Almost every news source has editorials. Almost every newspaper has daily cartoons. Should google include those too in their "news"?
pay attention to the story. the sites weren't removed from the crawl because they were blogs or editorials, they were removed because of subject matter. google readily accepts that blogs and other such sites represent opinion journalism, and includes them anyway. in this case, they've targeted a specific subject matter, and deemed it unacceptable, not "un-newsworthy."
Good, that's their job. I just linked to a bunch of conservative blogs off of google news search function. Hopefully they'll be gone soon too.
I can't conceive of any more egregious example of censorship than repeatedly saying that criticism of political opponents equals wishing for the death of Americans. Folks like you and giddyup want to virtually eliminate dissent altogether. Where that's not possible you resort to the basest slander toward those who practice it. As is clear in the Rove thread you have just about the most severe double standard of anyone I've ever known.
google is a company, not a state orgnaization. its "responsibilities" are to its stockholders. if they get complaints about these conservative blogs, columns, that are edgy then they have to respond. I've never thought of google as a news agency. censorship is a touchy subject when it comes to industry.
no one wants to quash "dissent", this is one of the biggest liberal canards, in a long list. neither however, is it unreasonable to expect a certain restraint when american service men and women are dying in a highly aysemtrical war, one in which the US media is often used as a tool by the very forces targteing our soldiers. to the extent you and yours indulge your own basest instincts, and collaborate, unwittingly or otherwise, in actions that further endanger americans, you deserve our opprobrium. of course, you're free to disagree.
Hence the reason you had to be a card carrying member of the kool aid brigade to hear Jr speak or risk getting arrested. Or the senate voting behind closed doors on the gay bashing amendment because the republicans didn't want it known how they voted. No, there is no quashing of dissent.
The article is analogous to family groups who can't seem to grasp how to control the content on their TV from entering their homes but seem compelled to watch it anyways. The issue itself is overshadowed by the desire to control what other people view... Fox News network has made a lot of money. I don't see what the big deal is all about.
You have said or implied many times that you believed dissenters of various levels were guilty of treason and that those exposing government or military wrongdoing, lawbreaking and lying about it through leaks ought to be tried in a court of law. Play with semantics all you want. As with all things, you're for censorship when it favors your guys and against it when it doesn't.
Google can do whatever they want with their website. Matt Drudge can do whatever he wants with his website. If Google really is "slanting" their news, then that is ultimately a business decision they will have to live with.
To be fair, sites like DrudgeReport, FrontPageMag, WorldNetDaily, MensNewsDaily, MichNews, NewsMax, and AmericanDaily sure make FoxNews look more fair and balanced.
Nope. You've said dissenters were guilty of treason -- a serious charge in the extreme and one that inspired my first comment in this thread. You love censorship when it favors your guys and hate it when it doesn't. It was the whistleblowers that exposed government wrongdoing that you said should be tried.
