7 ms·

That's nothing, you should see what Google does to conservative news. Google is a pretty big shill for the Democratic party, has a former exec in the West Wing,

That's nothing, you should see what Google does to conservative news. Google is a pretty big shill for the Democratic party, has a former exec in the West Wing, and has been caught repeatedly spiking stories in their news site that are critical of the left. Also not sure I'd call this an extremist group. Ideological group perhaps, but extremist? Sure some of the members cited were bad apples (stalking, etc.), but yeah this is pure ideological polemics. When you have the the majority of mainstream media shilling for the left, one can't really blame the right for trying to regain some ground.

elbrodeur 16y ago
Sorry, could you cite where Google has been caught "spiking stories in their news site that are critical of the left"? I'm deeply interested in censorship and feel that this would be a pretty big story.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  Well, obviously it got buried by the Google/Digg/MSM liberal cabal.
- nnash 16y ago
  How would it be a big story? Fox "spikes" stories that aren't even true, and are critical to the right every day. A lot of it ends up as fodder for the Daily Show.
  - elbrodeur 16y ago
    Because Google's job is to help you find what you are looking for, not provide you with an editorialized curation of information. Fox News, or any other major network for that matter, is not obligated to provide you with unedited information. Their express role is curation.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Are you specifically referring to the Taliban-trained monkey soldiers, motivated by bananas and peanuts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buoVwM1pQEs&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buoVwM1pQEs&feature=relat...
lmkg 16y ago
This one is a Poe's Law for me (that is to say, I can't tell if it's serious or satirical).
potatolicious 16y ago
I don't generally downvote on HN - but you've made a grave claim against Google, and as the accuser you need to provide corroboration for your (very serious) accusations.
- clammer 16y ago
  Love me some potato on potato action.
lanstein 16y ago
This Google? The one with Jewish co-founders? "The anti-Semitic web site “Jew Watch” appeared prominently in Google results for searches on the term “Jew,” prompting some Jewish groups to demand that Google remove the defamatory site from the top of its listings. Google refused." http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2007/2007-02/200702-BrinFeature.html http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2007/2007-02/200702-BrinF...
stuaxo 16y ago
The bit about American media shilling for the left is quite a funny troll. Admittedly I might be wrong as I don't live in that country, but American media and politics seems to consist of the right and the further right.
- ellyagg 16y ago
  When people in the US talk about liberal media bias, the frame of reference is the average US voter's leanings. By that standard, dominant news sources (the incumbents, the ones considered most credible) are inarguably left biased. Some ridiculously high percentage of newspaper reporters, like 90%, vote for the Democrat (or other third party left leaning candidate) in every election. While this particular point isn't proof of bias necessarily, if we were to establish that Fox News' reporting staff voted 90% for the Republican, I feel confident it would be shouted from the rooftops in the online circles I run in. Neither a Democrat nor Republican, but find the ongoing pretense by many otherwise brilliant people that the dominant US media isn't left biased to be an incredibly silly rationalization.
  - spamizbad 16y ago
    How are dominant news sources liberal when they were notoriously non-critical of the Bush administration's war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan up until Iraq was in the midst of a civil war (Which the "liberal" media was so kind as to refer to it as "sectarian violence"). The New York Times and NPR even refused to use the word torture to describe water boarding - despite the fact that if you dug into their archives they certainly called it torture when it was done to Americans by the Japanese during WWII. The only issues where I'd say the news media is genuinely more liberal than the average American is gun control, and I'd say that has more to do with the fact that just about every person in the news media lives and/or works in a major City where gun violence is a problem. Considering gun control hasn't been a major platform issue of the Democratic party since the mid 90's, and is of little interest to the modern progressive/liberal movement (they are far more concerned with social and economic matters), it's hardly fair to classify them as across-the-board liberals.
    - 16y ago
Chirono 16y ago
The article is coming true! Look, this comment was telling me new things that I didn't know about google and what's happened? It's been censored from me by people (no doubt some sort of google maffia) "burying" it.
potatofish 16y ago
Can see all the Google shills came out to downvote me, but nobody bothered to refute my comment on the grounds. No surprises there.
- potatofish 16y ago
  For those who didn't bother to look: http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/04/20/googles-former-lobbyist-in-the-white-house-still-lobbying-for-google/ http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/04/20/goog... And here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/is_leftleaning_google_censorin.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/is_leftleaning_google...
  - elbrodeur 16y ago
    I'm not going to say anything about how dubious your sources are, but I will address a couple things: 1) Blogs are not inherently "news". Ergo, they should not always be put into a news feed. 2) The blogs in question were removed because of objectionable content. Which, after reading a couple of articles on one of the sites mentioned, seems totally reasonable. The reason it's OK to remove these from the Google News feed is because it's not news. It's a few paranoid people talking about how dangerous RADICAL ISLAM is. This is not a "liberal bias". This is an attempt to have a news feed that contains news. Not libel. Not hate speech.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "1) Blogs are not inherently "news". Ergo, they should not always be put into a news feed." Here is something I just found on the google news feed: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20012891-10391698.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20012891-10391698.html This isn't news either, yet it's still there "The blogs in question were removed because of objectionable content. Which, after reading a couple of articles on one of the sites mentioned, seems totally reasonable. The reason it's OK to remove these from the Google News feed is because it's not news. It's a few paranoid people talking about how dangerous RADICAL ISLAM is." I find this article filled with just as much propaganda as an article about radical Islam, yet Google news still displays it (it's interesting how left-leaning opinion pieces are fine): http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/08/05/opinion/doc4c5a2e64dae50817023972.txt http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/08/05/opinion/doc4c5... With everything that has happened in the world, I don't see how you can pass off "the dangers of radical islam" as something small in the minds of paranoid people. "This is not a "liberal bias". This is an attempt to have a news feed that contains news. Not libel. Not hate speech." What you call "hate speech" and "libel" are just opinions. I find that word thrown around with ease by the left to vilify and silence opposing opinions. If the info in the above articles are all lies, why does it matter if people read them? Won't they eventually find out?

elbrodeur 16y ago

Sorry, could you cite where Google has been caught "spiking stories in their news site that are critical of the left"? I'm deeply interested in censorship and feel that this would be a pretty big story.

