Comments on: Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites?

By: BizzyBlog.com » Neutrality, Neuschmality: My Less-Than-Totally-Rational But Most Likely Correct Position

Thu, 25 May 2006 15:38:18 +0000

[...] Google — BizzyBlog Internet Wall of Shame member; so-called “hate speech” enforcer that blacks out conservative sites (recent specific examples are here and here from Google News; and Internet broadcaster that routinely ridicules conservative commentators, and is at least as biased as the Big Three TV networks (look at this hatchet job on Michelle Malkin, and you’ll get my point). “Do no evil” my a**. [...]

By: yank in london

yank in london — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:08:09 +0000

I have complained to Google in the past about the inclusion of what are predominately comment & opinion sites (left, right and centre) in it's news aggregator. Good to see it's having some effect!

By: The Great Society :: Newest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory: Google News Censors Cons :: May :: 2006

Thu, 25 May 2006 07:58:54 +0000

[...] Those two sentences will haunt Malkin for the rest of her life because they are simply not true. The most recent conspiracy theory is that Google’s news service is surpressing conservative voices because it refuses to list right-wing blogs. Gordo says it best in his post, “Conservative Can’t Figure Out Why Their Opinions Aren’t News“: I first heard of the “conspiracy” when a site called the People’s Cube got banned. The site wasn’t banned from Google, only from Google News. You can still find articles from PC with a Google search, but a search of the news service will turn up nada. This ban set off a firestorm on the right. The odious Little Green Footballs, itself banned from Google News for spewing hate speech, expressed outrage. Lies and Statistics and the ironically named Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler also chimed in. Of course, these “news” items about the People’s Cube ban had to be updated, because PC wasn’t banned for ideological reasons. They were banned for spamming. But conspiracy theories die hard, and the right wing is back at it. Now, the complaints are coming from Riehl World View, American Thinker, and Outside the Beltway. Writers at these sites are upset because Google is keeping conservative perspectives out of the Google News feed. But there’s a couple of points that they’re missing: 1. A lot of the bans have come about because the sites in question engage in hate speech. Apparently, the whiners think that “hate speech” is the same thing as “conservative speech,” but it’s not. You’ll find plenty of conservative publications if you check Google News. 2. Google News is only useful if it keeps out sites that rarely do any actual reporting. The second point is the most important. You may have noticed that it’s sometimes hard to find factual information by using Google because the listings are crowded with opinions, historical information, unreliable sources, and random hits. For example, if I want to know what’s been going on in Venezuela or China lately, I’ll probably have to search the Google News section. That won’t be very useful if the section is abused, or if it’s cluttered with fact-free commentary. Take a look at Google News right now. Notice how most of the stories come from organizations that do original reporting. Now look at Riehl World View. Notice how the site contains links to original reporting, and commentary on news stories, but no actual reporting. If I were looking for a story to comment on and came up with this site, I’d have to click through links to find the actual news stories. In that way, Riehl World View is a lot like my site, except that you won’t find any whining here about how there’s a conspiracy at Google to supress me. Google News does list some opinion journals and some web-only outlets, but these sources feature actual journalists who do actual reporting. Part of the conspiracy theory is inspired by the double standard that wingnuts apply to the media. For example, here’s Stephen Spruiell claiming that Google is censoring conservative speech. I don’t remember Spruiell complaining about Google’s failure to include anti-Semitic websites, or left-leaning blogs like mine. It’s only censorship when so-called conservatives are left out. [...]

By: appletree » Blog Archive » Conservatives Can’t Figure Out Why Their Opinions Aren’t Considered News

Wed, 24 May 2006 22:21:29 +0000

[...] Now, the complaints are coming from Riehl World View, American Thinker, and Outside the Beltway. Writers at these sites are upset because Google is keeping conservative perspectives out of the Google News feed. But there’s a couple of points that they’re missing: [...]

By: The Everyday Economist » Blog Archive » Google and the Right

The Everyday Economist » Blog Archive » Google and the Right — Wed, 24 May 2006 13:26:39 +0000

[...] Many bloggers are up in arms about the alleged removal of right-wing websites from Google News (see here, here, here, here, and here). As always, however, there is little reason for concern. After all, there is a free market solution. [...]

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:20:14 +0000

Seeing as how 3 of the headline stories on Google are linking to FoxNews and 2 are linking to the Washington Post, the answer is: No.

If they wanted to blow away conservative news, I'm sure they could figure out a better way to do it than deleting a few minor blogs.

By: Jim Parshall

Jim Parshall — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:09:44 +0000

Some have stated here (like your first commenter) that Google uses a purely mathematical basis to list news. This is untrue. Google does use that method for its general search listings, but does, in fact, use humans to choose which news sources to list on Google News. They most certainly do have the capability to index whomever and whatever they wish.

It appears the company with the motto of "Do No Evil" has learned at least one thing from their alliance with the Communist government of China.

They have certainly learned how to purge content that does not hold up their ( liberal and "progressive" ) world view.

