Re: "I invented the internet."

Osiris88 <zz99z@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Polish Prince (Szynka) wrote:
Do a google search.


I did. You know, the darndest thing, I couldn't find Gore quoted as
saying "I invented the internet."

http://newsbusters.org/node/5477

Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites?

Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 22, 2006 - 09:37.

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.

Ghosts In The Machine

With this much influence and with so much at stake, challenges are
inevitable. A lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose,
California, by Kinderstart.com, which seeks to prove that Google has
become an "essential facility" to business, and that its arbitrary
manner of banning sites from its search results represents
anticompetitive behavior.

Maybe more important, when it comes to the dissemination of news, if any
aggregator - be it Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. - is creating arbitrary
rules to determine what will be accessible on its pages, the potential
for bias in what gets reported rears its ugly little head.

In the case of the aforementioned conservative e-zines - as well as the
inaccessibility of the May 19 NewsBusters article on this subject at
Google News \- it appears that a human element is involved in making
such decisions that is overruling an intentionally and necessarily
impartial algorithm.

Is Your Internet News Service Fair and Balanced?

Few people with an above room temperature intelligence quotient question
the existence of bias in the media, although there is great debate about
the slant. However, it is conceivable that few folks have considered the
possibility of Internet news providers possessing such partiality, and,
maybe more important, the ramifications.

In the case of Google, there is some evidence that its employees lean
strongly to the left. According to a February 2005 USA Today article on
the subject: "As it claws for greater power, the Democratic Party has
found a newly rich ally in one of the fastest-growing U.S. companies:
Google." The article stated that of the over $200,000 Google employees
gave to federal candidates in 2004, "98% went to Democrats, the biggest
share among top tech donors." And, with a largely successful public
stock offering making "scores of millionaires among [Google's] 3,000
workers," "Democrats now have a potentially potent source of cash as
they fight to retake the White House and Congress."

Potentially more telling, a May 15 "Washington Prowler" piece at The
American Spectator disclosed a link between Google and the ultra-left
wing MoveOn.org:

Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter
of MoveOn. According to sources in the Democrat National Committee,
MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists
in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation
legislation ["Net Neutrality"]. Some of that money has gone to an online
petition drive and a letter-writing campaign, but the majority of that
money is being used to fund their activities against Republicans out in
the states.

Beyond this, Google appears intimately tied to former vice president and
potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore. It is no
secret that Gore is a senior advisor to Google, a position that garnered
him a sizable number of shares according to Fox News political analyst
Susan Estrich. On May 19's "The Big Story," Estrich discussed with host
John Gibson Gore's connection with Google, and how the wealth generated
from the shares he owns in the Internet behemoth could give him enough
money to finance his own presidential campaign.

This relationship goes further. According to a recent Wired magazine
article about Gore, he is extremely close to Google's CEO Eric Schmidt
who "supported Gore's 2000 presidential campaign." Moreover, in April
2005, Google partnered with Gore's cable channel, Current.

Googling Past The Graveyard

Certainly, there is nothing new about politicians getting into bed with
billionaires, and vice versa. However, in this case, if the political
leanings and proclivities of the world's largest online information
engine - as well as likely the number one disseminator of "new media"
content - begin impacting its policies, America may be on the precipice
of an even ghastlier problem than journalists, editors, and news
producers allowing their political dogma to interfere with the
impartiality of their reports.

Without question - and taking a cue from Kinderstart.com - this
juggernaut named Google has become an "essential facility" to news
seekers. In an interview with The Poynter Institute, Barry Parr of
Jupiter Research discussed the findings of his company's September 2005
study into demographic preferences for news gathering online. Mr. Parr
states that portals like Google, Yahoo, and MSN "have become the
second-most-used news medium by young people."

Moreover, to new media providers like e-zines and web journals,
referrals from Google News can comprise 20 percent or more of their
unique reads in a given day, which is the bread and butter for
determining current and future ad revenue.

With that in mind, how much power does a company that disseminates
almost half of the country's word search results command over the
opinions of our growing population, and what protections exist against
abuses of such overreaching power?

How does such a company put itself in the position of grand arbiter over
what is and what is not "hate speech," or content otherwise
objectionable?

And, doesn't this obvious gray area give such a company the unilateral
ability to squelch opinions it doesn't agree with just by applying such
a vague moniker to what might be an infinitesimally small percentage of
an e-zine or web journal's content?

As comforting as the mission statement of unbiased reporting driven by
algorithm rather than opinion may sound on paper, the truth is that,
with all "approved" news sources contained in a single table, team
Google retains complete editorial authority over the parents of the
information they give birth to.

One touch of a key, and, poof: To the Google World, that news site no
longer exists!

Regrettably, neither do the facts and opinions contained therein.

The above is a collaboration with writer and software developer Marc
Sheppard that first appeared at The American Thinker.

.

Quantcast