I think it wasn't the fact that it is available, but that they published it in a story.

For that you cut off an entire organisation? It still seems petulant to me.

Petulant, yes.

But I'm guessing that many businesses if they, for instance, felt that the New York Times had done them wrong would keep NYT reporters from press conferences for a while. Why would CNET be any different?

I'm not saying it's right, but it happens all the time.

At least that's one of the reasons we were taught to have some restraint in journalism school when I was getting my degree.

I'm guessing that many businesses if they, for instance, felt that the New York Times had done them wrong would keep NYT reporters from press conferences for a while.

The report I read a couple days ago said that banning reporters was standard, banning an organisation was rare.

But I'm not part of the industry, so I can't comment with any authority -- just passing it on.

NY Times coverage.

Journalism schools teach students to hold back lest they lose access?

It still seems petulant to me.

I think they should've banned CNET on account of the fact that their site blows.

Journalism schools teach students to hold back lest they lose access?

Not hold back, be careful. A very important distinction. Publishing it was the iffy part.

the problem is the use of unnecessary and gratuitious information about someone, information that does not directly contribute to a story. They could have reported that they found out the information.

And yes, at least when I was in college 15 years ago, I had plenty of reminders of ethics in journalism, including a class called such.

The real world of journalism wasn't as black and white, but then what real world is?

Do you think CNET did something unethical, DC? It seems that publishing information *I* can get my hands on is pretty non-intrusive. They didn't need sources, or to go through trash, or anything vaguely complex.

I don't fault them for thinking that the article would have more impact with the details in. They weren't blowing a cover, or anything.

I personally think Google is overreacting, but also I think Cnet could have done the story without publishing the man's home address.

If I can find someone's Social Security number with Google, does that give me the right to print it in a news story? No, that would clearly be out of the question. I guess it depends on where each side draws the line. I would have said in the story that I had found this, this, and this, leaving in a couple less important details for substance.

I am certainly mixed on the issue, and I agree that taking it out on the whole of Cnet is overboard. However, I'm not surprised. Maybe a little disappointed in Google management.

For that you cut off an entire organisation?

Nope. For doing it repeatedly, even after being asked not to, you cut off an entire organization.