No shock to me really. I work in the high-tech industry at a pretty high level ( training and programming for very large companies and governments ) and Google has manually massaged results even in its regular index. They also show just about total Democrat campaign contribution ( really it is over 90% if I remember correctly ). Communists also believe "the ends justify the means" so any misleading or bias in the news they report is justified to push their world view. It is too bad Microsoft Search is so bad as I hate supporting people who have had a track record of spin for a very long time while refusing to admit it.

Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Franken et. al. at least admit they are partisan. Google will not. Again, a wonderful lesson they have learned from their Marxist role models.

Progressive = Communist = Against the West
Read it. Learn it. Never forget it.

Thanks for your time Jim

By: Mike Nargizian

Mike Nargizian — Wed, 24 May 2006 02:21:27 +0000

JWB ACTUALLY SAID THIS -

Google *News* has something of an obligation to its users to only list sites that tend more or less toward the truth. All five of the complaining sites you link have demonstrably false stories currently running on their front page, including the insta-debunked Iran dress code story. So why should Google carry them? Finding the truth on the Internet is already hard enough without cluttering up Google News with a lot of noise.

Gee that's why they run AL MANAR. I wonder can Google "EDIT OUT" what I should and should not read about anything else? I much prefer their ideas as to what is "information worthy" and what is not. They can't even keep out blatant hate sites like Vanguard if not for the same "unworthy" conservative blogs pointing out their own fing embarassing idiocy. Mainstream Media 'reporting' news or 'not'? Google News includes terrorist organizations

Whenever I post about Google News, a misunderstanding always comes up; please note that Google Search uses automatic methods to crawl around the web and add sites to their index, but Google News sources are chosen and approved by human beings at Google. This means that Google deliberately added Al-Manar to their index after reviewing it.

Entry the Problem with Al Manar Ironically explains in Update -

I just learned that, in refusing to list a website called Alain's Newsletter as a Google News source, the Google team explained: "We've reviewed your site and cannot include it in Google News at this time. While we make an effort to provide a well-rounded perspective on controversial topics by including sites that represent contrasting points of view, we do not include sites that contain hate speech." If Hizballah's al-Manar isn't hate speech, I don't know what is.

GOOGLE IS OFFICIALLY FILTERING INFORMATION FOR CHINA ("The example of Orwell's Nightmare) MEANWHILE THEY ARE PURGING ALL GOOGLE SEARCH INDEXES OF THE anti-Communist anti-China Website People's Cube While jihad sites openly advocating for Al Qaeda continue to be included, both in Googleâ??s search index and as legitimate news at Google News. Random Searches like this often hit Arab propogandist sites like the Saudi Arab "News" UFO SITES QUALIFY THOUGH LOL

By: Hal

Hal — Wed, 24 May 2006 02:04:42 +0000

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Just got to say it's pretty funny to see the angry little fists shaking at the sky from the right for a change.

By: ahem

ahem — Wed, 24 May 2006 01:41:02 +0000

I thought that the liberals were so much for diversity. Yes, and that's why Little Green Footballs entries don't show up on searches for streets in Dearborn on Google Maps. What absolute bias! If you're that concerned, create your own search engine indexing right-wing blogs alongside mainstream news sources. If the market wants it, it'll be a success. I thought that conservatives trusted in the power of the free market?

By: Jim Wrenn

Jim Wrenn — Tue, 23 May 2006 22:23:24 +0000

Although a quite small fish in the big pond, I'm still in GoogleNews (as PoliSat.Com), which classifies PoliSat.com as "satire," but it's surely not leftist satire. Nevertheless, making Google the object of rather brutal (but plainly justified) satire in GoogleNews in a piece titled "Google Gargles Gorgle" -- Here's the link picked up in Google News 30-day Data base at the time (Aug. 1, 2005), and here's the permanent link-- didn't lead GoogleNews to delete PoliSat.Com from the GoogleNews Data Base. That wasn't the first time PoliSat.Com targeted Google. The first was "Google, Gorgle or Gargoyle," on April 12, 2005. For that one, here's the link picked up by GoogleNews and here's the permanent link. As of today (May 23, 2006), PoliSat.Com is still in GoogleNews. Nevertheless, the political leanings of Google are so far to the left of center that someone in the blogosphere should maintain regular analysis of sites kept within, and sites dropped from, Google. I'll bet there's an ingenious programmer out there in the right-of-center part of the spectrum willing to do that. Such a monitoring service would probably quickly become a cash cow. I wish I had the technical skills to do it. I've just acquired the following domain name "RightPerspectiveOnGoogle.Com," so if there's such a person out there interested in collaborating, contact me at Editor@WrennCom.Com. This is a way to help keep an eye on Google. Jim Wrenn, Jim, Editor@PoliSat.Com; Editor@WrennCom.Com

By: Imre Beke

Imre Beke — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:46:07 +0000

Apparently Google is happy to take American money through the stock market, but it adopted its ideals when getting into bed with People's Republic of China. The Internet was supposed to be about freedom of expression, but now we have search engine censorship filtering ideals and principles which the Thought Police find objectionable.

