Comments on: Lawsuit threat over Baidu ‘poisoned milk’ scandal http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17080 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: China Insider http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17080/comment-page-1#comment-796200 China Insider Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:34:49 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17080#comment-796200 Here in China, news websites and blogs have been abuzz in recent days about what Baidu, the country’s largest search engine, did to help Chinese milk powder maker Sanlu to avoid bad press. Did Baidu provide protection to Sanlu by blocking out negative news in search results in return for advertising money? The big issue here is objectivity in search and where people can go to get trusted information on the Internet. With censorship rife in China’s print media, the Internet was looked at as a welcomed source of truth. This incident makes us wonder: On September 12, a proposal from Sanlu's PR agency was leaked to the public via the web. The memo described in detail recommendations by the PR firm to cover up the contaminated milk scandal. Among those recommendations include a payment of 3 million Chinese yuan (about US$440,000) which had been negotiated with Baidu in return for Baidu to censor its search results. When you look at reports and blogs in the Chinese media, one question continues to come up: What did Baidu do during the four weeks between August 11 when the crisis management proposal was made, and September 12, when the cash-for-cover-up scandal first broke. Baidu on September 13 issued a statement denying any wrong-doing, but did not dispute the accounts detailed in the leaked proposal. The story then got more interesting. When Baidu's Chinese Internet rival Alibaba posted a story about the scandal on its web site, Baidu threatened to sue. Alibaba responded by saying it was only reporting the truth, and calling for Baidu to apologize for deceiving the public about events that led to over 50,000 sick babies and several deaths. Baidu's argument was that they did not manipulate search results to conceal news of the deadly milk powder from the public, but a lot of questions remain. For example, many Chinese blogs have detail accounts of comparison of search results. On September 12, around 11,400 pieces of news related to the Sanlu tainted milk scandal could be found on Google’s search engine, however, only 11 pieces of news came up on Baidu using the same search criteria. On the morning of September 13, after the PR agency proposal was leaked, Google’s search engine generated 11,800 pieces of news on the issue while Baidu only displayed 54 links in total. Yet after Baidu issued its official statement later in the day on September 13, Baidu’s search results on the tainted milk scandal suddenly jumped to 78,100 pieces of news (Google displayed 270,000 pieces of news for the same search). And that night, Google’s search engine generated 34,300 pieces of news on Sanlu’s PR proposal while Baidu only generated 243 pieces. The leaked PR agency proposal suggested that Sanlu may already have been a large advertising client of Baidu, and that the milk company had already spent 1.2 million Chinese yuan advertising on Baidu. It goes on to say that another 1.8 million Chinese yuan would bring the total investment to 3 million Chinese yuan and that this would be enough to enjoy Baidu’s privileged ‘negative news handling’ service. So did Baidu really get paid to manipulate its search results? In Baidu’s statement, it mentioned that on September 9 Sanlu’s PR agency contacted Baidu's "key clients" department to negotiate the advertising ‘package’, but that it flat-out refused the proposal. Baidu said that on September 12 the PR agency called them again to try to pursue the ‘package’ but was rejected. Baidu then took pains to mention in its statement that this kind of matter would not normally be reported to ‘other departments’ or its senior management. In other words, if there was an agreement on the 'package' between Sanlu and Baidu, it was done without the knowledge of Baidu's senior management. There goes the plausible deniability argument. Although Baidu is expected to avoid direct liability, they will now be under a lot of pressure to explain their practices. There are reports that several multinational brands have ordered their Chinese subsidiaries to stop advertising on Baidu. Voices from the blog community in China are saying that given Baidu’s popularity, and therefore power, it has a moral obligation to display true and transparent search results. You can draw your own conclusions, but Internet users and advertisers are already holding Baidu accountable for what the company has allegedly done. Here in China, news websites and blogs have been abuzz in recent days about what Baidu, the country’s largest search engine, did to help Chinese milk powder maker Sanlu to avoid bad press. Did Baidu provide protection to Sanlu by blocking out negative news in search results in return for advertising money?
