Google News... Fair and Balanced?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 25, 2004, 1:23 pm

Stragi wrote:owned shutup

Like you have a clue?

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » August 25, 2004, 8:30 pm

Metanis wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Why are you whining about it so much?
1.) It's what I do best.

2.) Representing opinions as "news" is reprehensible. I would feel the same way if the links connected to a conservative commentary.

3.) I've accomplished something if only to alert a few dozen people on this board.

4.) Why the New York Times? Why not other newspaper editorial sections?

Holy fuck you are a complete tool. If you want to accomplish something, because you feel that the Op-Ed's should not be on the main news section, or should be clearly marked for Google news, then FUCKING EMAIL GOOGLE NEWS.

Christ it says as plain as day that the front page is completely driven by a script / algorithms. Maybe you should EMAIL GOOGLE NEWS ASKING why just the NYT and not other papers?

If you're so pissed off as opinions as news, maybe you should consider boycotting Fox News as a whole, because they seem to excel at that.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 25, 2004, 9:52 pm

Okay to be fair I skipped the name of whoever started this thread, but I can state without doubt, that they are a FUCKING MORON.

Google news is an RSS feed with an attiitude and they even include BS shit from the Daily Star. It is configuarable if you have a room temp IQ and would not even challenge the average AOL user to select the type of newsfeeds you want to see. Calling them on a bias is moronic.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » August 25, 2004, 10:21 pm

I see examples of liberal bias like this ALL the freakin time. From cnn.com just now:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/ ... index.html

The letter, which Cleland said was signed by nine members of the Senate -- all veterans -- urged the president to specifically condemn the ads, saying they "represent the worst kind of politics."

The letter signed by pro-Bush veterans said they were angry that he had never apologized for saying that U.S. troops had committed atrocities in Vietnam. Kerry has said those comments were taken out of context and that he had been quoting what veterans had told him.

They feel the need to call the people who signed Bush's letter "pro-Bush" yet don't even bother to point out that every single "member of the senate" who signed Kerry's letter are DEMOCRATS. This sounds like nitpicking but stuff like this pops up very frequently. If you asked me to find an example of liberal bias everyday I would have no trouble doing it.

And just look at how the media is treating the swift boat controversy compared to the National Guard deal with Bush. When the National Guard issue came up reporters questioned Bush. Now the only people the reporters are questioning are the accusers. I'm not saying they shouldn't, because there obviously are discrepancies in some of their stories and some of it is BS, but they have made some valid points. One is casting doubt on whether Kerry was ever even in Cambodia, much less there on Christmas Eve as he had said he was time and time again over the years. Also, it's looking pretty credible that Kerry's first Purple Heart could have been from a self-inflicted wound (although not even the Swifties are saying Kerry purposely injured himself). Why isn't the media hounding Kerry on these two issues like they did with Bush and the guard? If this isn't an example of bias I don't know what is.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 25, 2004, 10:24 pm

Thats because Bush never gave a real answer regarding his National Guard duties. People asked Kerry about his and he told them what happened.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 25, 2004, 10:45 pm

Brotha you are on crack, or just so desperate to rationalize your unswerving devotion to all things Republican, that you are not even looking at reality.

To even suggest that Bush's national guard duty got more media scrutiny than this Swiftboat thing is beyond preposterous.

And to suggest that it is a liberal hit job on this organization is laughable and that the Press is behind Kerry.

This past Sunday at 1pm, Bob Dole dropped at least 2 blatant uncontested lies on "Late Edition with Wolf Blizter" on CNN.

One being that Kerry never bled from his wounds
and two being that Kerry received two Purple Hearts on the same day.

Those are both totally false and Pentagon documents easily attest to the fact, yet Dole made those points uncontested, and that clip was shown on several other networks for days before anybody stopped to examine if it were true.

As to try to compare George Bush not being in Alabama to John Kerry maybe or maybe not being in Cambodia just shows how out of reality you are trying to go to try to compare these scenarios.

I got news for you, whether Kerry was off the shore of Vietnam or Cambodia, he was on a US Navy Swiftboat fighting in a war. He wasn't unaccounted for for months on end.

And as for that one guy from Swiftvets - O'Neill i think - who is talking bullshit about how Kerry couldnt have been in Cambodia waters (Kerry may not have been, not my point), saying there is no aquatic border between the two.

That guy O'Neil is ON TAPE to Richard Nixon in 1971 describing how Swiftboat operations went into Cambodia. The Nixon WHite House recruited him in 1971 to specifically combat the PR that John Kerry was generating against the war.

this is the time where you decide to either get out of the hole or keep digging.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » August 25, 2004, 11:01 pm

You're reading waaay too much into what I just said Voro.