I run a small, local radio program in the Mid-Hudson Valley of New York and dread the day when people like me will also be censored because we tell the truth.

Google should be ashamed.

Imre Beke, Right Time Radio
http://www.righttimeradio.com
http://www.cafepress.com/vocalright

By: anon

anon — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:39:51 +0000

James, Thanks for the response. I didn't mean to say that you were charging anyone with conspiracy - it was an attempt at levity. To clarify, I have certainly heard of, and read, Malkin and Johnson. I haven't heard of the ones which were removed. I have no explanation for why Malkin and Johnson have never been included. I just feel that what is and is not "readily" removed cannot be clear to anyone outside Google, and probably cannot be clear even to anyone inside Google who doesn't happen to be a PC. Like coincidental traffic tickets and many a supposed paranormal phenomenon, the limited set of data available to the observer gives rise to a false impression of correlation. We humans are very good at making these connections. Computers are notoriously bad at it. Let me give a more real-world example. I am sure a number of horse breeding blogs came into the list yesterday with the news stories of the racehorse Barbaro breaking down at the Preakness. Several news sites linked directly to blogs and veterinary organizations for more information about thoroughbred horse health and history. These blogs may be terribly popular, informative, earnest, and trustworthy, but by most conventional definitions they are not "news sites" and they probably will not stay highly relevant. In a few weeks or months, as click-throughs and referrals from other news sites decline, those blogs will be culled from the index. One might say they were false positives in the first place. If you were deeply involved in that community, though, it might look as though you were being targeted. Rather than looking at Google (which is ultimately, despite press blathering and geek worship, just a very clever implementation of an algorithm designed to rank academic papers) we should wonder - what brought these blogs onto the scene in the first place? What made them fall from the referral list? If they were removed due to complaints, what spurred the complaints, who made them, and why did they go to Google rather than the authors? Is there a trend in conservative websites that tends to show them as more "hatefully" worded in the eyes of an imperfect computer algorithm? (I have heard reliable stories of awful web filters that treat the very word "Islam" as hate speech - truth is stranger than fiction) What demographics come into play? Does the average conservative reader go to news.google.com and click-through to these blogs there, or does he type the address right in and reduce the click-through statistics? Can any remaining liberal bias be attributed to the demographics of those who go to news.google.com rather than cnn.com, abcnews.com, washingtonpost.com, etc? The answers to these questions can lead to actual progress. Speculating about Google's motives doesn't really lead anywhere, except maybe to MSN.

By: arlene peck

arlene peck — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:16:43 +0000

I am the syndicated columnist/talk show hostess that Google has slandered by rating me "hate speech" . Unless something isn't done ... and soon.. this is a test, and far worse than the cartoons, where legitimate journalist are being censured Google and other sites for being "politically incorrect" in their writing. G-d help us if this becomes the norm as I believe that this is a terrible violation of the Freedom of Press. Google may not have to worry about that since they are a private company, but, the rest of us do... write them.. letters and more letters and let them know what a violation it is of all of our rights. I wasn't even told who was my accusers were. Arlene Peck

By: Blind Mind’s Eye » Google doesn’t like conservatives, what a shock

Tue, 23 May 2006 20:17:34 +0000

[...] I’m not shocked, nor am I particularly appauled by Google’s latest “censorship” problems. As a private company, it is their right to choose who to aggregate and who to not include. It is hardly even an act of bonafide censorship because all they are doing is delisting website that they don’t like from their aggregator, which just happens to be one of many online. The most appauling aspect of this is that conservatives have finally stooped to the lowest levels of the left in their big for power. Since when is Google required to not be biased? How is supporting the lawsuit against them that claims that they are an “essential service” and must therefore be regulated any different than the “fairness doctrine” that forced talk radio and others to allow leftists time at conservatives’ expense? The grievances against Google can be summed as people being too lazy to attract new readers on their own and to find alternative means of making money with their blogs. That to me sounds a lot like an entitlement mentality, but then given how big the “big tent” of the right has grown these days, that’s hardly surprising. What Google is doing is stupid and should be stopped, but it should be stopped by the stockholders, not by the courts or the government. If they aren’t careful, they are going to get killed just like Netscape because of their bias. It’s easy to forget that Google’s business is built almost entirely on advertising and that they are competing against two media powerhouses: Microsoft and Yahoo whose pockets are quite deep. All it would take to get Google very badly exposed would be for Microsoft to do with MSN what they did with IE 4.0 and declare themselves officially neutral to all legal web content. If you want to do something about this, then stop using Google or at least stop clicking on their sponsored links and ads unless they are hosted on a blogger’s website. Do your part to make them more dependent as a company on being impartial toward all legal content. It’s also a good to stop using Blogger. Legal issues aside, it shouldn’t be that hard to make your own aggregator. The hardest would be getting any money to pay for the costs of operating it because the bandwidth costs alone could be very steep. You couldn’t use any advertisements because the sources that you aggregate would probably have a legal entitlement to part or all of the revenue because of your use of their copyrights. I’m not a lawyer, but I know that copyright concerns are the primary reason that you don’t see Google’s ads all over Google News. [...]