Google editorial

Following the Australian government’s proposal over the new media code with Big Tech
companies, several responses have been incited concerning the outcomes of such a legislation.
Sydney Morning Herald’s (SMH) editorial, ‘Google is acting the bully in the fight over new media
code’ (January 26th, 2021) employs a strident tone to attempt to persuade fearful readership of the
need to stop Big Tech companies’ abuse of power. In stark contrast, Christopher Warren’s ‘Could
small businesses survive a Google-less Australia?’ (Crikey, January 25, 2021) adopts an aggressive
tone, aiming to convince his Australian readership that without Google, Australian businesses are
at risk. Furthermore, Mercury News’ assertive cartoon depicts an elephant in a fox costume,
utilizing irony to highlight Fox News’ hypocrisy in the new media code.

The SMH argues that Google should not issue threats towards the Australian government. The
SMH opens the article with an evaluative tone which explains the situation the Australian
government is facing to the unknowing audience, laying the foundation later for a subtle switch to
an aggressive tone. Shortly afterwards, the SMH appears to be supporting the new media code by
citing that the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) had issued a
recommendation after having launched an inquiry which found that Big Tech companies “were
abusing their dominant positions and stealing revenue from media companies that report on
issues vital to democracy.” By mentioning the ACCC and the words “vital to democracy”, the SMH
not only aims to make the proposal professionally supported to the reader, thus making them
more inclined to accept the new proposal, but also appeals to the reader’s sense of insecurity
since their democracy may be at threat if Big Tech companies continue stealing revenue from
media outlets. Ensuring that this idea is built upon, the SMH recounts that Google had “raised the
possibility [of blocking] all Australians from using its ubiquitous search engine.” By describing
Google as “ubiquitous,” this builds upon the idea that Australians could soon be cut off from the
rest of the world and further engenders fear and appeals to the Australian readership’s sense of
insecurity as this could set a precedent for the rest of the Big Tech companies to leave too.
Furthermore, the SMH reveal that Google had already “been blocking Australian news websites
including the [SMH] as an experiment,” accentuating the fact that Google had already been
abusing their powers and intimating the idea that it could precedent mass censorship in the
future, consolidating the fear already instilled within the reader. This not only attempts to
persuade the reader that Google should not be unfair in their conduct through logical reasoning,
but also appeals to the reader’s sense of justice as Australian media outlets are being mistreated.
Exploiting this fear, the SMH then attempts to rally the reader into a call for action by stating that
“if there is one thing Australians do not like it is a bully,” as well as the treasurer’s personal
thoughts and solutions to the problem, engendering patriotism and confidence within the reader
to feel that they should fight back against Big Tech, and that it is unjust for them to issue threats.

In contrast, Warren argues that a ‘Google-less’ Australia would detriment local businesses. Warren
starts the paragraph with an attacking tone, using negative connotation to disparage the
Australian government’s response as “hurried,” intimating that Scott Morrison had acted out of
anger with the use of the word “huffed,” and softening the attack from Google as a “supposed
threat to Democracy.” By doing this, Warren immediately establishes that Google is the victim in
Google editorial

this situation, and that the Australian government has given an impulsive, emotional response.
Warren furthers this idea by stating in a short sentence, “Morrison [is] wrong as a matter of law,”
and raises concerns that his actions could “breach the Australia-US free trade agreement.” By
structuring these sentences in succession, the short sentence used not only makes Warren’s
argument sound more confident, but also builds upon the idea that the government is acting
unlawfully, evidence alongside the possibility of the violation in the trade agreement. Shortly
afterwards, Warren uses dichotomy, a division between two things that are represented as
opposing, by glorifying Google as having provided “$39 billion of value to Australian businesses,
with 60% of it to small and medium businesses,” using statistics to persuade the reader that
Google is a vital component of the Australian economy. Furthermore, Warren deliberately writes
in that the report was funded by Google, though immediately afterwards contradicts the reader’s
thoughts of “they would say that, wouldn’t they?” by summarizing that regardless of who funded
the report, the bottom line is that Google has “provided greater and cheaper advertising
opportunities for small businesses,” consolidating the idea that without Google, small businesses
may not be successful, positioning the reader to fear what would happen to these businesses if
Australian’s were banned from using it.

With similar ties to Warren’s article, The Mercury News’ (TMN) cartoon criticizes the US’
Republican party for its hypocrisy in accusing Google search of being unfair. TMN depicts the GOP
as an elephant in a Fox News fox suit, highlighting the relationship between the two parties.
Alongside the ironic remark “Google Search needs to be fairer and more balanced like us!” this
posits that the GOP should have no position to condemn unfair search results given the heavily
biased views that Fox News has with GOP’s. Thus, where TMN argues that Google has unbiased
search results, the SMH’s criticisms of Google censoring Australian media outlets juxtaposes the
two contentions. However, like Warren’s attack on the LNP-News Corp relationship, TMN’s
cartoon also exposes the subtle censorship of political events, drawing comparisons in the sense
that Warren refers to followers of the LNP being unaware of Morrison’s angry attack on Google,
and TMN using irony to attack the hypocrisy in Fox News’ unfair search bar.

Whilst Warren and the SMH’s articles have opposing contentions of Google’s ‘war’ with the
Australian government, the two articles draw similarities through searching what is best for
Australia in this situation. The SMH believes that for Australia to be victorious in this, they are to
search for alternative search engines, whereas Warren argues that Google is an essential part of
Australia’s economy. Through their language techniques, both articles also draw comparisons with
appeals to fear in their readerships. The SMH does this through inducing fear by positioning the
reader to envision a world without Google, whereas Warren instills this through thought of small
businesses collapsing.
Google editorial