The big issue here is objectivity in search and where people can go to get trusted information on the Internet. With censorship rife in China’s print media, the Internet was looked at as a welcomed source of truth.
This incident makes us wonder:
On September 12, a proposal from Sanlu’s PR agency was leaked to the public via the web. The memo described in detail recommendations by the PR firm to cover up the contaminated milk scandal. Among those recommendations include a payment of 3 million Chinese yuan (about US$440,000) which had been negotiated with Baidu in return for Baidu to censor its search results. When you look at reports and blogs in the Chinese media, one question continues to come up: What did Baidu do during the four weeks between August 11 when the crisis management proposal was made, and September 12, when the cash-for-cover-up scandal first broke. Baidu on September 13 issued a statement denying any wrong-doing, but did not dispute the accounts detailed in the leaked proposal.
The story then got more interesting. When Baidu’s Chinese Internet rival Alibaba posted a story about the scandal on its web site, Baidu threatened to sue. Alibaba responded by saying it was only reporting the truth, and calling for Baidu to apologize for deceiving the public about events that led to over 50,000 sick babies and several deaths.
Baidu’s argument was that they did not manipulate search results to conceal news of the deadly milk powder from the public, but a lot of questions remain. For example, many Chinese blogs have detail accounts of comparison of search results. On September 12, around 11,400 pieces of news related to the Sanlu tainted milk scandal could be found on Google’s search engine, however, only 11 pieces of news came up on Baidu using the same search criteria.
On the morning of September 13, after the PR agency proposal was leaked, Google’s search engine generated 11,800 pieces of news on the issue while Baidu only displayed 54 links in total. Yet after Baidu issued its official statement later in the day on September 13, Baidu’s search results on the tainted milk scandal suddenly jumped to 78,100 pieces of news (Google displayed 270,000 pieces of news for the same search). And that night, Google’s search engine generated 34,300 pieces of news on Sanlu’s PR proposal while Baidu only generated 243 pieces.
The leaked PR agency proposal suggested that Sanlu may already have been a large advertising client of Baidu, and that the milk company had already spent 1.2 million Chinese yuan advertising on Baidu. It goes on to say that another 1.8 million Chinese yuan would bring the total investment to 3 million Chinese yuan and that this would be enough to enjoy Baidu’s privileged ‘negative news handling’ service. So did Baidu really get paid to manipulate its search results?
In Baidu’s statement, it mentioned that on September 9 Sanlu’s PR agency contacted Baidu’s “key clients” department to negotiate the advertising ‘package’, but that it flat-out refused the proposal. Baidu said that on September 12 the PR agency called them again to try to pursue the ‘package’ but was rejected. Baidu then took pains to mention in its statement that this kind of matter would not normally be reported to ‘other departments’ or its senior management. In other words, if there was an agreement on the ‘package’ between Sanlu and Baidu, it was done without the knowledge of Baidu’s senior management. There goes the plausible deniability argument.
Although Baidu is expected to avoid direct liability, they will now be under a lot of pressure to explain their practices. There are reports that several multinational brands have ordered their Chinese subsidiaries to stop advertising on Baidu. Voices from the blog community in China are saying that given Baidu’s popularity, and therefore power, it has a moral obligation to display true and transparent search results. You can draw your own conclusions, but Internet users and advertisers are already holding Baidu accountable for what the company has allegedly done.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17080/comment-page-1#comment-794546 Reader's Write Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:22:48 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17080#comment-794546 That's alright the torch is fireless, China aims to have the best of the best. They'll fake it with a computer graphic. Wonder how they gonna fake bringing back to life all the sick and dead babies. That’s alright the torch is fireless, China aims to have the best of the best. They’ll fake it with a computer graphic.

Wonder how they gonna fake bringing back to life all the sick and dead babies.

]]> By: gianfalco http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17080/comment-page-1#comment-794199 gianfalco Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:58:26 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17080#comment-794199 and now the olympic torch is fireless... and now the olympic torch is fireless…

]]>