was wrongly reported rightly worries: many employers Google candidates before they hire, scouring Facebook and MySpace for clues on character. And you're not safe just because you're on staff; we all know how snoopy bosses have gotten lately.

So Google yourself--not just if you're job surfing, but with regularity. And what do you do if an old community announcement pops up telling the world you came in second at the all-state high-school debates--when you came in first, dammit, first? Hoyt's article offers a clue. Media outlets are "stumped" about how to deal with this issue; it's "impossible" to re-report every old article containing an alleged error. But they've taken a first step,

correcting even very old errors when a person can offer proof, like a university diploma in the case of the erroneous wedding announcement.

What he's saying is that it's incumbent upon the wronged to correct the wrong--until they think of something better. That's good advice, regardless. Yes, we media types have to take even greater care about the accuracy of our reporting in this age when news lasts forever. But mistakes will get made. We're all the managers of our own brands now. It's up to us to keep it shiny.

So start digging for that debate trophy.

(Google yourself and tell me: what comes up first? Me: TIME comes up only third; I guess my big media boss's search optimization tools have a few kinks...)

POST-SCRIPT: Blogger Jason Sperber of RiceDaddies sends in this article, by Poynter Institute scribe Fons Tuinstra titled "The Power of a Blog"--it's exactly what I mean.

| Sphere Related Blogs & Articles |

Reader Comments (12)

You can forget about trying to correct your name on the internet.

It is so easy for someone to make your name bad on the internet. I could easily take some pictures of Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, make a derogatory myspace profile, use her name on blogs and say outrageous things, post a lewd video on youtube and use her name as a tag, and voila, Lisa's name is mud. Even if a few websites remove the untrue material, some websites will not remove the info. There could be a digital footprint of lies for eons.

Employers who use the internet to check on people had better not let this info become public. A Google reference check is a very bad idea. If erroneous info is used from an internet search to bar someone from employment, the victim could likely sue and win a big settlement. If this is not already happening, it will happen soon. Employers need to only check verifiable and official sources for information on a person.

This type of internet detective work is a fool's game. I know some employers will do it, but most fortune 500 companies will not resort to such juvenile and random ways of getting info on a person.

David Jones:

There's a point there, above mine. In addition, my name (First, last, middle), all three are individually in the top 10 most common names in the U.S. My online presence is devoid of my name. It would take more than a simple name search. Perhaps email address, or homepage.

Gerry:

The only thing that comes up when I Google myself is my comic strip. And it comes up third, after two hits from a landscape architect who spells his name with a J. I guess I'm safe.

Hello Lisa,

Quite an interesting post. This is one great way of finding just about anything on the internet as you may already know.

I guess you've made many people question themselves.
Created an awareness as to "be careful you never know who's watching".

Great way...

Best Regards,

Sajjid Manuel
Founder/Ceo
Frost & Fable Records Private Limited

Tormento:

First of all, since when does it matter whether the info is true or false? I may have done something I am not proud of in my past, but since when does that give some enemy of mine the right to make it the world's business, limit my opportunities in love and business, and deny me any chance of redemption. Yet we act like we can say whatever we want as long as it turns out to be true.

Unfortunately, it's those of us with uncommon names that really suffer. If you wanted to slander someone whose first + last (or even first + middle + last) name is a one-of-a-kind, it's easy. Just put their name in the subject line of a message in Usenet (Google Groups is one brand of Usenet). Bang! The message is archived by hundreds of web sites that repost to the web, and this sheer number guarantees the message will appear in the top five results of a search on your name. But if your name is John Smith, you are virtually slander-proof.

We kind of rushed into this whole Internet thing without first exploring all its ramifications, and the result is a Wild West. There are regs we could put in place that limited what search engine companies like Google could do, but instead federal laws in the mid-90s granted these companies immunity. Now Google makes $1 BILL a quarter and has the resources to scan every page in many libraries, and yet it claims it does not have the resources to manage the effects of its own product. Since anonymous pranksters and character assassins play directly to Google, companies like Google need to reigned in. And it could be done without turning a nation of voyeurs and free-speakers into China. Honestly, we don't have this kind of freedom in the flesh-and-blood world, do we ... where we are limited by the natural constraints of space and time and where I could shout "Lisa Cullen is a blankety blank" and yet only the garbage men and a few kids on big wheels would hear me. And even if I published it in a newspaper (that is, before news papers web-ified their content), it had a shelf life and limited circulation.

