Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites?

[Bonnie]

Something frighteningly ominous has been happening on the Internet lately: Google, without any prior explanation or notice, has been terminating its News relationship with conservative e-zines and web journals.

At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small technological corporation (when measured by the size of its workforce) a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs its current financial prowess.

It’s Not So Easy Being A Conservative E-Zine

As reported by NewsBusters, the most recent occurrence of this unexplained phenomenon was Friday, May 19, when Frank Salvato, proprietor of The New Media Journal, realized that his content that day hadn't been disseminated at Google News as it had been on a daily basis since he reached an agreement with the search engine in September 2005.

After sending the Google Help Desk a query concerning the matter, Salvato was informed that there had been complaints of "hate speech" at his website, and as a result, The New Media Journal would no longer be part of Google News. As evidence of his offense, the Google Team supplied Salvato with links to three recent op-eds published by his contributing writers, all coincidentally about radical Islam and its relation to terrorism.

Unfortunately, this was not the first conservative e-zine to be terminated in such a fashion. On March 29, 2005, Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message as Salvato informing him that: “Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News.” For those unfamiliar, The Jawa Report focuses a great deal of attention on terrorist issues and how they relate to radical Islam.

A year after Jawa was cut from Google News, Jim Sesi’s MichNews.com was banished on April 12. In Sesi’s case, the three pieces provided as examples of “hate speech” were articles by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr., all about – you guessed it – radical Islam and terrorism.

See a trend here?

As a sidebar, the NewsBusters article that first broke this story on May 19 cannot be found by doing a Google News search even though other recent articles by NewsBusters can.

*****Update: There is now evidence of a fourth website banishment (hat tip to NB reader ScottyDog). As posted May 20 at PHXnews.com in an article entitled "Todd Hartley Explains The Google News Ban on PHXnews, Censorship, Their Complaint & Your Free Speech": "About three weeks ago, Google emailed me a list of their complaints and included links to the articles/post/comments and 'hate speech' that they found offensive."

Smells Like Conservative Intolerance

To be sure, there have been complaints in the past from conservative bloggers that Google seems to have dubious requirements to be a part of its News Crawl. In February 2005, Michelle Malkin wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News. At roughly the same time, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs also complained about not being able to curry Google’s favor.

Yet, in the current instance, what is indeed odd is that some of the supposedly offensive content is still available at Google News even if some of the publishers aren’t. Arlene Peck’s “How Has Islam Enriched Your Life?” is still being promoted by Google News at InfoIsrael.net even though it is no longer linked by Google News to The New Media Journal.

The same is true of Barbara Stock’s “Islam is as Islam Does,” which can still be found via Google News at Renew America. And, Amil Imani’s “Islam: A False Religion” can still be found through Google News at Think and Ask.

As such, the three articles that appalled Google News to an extent that necessitated ties between it and The New Media Journal be severed can still be found at other sites by accessing Google News.

That doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Enter The Paperless Newspaper

To better understand the hypocrisy here, a little background concerning Google technology is required. When Google News launched its Beta Release Site in April 2002, it introduced to the world a new paradigm in information delivery. Its mission: To construct a totally unbiased news engine, based on a principle of human nonintervention, fully automated both in its gathering and editing of news.

Google begins the process via conventional methods of aggregating news from sources worldwide, launching programs known as News Crawlers. Unlike its cousin the Web Crawler, a News Crawler is highly specialized in that it harvests information from a table of predefined news sites. This targeted approach makes for a distinctively agile transaction, allowing the crawl to be efficient and swift. This celerity is a vital attribute of a “news” crawler, as data refreshment needs to take place at short, regular intervals in order to assure the inclusion of “breaking news.”

What distinguishes Google’s system from its competitors is that captured plaintext descriptions, links, and, where available, images, are then stored in Google’s mammoth database, where they are indexed and ranked on an up-to-the-minute citation relevance scale by proprietary real-time artificial intelligence algorithms without any decisions from human editors. This method, in theory, provides everyone using Google’s search engine with the best coverage for each story they seek out, while shielding Google from any potential claims of bias.

The Results Speak For Themselves

Obviously, the results have been stellar. Google has quickly moved to the forefront of all things Internet. According to the April 2006 Nielsen/NetRatings report, 49 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. in March 2006 were carried out on Google. This is an astounding market share that continues to grow.

In addition, a recent study by Hitwise ranked Google News as the fifth most visited news website behind Yahoo, the Weather Channel, MSNBC, and CNN, clearly making it a growing force in news aggregation.

This penetration has given the company unprecedented influence on society. Appearing on the first page of any word search result list all but assures higher hit rates, which equates to higher revenues for e-tailers as well as brick and mortar retailers using the web to drive traffic, and more reads for news and opinion providers.

In fact, Google ranking can actually be a determining factor in the success and, perhaps, very viability of online business ventures, especially to companies with limited or no domain name recognition. This reality has given rise to a cottage industry that offers enterprises measures to improve their standings. These Search Engine Optimization companies make use of approved and, sometimes, dubious techniques to coerce better page rankings and, thereby, superior public exposure.

more here
http://newsbusters.org/node/5477

 

[dilloduck]

more here
http://newsbusters.org/node/5477

It was inevitable wasn't it?

 

[Annie]

Yes, for quite some time. (In answer to the title).

 

[Bonnie]

And apparently not ashamed.....I wonder how much money Soros has invested in Google??

 

[Annie]

And apparently not ashamed.....I wonder how much money Soros has invested in Google??

moveon.org to google.

 

[Redhots]

Oh don't worry, i'm sure FOX News will pick them up.

That zinger out of the way....

I don't think Google News should turn up any webpage that is an editorial / opinion piece because, well, it isn't news.

News is "reporting the facts as we currently know them to be" and leaving it at that.

