To be fair, there are a lot of liberal blogs that got left out. The problem seems to be that there are no real qualifications for what is and isn't a source.
Of course, I would have a problem with that, if it's happening. I have a problem with Google "laying down," for the Chinese government. I also have a problem with the Administration's apparent contemplation of spying on and charging journalists here in the United States with what amounts to treason. Do you have a problem with that? Keep D&D Civil.
I totally agree with basso here. If google is banishing conservative news sources from it's web news crawlers, that is totally wrong. It totally goes against the point of using a web search device- it should be neutral, and obey my search methods, my slant should I choose to have one. Google News is my number one source of news info and this is disappointing to read. I don't think it would be difficult for one employee in the company to 'banish' some sites from the news crawlers and make an excuse for it. Google should only do effective searching and linking me to what I want to find- I don't care if the websites are hate speech. I think hate speech sites should be allowed to exist just as neo-nazis should be allowed to march. Let them be seen for what they are, in broad daylight. I depend on google for finding information, I totally object to them censoring what I can find, if they are indeed doing that. If I want to do a search and find out what neo-nazi racist bigots are talking about, I should be allowed to do so. (I draw the line at child pron and exploitative materials. Shut that sh*t down.) But if they have a political slant that biases my access to information through them... that is wrong.
Showing more bipartisan spirit, I completely agree with halfbreed's post at the top of this page. Although basso was right on the principle of free speech, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what basso is really upset about.
First off, no one is talking about the Google search engine. Second, there is yet to be any corroboration outside of an admittedly biased site that Google is even doing any such thing. What a bunch of hoopla for a non-story.
No kidding. But, as I said when I first posted in this thread, if it's true that a news source that's generally regarded to be non-biased is in fact employing a bias in order to gain advantage for preferred politics, I find it troubling. Even though none of this applies to the search engine, which would be at the heart of what Nolen "agrees" with basso about. I think Nolen's just confused. Nobody's implied that the search engine has been compromised in any way. Even so, I would be troubled to find that google had decided to slant their news page in the way it's accused of doing. But of course both basso's source for this and, even more, basso himself has been afforded far too much credibility here given his history here as a total nut. This is a guy that accuses the NY Times -- the paper of note that almost singlehandedly provided cover for Bush's made up WMD claims through Judith Miller, which landed us in an unnecessary and now admittedly unwinnable war -- of inventing the Plame thing because they're so "biased" against Bush, and here we are responding to his winger blog story like it's from a credible source. I really only showed up here to say how hilarious it was that basso would get up in arms about censorship. And it remains so.
basso keeps bring us back to this thread http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=112541&highlight=krugman