We have all thrown up our hands and acknowledged that, well, we better just get used to this new world. But we don't have to give it up without a fight.

"We have all thrown up our hands and acknowledged that, well, we better just get used to this new world. But we don't have to give it up without a fight."

Why fight if you are going to lose anyway? Conceding defeat early in the game allows you to get over the loss and conform to the changes early. The earlier you conform, the earlier you can find loopholes in the new system.

Tormento:

Oh, sure. We may lose in the sense that we will never achieve the legislative changes we want, and even if we did, some judge would deem the changes unconstitutional; however, that being said, the process of demanding change and expressing disenchantment with the status quo will generate a lot of press for a perspective, and that perspective may win enough popular support so that, in the end, even though we CAN use Google to spy on -- and then report on --someone's life, we don't, or we don't lend credence or backing to those who do. As someone else mentioned, employers may not engage in the practice of using Google to vet applicants simply because they have learned to accept it as amateurish, unfair, and potentially misleading.

And it'll take time. It took how many decades after the public realized cigarettes were detrimental to health that laws restricting smoking bans were actually put in place. Now the culture has shifted in such a way that smokers are no longer cool and, more than that, that smokers are pariahs, responsible for increases in health insurance premiums and even responsible for the health of non-smokers via second hand smoke. I think a few decades down the road the same will be true of behaviors related to Internet search. Sure, Google will allow you to search on IP addresses to track other's activities and allow you to vandalize the front page of the results of a search on your enemy's name (much the same way you can still purchase a cigarette), but Google will be regarded as a necessary evil rather than a Godsend, and people who abuse it will do so knowing that if they were ever exposed, they would suffer just as much indignity as those they defame.

Tormento, no one wants to wait decades for change to come.

What person wants to spend half of his/her life fighting a fight that should have been won a long time ago? Giving in provides a way to find ways to get around the system. Fighting for change on a constant basis only wears you down. You stay blinded to other opportunities when you fight and fight and fight.

Tormento:

Hmm. I'm intrigued. Tell me more about these "other opportunities."

QUOTES OF THE DAY>>"As the English say,I would like to leave the party when is still full."President George Walker Bush:"Make sure you don't allow anybody to threatening the whole World."Ex-president Obasanjo Replied:"I will be so sure."I God-sent caught the glimpse of president Bush on NTA Nigeria TELEVISION.GOD THAT BASKETS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE HAS SENT ME AS THE ANGEL OF GOD PASSED THE MESSAGE ACCROSS:"GOD THAT BASKETS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE HAS SENT SOMEBODY."LATER MY NAME WAS MENTIONED THROUGH THE SPIRITUAL REALM AS BODE IN NIGERIA.THE ANGEL SENT SEEING THROUGH ALL THAT WAS GOING ON AND THE CRASS DIOBEDIENCE OF THE WORLD AND PEOPLE IN SPACE,LAMENTED"ABSOLUTELY SORRY AND YOU ARE WELL INFORMED."-ETERNITY CONCLUSION.

Dee:

A foster child I had for 8 years that had a history of telling lies on me was able to spread horrible lies once I gave up guardianship - to the point she now has my family and myself being ganged stalked. The goal of these people are to make me loose my job, make me look insane (because honestly, how many people are followed by lots of people, followed into stores, basically pushed down isles, trying to make me react or say something. They drive by my job, follow me to work, follow me home, crowd me on the road to prevent from changing lanes, will actually put their car in reverse at lights to make it look like I hit them. Somehow she had to solicit people - power of the internet.

Post a comment


About Work In Progress

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen
Nina Subin

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen is a staff writer for TIME. She blogs about work. Why? Because TV was taken. Think of her as the grumpy colleague ranting by the water cooler.
More about the Author

Email her here:
lisa_cullen at timemagazine.com

 RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button

Daily Email

Get Work in Progress in your inbox and never miss a day:
 
Delivered by   FeedBurner

advertisement

Work In Progress Archives

October 2008
Choose a day to view events.

<< Previous Months

      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31