News is not "Ok heres what happened, now lets bring out a pannel of pundits to yell at each till the next commercial brake, but if the ratings stay high we'll keep 'em around another 5 minutes.".

I would block everything of the later varity from coming up on Google News (being able to find it on a regular Google search isn't a problem) but that isn't what they seem to have done... they're just blocking some sites because somebody didn't like what they read.

I'm very disapointed with Google's actions.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Is Google suspressing conservative news sites? Wouldn't surprise me in the least, considering Google is ever so willing to do China's bidding to keep its dissidents under control so that alternative thinking can't reach ordinary citizens. There's some interesting information on the founder of Google in the article I recently posted entitled "Partisan Politics: A Threat to Our National Survival."

 

[KarlMarx]

Is Google suspressing conservative news sites? Wouldn't surprise me in the least, considering Google is ever so willing to do China's bidding to keep its dissidents under control so that alternative thinking can't reach ordinary citizens. There's some interesting information on the founder of Google in the article I recently posted entitled "Partisan Politics: A Threat to Our National Survival."

You beat me to it.....

Karl Marx's Top 10 things the Left is afraid of

10. Popular Mandates
09. Judeo-Christian religion and the God they worship
08. Dissenting opinions
07. Moral absolutism
06. Debate that relies on facts rather than talking points
05. Wal Mart, Rush Limbaugh, the Pope, Jerry Falwell, et al
04. Democracy
03. Capitalism and private property
02. Traditional Families

and the thing most feared by the Left is

01. A free mind

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Google cooperated with the Chinese GOvernment to implement the government desired censorship. I wish it wasn't such a damn fine search engine.

 

[jasendorf]

You people are all nuts!

There is a reason for the nickname GOPgle. Its news searches provide more NewsMax and Freep hits than I thought were even possible.

Maybe editorialized hate speach just doesn't cut it as news? Oh, wait, that might be too reasonable an explanation! It must be a CONSPIRACY!!!! We're under attack!!! Save us! We're VICTIMS!!!! And, don't forget to save Christmas too!!! Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!111oneoneone

 

[Bonnie]

You people are all nuts!

There is a reason for the nickname GOPgle. Its news searches provide more NewsMax and Freep hits than I thought were even possible.

Maybe editorialized hate speach just doesn't cut it as news? Oh, wait, that might be too reasonable an explanation! It must be a CONSPIRACY!!!! We're under attack!!! Save us! We're VICTIMS!!!! And, don't forget to save Christmas too!!! Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!111oneoneone

Oh so it is true, liberals really do only want free speech for liberals, and they decide what makes the cut and what doesn't......Thank your for confirming that for us

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You people are all nuts!

There is a reason for the nickname GOPgle. Its news searches provide more NewsMax and Freep hits than I thought were even possible.

Maybe editorialized hate speach just doesn't cut it as news? Oh, wait, that might be too reasonable an explanation! It must be a CONSPIRACY!!!! We're under attack!!! Save us! We're VICTIMS!!!! And, don't forget to save Christmas too!!! Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!111oneoneone

So you don't believe google does censorship for the chinese government?

 

[jasendorf]

So you don't believe google does censorship for the chinese government?

I believe lots of American companies make huge concessions for doing business in communist China. What's your point? That communist China is a authoritarian dictatorship? Most of us already knew that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe lots of American companies make huge concessions for doing business in communist China. What's your point? That communist China is a authoritarian dictatorship? Most of us already knew that.

You seem to be making the point that google wouldn't censor things for their political content, but they clearly are not opposed to that, as a corporation. That's my point, icebox-head.

 

[jasendorf]

Oh so it is true, liberals really do only want free speech for liberals, and they decide what makes the cut and what doesn't......Thank your for confirming that for us

Anything I can do to feed your paranoia... I aim to please. Nothing like a bunch of conspiracy theorists to really make the right look whacked out... and the more paranoid I can make you, the better chance there is of that happening.

We're also eating aborted fetuses and trying to make Ramadan a National Holiday too.

 

[jasendorf]

You seem to be making the point that google wouldn't censor things for their political content, but they clearly are not opposed to that, as a corporation. That's my point, icebox-head.

And, you're assuming that the contract they have with communist China applies elsewhere. Your assumption is as baseless as those who say, "Well, President Bush invaded Iraq so, of course, he's going to invade Iran too."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Anything I can do to feed your paranoia... I aim to please. Nothing like a bunch of conspiracy theorists to really make the right look whacked out... and the more paranoid I can make you, the better chance there is of that happening.

We're also eating aborted fetuses and trying to make Ramadan a National Holiday too.

Who's we? we're talking about google. Evidently you're in denial about their disgusting collusion with communists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm
Google censors itself for China

Google sign

See Google China
Leading internet company Google has said it will censor its search services in China in order to gain greater access to China's fast-growing market.

Google has offered a Chinese-language version of its search engine for years but users have been frustrated by government blocks on the site.

The company is setting up a new site - Google.cn - which it will censor itself to satisfy the authorities in Beijing.

 

[Bonnie]

Anything I can do to feed your paranoia... I aim to please. Nothing like a bunch of conspiracy theorists to really make the right look whacked out... and the more paranoid I can make you, the better chance there is of that happening.

We're also eating aborted fetuses and trying to make Ramadan a National Holiday too.

You may want to rethink your totally inneffective discussion style? The angry, bitter, elite Im better than you liberal stuff doesn't spin here.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And, you're assuming that the contract they have with communist China applies elsewhere. Your assumption is as baseless as those who say, "Well, President Bush invaded Iraq so, of course, he's going to invade Iran too."

You're spinning. We see that their sense of morality sees censorship as just another service. They do not value freedom of thought and speech, at least not it if interferes with getting government contracts.