Voronwe wrote:To even suggest that Bush's national guard duty got more media scrutiny than this Swiftboat thing is beyond preposterous.

I'm saying the media hounded Bush FAR more than they have been Kerry. Just about every investigative story I've seen by the media has been questioning the Swift Boat Veteran's motives and credibility, NOT going after the couple of credibile issues they've raised. I don't care what you compare it to, Kerry LIED FOR YEAR AFTER YEAR about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Integrity is obviously a big issue for a candiate. If the media had caught Bush in this big of a lie (not to mention the fact of how central of an issue Kerry has made Vietnam to his campaign) they would be all over it. Instead they swallow whole whatever BS excuse Kerry gives.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 26, 2004, 8:59 am

I'm saying the media hounded Bush FAR more than they have been Kerry. Just about every investigative story I've seen by the media has been questioning the Swift Boat Veteran's motives and credibility, NOT going after the couple of credibile issues they've raised.

It's funny because this is the exact same shit you retards blast Michael Moore for.

Who gives a damn if 2% of what these Swift Boat Fuckheads for Truth might have some basis in reality... the other 98% of the shit they are spewing is lies.

I can't believe you're trying to base a credible argument on this crap. It's just really fucking hillarious that groups like this can garner so much credibility with neocons like you. Anyone with Google and 5 minutes of free time can dismiss pretty much everything they say as partisan horseshit and blatant lies.

This should be such a non issue but the media is just going to town on it and the GOP keeps feeding their frenzy with patently false statements like what Dole said the other day.

You guys piss and moan about the 'Liberal Media' but it really seems like the democrats are under far more media scrutiny than the rebups.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » August 26, 2004, 9:24 am

miir wrote:It's funny because this is the exact same shit you retards blast Michael Moore for.

Who gives a damn if 2% of what these Swift Boat Fuckheads for Truth might have some basis in reality... the other 98% of the shit they are spewing is lies.

Hey, it's ok- calm down. The Swift Boat guys are just trying to entertain us with an interesting story. A little creative editing never hurt anyone... right?

miir · Post by **miir** » August 26, 2004, 9:30 am

Did the 'news media' give F9/11 or any of the other shit that Michael Moore has spewed out weeks of daily 'coverage'?

Did any dems have thier fingerprints all over the films and books of Michael Moore?

Mak · Post by **Mak** » August 26, 2004, 9:46 am

miir wrote:Did the 'news media' give F9/11 or any of the other shit that Michael Moore has spewed out weeks of daily 'coverage'?

Did any dems have thier fingerprints all over the films and books of Michael Moore?

No, the media has not- but they certainly should have if they were truly interested in doing their jobs properly. Nope, they pretty much gave him a free pass to say anything he wanted to in that movie without having to back any of it up.

And as to the 2nd part- Moore was a pretty prominent figure in a great many Democratic activies the last couple of years, including their DNC.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 26, 2004, 9:51 am

But But Moore is telling the truth, Ask any liberal

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 26, 2004, 9:55 am

How many times does it take for you retards to understand that nobody likes Moore here.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 26, 2004, 10:17 am

And as to the 2nd part- Moore was a pretty prominent figure in a great many Democratic activies the last couple of years, including their DNC.

Michael Moore attended the DNC and watched/listened to the speeches. How exactly does that figure into being a 'prominent figure' in their activities?
His stance and loyalty is pretty obvious and blatantly partisan.
Just because he supports the dems, it doesn't mean they support him.

You can guarantee that Ann Coulter will be in attendance at the RNC but only an idiot would say that nutjob is a prominent figure in the Republican party's activities.

Nope, they pretty much gave him a free pass to say anything he wanted to in that movie without having to back any of it up.

Because that movie was opinion.
Anyone could figure out that he twisted the facts to support his opinions and that he only showed information that would back his arguments.
In addition, his film was not funded or directly supported by the democrat party.

The big difference is that this Swift Boat group are directly connected to the republican party and their ads are being presented as being factual and truthful.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 26, 2004, 10:45 am

Brotha wrote:Integrity is obviously a big issue for a candiate. If the media had caught Bush in this big of a lie

Wow. That's richer than Bill Gates.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 26, 2004, 1:09 pm

Metanis wrote:
Stragi wrote:owned shutup
Like you have a clue?

Do you? You're complaining a fucking script designed to link news from a fucking search engine is liberal biased... owned shutup.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 26, 2004, 2:19 pm

Google News presents information culled from approximately 4,500 news sources worldwide and automatically arranged to present the most relevant news first

You guys are morons if you believe that NYT editorials are "the most relevant" news.

To blame it on the "scripts" is even more moronic considering the technical sophistication of the people on this board.

