Many publishers consider the Internet, and Google in particular, a greater threat to their livelihoods than Osama bin Laden. — It’s not journalism – Los Angeles Times

A greater threat than Osama bin Laden. But in the very next paragraph it says that Google News, without running any ads themselves, links to stories that “prompt people to spend more time on the news media’s sites, potentially increasing their ad sales.” That’s worse than killing thousands of people? Am I missing something?

The editorial goes on but to me it just sounds like the Times is whining. They’re afraid they’re going to be held to a higher standard now and will have to work harder because Google has just made it easier for people to call them on their bullshit.

Here’s a point by point rebuttal by Robert Niles of the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review.

Second, on Wednesday (August 1 2007), a bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. The latest report I’ve read says that at least five people are confirmed dead. The Minneapolis bridge collapse is tragic and I have great sympathy for the victims and their families.

Do you see where this is going?

Since Wednesday, I’ve received emails from people saying that the poster on the BigHugeLabs home page is “inappropriate” and “crass” and that it should be changed. My gut reaction to the initial emails was to ignore them. The poster obviously had nothing at all to do with the bridge collapse. I suppose some people might have seen it and drawn the incorrect conclusion that I’m making some kind of joke about Minneapolis (one of the emailers explicitly stated that he knew it was a coincidence). I don’t think that bothers me.

What does bother me—and troubles me deeply—is the apparent expectation that no one should do anything that might potentially offend someone; and if some circumstance arises that gives new, unintended meaning to something previously innocuous then that previously harmless thing is now somehow “bad.”

Now, I don’t think that people, in general, should go around trying to offend others. I’m not intentionally rude to anyone. I don’t cut in line. I hold the door. But I also don’t worry about how every single thing I say and do may offend someone. If I did I wouldn’t be able to function. I own three vehicles, I buy things made in China, I’m half Korean, and my eyes are brown—all things that I’m 100% positive offend lots of people.

The safe thing to do—the fashionable thing—would be to fall all over myself changing the poster to something appropriate and to issue a public apology about not intending to offend anyone. Political correctness is completely out of control in this country. For better or worse, my position is that the poster did not nor does it currently have anything to do with Minneapolis and any offense taken is completely in the mind of the offended. Furthermore, I still think the original poster is funny and the bridge disaster is tragic at the same time.

That said, I’m a pragmatist. I have better things to do than delete emails accusing me of being insensitive over a stupid motivational poster. So I changed the caption to make the emails stop. It now reads “Kids on board.” As safe and bland a caption as I could think of while still being mildly amusing.

Am I wrong/insensitive? Is the lack of intent (to offend) less important than the perception? Did the bridge disaster actually transform the image, making it inappropriate, or is any inappropriateness completely in the eye of the beholder? Does that even matter? How does changing the image protect anyone? How can I be sure that what I changed it to doesn’t offend anyone? If it offends someone in the future, have I actually done any good at all? And can anyone explain rationally why the image is inappropriate now but wasn’t 72 hours ago without simply appealing to an emotional response?

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know what you think.