OpieCunningham 16y ago
Well, obviously it got buried by the Google/Digg/MSM liberal cabal.
nnash 16y ago
How would it be a big story? Fox "spikes" stories that aren't even true, and are critical to the right every day. A lot of it ends up as fodder for the Daily Show.
- elbrodeur 16y ago
  Because Google's job is to help you find what you are looking for, not provide you with an editorialized curation of information. Fox News, or any other major network for that matter, is not obligated to provide you with unedited information. Their express role is curation.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Are you specifically referring to the Taliban-trained monkey soldiers, motivated by bananas and peanuts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buoVwM1pQEs&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buoVwM1pQEs&feature=relat...

lmkg 16y ago

This one is a Poe's Law for me (that is to say, I can't tell if it's serious or satirical).

potatolicious 16y ago

I don't generally downvote on HN - but you've made a grave claim against Google, and as the accuser you need to provide corroboration for your (very serious) accusations.

clammer 16y ago
Love me some potato on potato action.

lanstein 16y ago

This Google? The one with Jewish co-founders? "The anti-Semitic web site “Jew Watch” appeared prominently in Google results for searches on the term “Jew,” prompting some Jewish groups to demand that Google remove the defamatory site from the top of its listings. Google refused." http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2007/2007-02/200702-BrinFeature.html http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2007/2007-02/200702-BrinF...

stuaxo 16y ago

The bit about American media shilling for the left is quite a funny troll. Admittedly I might be wrong as I don't live in that country, but American media and politics seems to consist of the right and the further right.

ellyagg 16y ago
When people in the US talk about liberal media bias, the frame of reference is the average US voter's leanings. By that standard, dominant news sources (the incumbents, the ones considered most credible) are inarguably left biased. Some ridiculously high percentage of newspaper reporters, like 90%, vote for the Democrat (or other third party left leaning candidate) in every election. While this particular point isn't proof of bias necessarily, if we were to establish that Fox News' reporting staff voted 90% for the Republican, I feel confident it would be shouted from the rooftops in the online circles I run in. Neither a Democrat nor Republican, but find the ongoing pretense by many otherwise brilliant people that the dominant US media isn't left biased to be an incredibly silly rationalization.
- spamizbad 16y ago
  How are dominant news sources liberal when they were notoriously non-critical of the Bush administration's war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan up until Iraq was in the midst of a civil war (Which the "liberal" media was so kind as to refer to it as "sectarian violence"). The New York Times and NPR even refused to use the word torture to describe water boarding - despite the fact that if you dug into their archives they certainly called it torture when it was done to Americans by the Japanese during WWII. The only issues where I'd say the news media is genuinely more liberal than the average American is gun control, and I'd say that has more to do with the fact that just about every person in the news media lives and/or works in a major City where gun violence is a problem. Considering gun control hasn't been a major platform issue of the Democratic party since the mid 90's, and is of little interest to the modern progressive/liberal movement (they are far more concerned with social and economic matters), it's hardly fair to classify them as across-the-board liberals.
  - 16y ago

Chirono 16y ago

The article is coming true! Look, this comment was telling me new things that I didn't know about google and what's happened? It's been censored from me by people (no doubt some sort of google maffia) "burying" it.

potatofish 16y ago

Can see all the Google shills came out to downvote me, but nobody bothered to refute my comment on the grounds. No surprises there.

potatofish 16y ago
For those who didn't bother to look: http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/04/20/googles-former-lobbyist-in-the-white-house-still-lobbying-for-google/ http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/04/20/goog... And here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/is_leftleaning_google_censorin.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/is_leftleaning_google...
- elbrodeur 16y ago
  I'm not going to say anything about how dubious your sources are, but I will address a couple things: 1) Blogs are not inherently "news". Ergo, they should not always be put into a news feed. 2) The blogs in question were removed because of objectionable content. Which, after reading a couple of articles on one of the sites mentioned, seems totally reasonable. The reason it's OK to remove these from the Google News feed is because it's not news. It's a few paranoid people talking about how dangerous RADICAL ISLAM is. This is not a "liberal bias". This is an attempt to have a news feed that contains news. Not libel. Not hate speech.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "1) Blogs are not inherently "news". Ergo, they should not always be put into a news feed." Here is something I just found on the google news feed: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20012891-10391698.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20012891-10391698.html This isn't news either, yet it's still there "The blogs in question were removed because of objectionable content. Which, after reading a couple of articles on one of the sites mentioned, seems totally reasonable. The reason it's OK to remove these from the Google News feed is because it's not news. It's a few paranoid people talking about how dangerous RADICAL ISLAM is." I find this article filled with just as much propaganda as an article about radical Islam, yet Google news still displays it (it's interesting how left-leaning opinion pieces are fine): http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/08/05/opinion/doc4c5a2e64dae50817023972.txt http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/08/05/opinion/doc4c5... With everything that has happened in the world, I don't see how you can pass off "the dangers of radical islam" as something small in the minds of paranoid people. "This is not a "liberal bias". This is an attempt to have a news feed that contains news. Not libel. Not hate speech." What you call "hate speech" and "libel" are just opinions. I find that word thrown around with ease by the left to vilify and silence opposing opinions. If the info in the above articles are all lies, why does it matter if people read them? Won't they eventually find out?