The current headline in the top position of the USA section is another NYT editorial on Abu Gharaib. Tell me how that ranks as the most relevant news in the USA?

Either Google News is blatantly dishonest or they're being gamed by people in support of the NYT.

This is Orwellian in nature and you guys want to call ME the tool. Let me reiterate, if you are a reputable media organization you do not present opinion as news.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 26, 2004, 2:26 pm

Metanis wrote:
Google News presents information culled from approximately 4,500 news sources worldwide and automatically arranged to present the most relevant news first
You guys are morons if you believe that NYT editorials are "the most relevant" news.

To blame it on the "scripts" is even more moronic considering the technical sophistication of the people on this board.

The current headline in the top position of the USA section is another NYT editorial on Abu Gharaib. Tell me how that ranks as the most relevant news in the USA?

Either Google News is blatantly dishonest or they're being gamed by people in support of the NYT.

This is Orwellian in nature and you guys want to call ME the tool. Let me reiterate, if you are a reputable media organization you do not present opinion as news.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 26, 2004, 2:47 pm

Yeah, it's all some big Liberal conspiracy isn't it? Google is a fucking search engine.

OMG GUYS FIREFOX IS A CONSERVITIVE BROWSER CUZ ITS GOT FOX IN TIS NAME AND ITS OBVIOUSLY COTNROLED BY FOX NEWS N THE FIRE REPRESENTS THE USA AS THE REPUBLICSN RAM IT INTO THE GROUDN OOL

Post by **Sylvus** » August 26, 2004, 2:51 pm

While the sources of the news vary in perspective and editorial approach, their selection for inclusion is done without regard to political viewpoint or ideology. While this may lead to some occasionally unusual and contradictory groupings, it is exactly this variety that makes Google News a valuable source of information on the important issues of the day.

What the fuck do you think relevant means in this context? "Relevant" to a computer algorithm is going to take into account some factor such as viewership of a page or (as I believe google uses on its main search) the number of links to a particular site/page. THE REASON THAT THE NYT, INCLUDING EDITORIALS, IS IN FRONT OF OTHER SITES IS BECAUSE IT IS A POPULAR SITE. The end.

Google News doesn't appear to differentiate between objective journalism (as if that even exists anymore) and opinion pieces. It looks at whatever list of sites that it has, does some sort of computation to figure out what the big news stories of the day are, and then scores all of the pages that it finds based on some criteria. That criteria may have something to do with the number of times a word or collection of words are found on the page, it could have to do with the number of hits that page has received, it could have something to with the number of links to that page, or it could be their patented PigeonRank™ technology or some other means. IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY.

For fuck's sake man, relax a little bit. As you said yourself, once you click on the link and go to the page you can see if it's an Op/Ed piece. Google isn't trying to trick you, they are trying to help you by aranging a bunch of news (and yes, editorials are news... unless they are completely divorced from fact like your townhall.com article) from different places and viewpoints into one handy place. Sorry if a story or two didn't lean the same direction that you do, opposing viewpoints are often intersting to read, in my opinion.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 26, 2004, 2:52 pm

Stragi wrote:Yeah, it's all some big Liberal conspiracy isn't it? Google is a fucking search engine.

OMG GUYS FIREFOX IS A CONSERVITIVE BROWSER CUZ ITS GOT FOX IN TIS NAME AND ITS OBVIOUSLY COTNROLED BY FOX NEWS N THE FIRE REPRESENTS THE USA AS THE REPUBLICSN RAM IT INTO THE GROUDN OOL

It might be he never claimed that there were no Conservitive search engines out there, he just said Google was liberal.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 26, 2004, 2:57 pm

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic and "Laugh out loud".

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 26, 2004, 3:13 pm

Stragi wrote:I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic and "Laugh out loud".

you mean I wont get your classic Stragi answer like OMG U CANT BELIEVE IT CUZ TEH INTERNET ROXER post?

Post by **Sylvus** » August 26, 2004, 3:21 pm

I'm just surprised you haven't called him Tiddlywinks Terry or Corey Cockbreath or Billy Browneye yet. You're really not one to be talking shit about other people having canned responses.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 26, 2004, 3:23 pm

Sylvus wrote:I'm just surprised you haven't called him Tiddlywinks Terry or Corey Cockbreath or Billy Browneye yet. You're really not one to be talking shit about other people having canned responses.

ohhhh Billy Browneye thats a good one thanks Sylvus.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 26, 2004, 3:29 pm

My responses aren't canned! They are each carefully hand crafted to fit the stupidity of the comment they are responding to!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 26, 2004, 3:56 pm

Stargibot 2.0?

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 26, 2004, 3:59 pm

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 26, 2004, 4:12 pm

Ops me bitch!