July 28, 2005

Google News: Oozing the Pus of Media Bias

You've got to hand it to "al-Qaedarrific" online news aggregator Google News: they are consistent.

Google News claims:

Google News gathers stories from more than 4,500 news sources in English worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first. Topics are updated every 15 minutes, so you're likely to see new stories each time you check the page. You pick the item that interests you, then go directly to the site which published the account you want to read.

Google News is a highly unusual news service in that our results are compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention. As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different news organizations are reporting the same story.

While Google News results may be gathered by a computer algorithm, who decides which article and headline get the lead story treatment on any given topic? It would seem that these pages are compiled by humans, and apparently those with strong political opinions.

Google News once again shows its bias early Thursday morning, leading its "top stories" coverage of a possible U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq with an article from an organization called the World Peace Herald, with the headline, "U.S. plans Iraq Troops cuts as revolt rages." The article is written with the decidedly "Bush Lied, People Died!" far left tone one would expect from an organization that "seeks to provide readers with access to news and views not often found in the traditional media, with a particular focus on issues that relate to building world peace" [emphasis added].

Google News, which claims it "gathers stories from more than 4,500 news sources in English worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first," leads with this 17 hour-old story, even though there were 68 articles that were more recent on the same topic from much more credible news sources that are far less biased in tone. Examples of this are articles from the Chicago Tribune (one hour old*), the UK's Guardian (two hours old*), or Pravda (four hours old*).

More balanced coverage? Um, yeah.

More than 600 of Google News' cited 4,500 news sources covered this story, and yet Google News prefers to lead their coverage with an extreme position from a minor contributor.

It seems quite odd that a computer algorithm would be designed to promote a specific political agenda.

One might begin to think stories in Google News are selected for prominence from human sources, perhaps those still bitter of the results of the 2004 election.

* relative to the time this post was researched.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 28, 2005 07:17 PM | TrackBack

Ahh yes, thanks to Google, we human readers can enjoy news stories written by humans about humans which are all nicely shuffled up and dealt to us by a machine - and the legacy media wonders why blogs are stealing "their" thunder!

Posted by: medicdave at July 29, 2005 08:15 PM

What a stupid website and a stupid complaint. That's your major problem with the state of the MSM?
On a related topic, I must ask you a question. If the USA is the home of the brave, why does one little attack in fifty years scare you all to pieces? Instead of crying and sulking and complaining, let's get over it and move on. If the terrorists see our fear, they will be more likely to attack. If they see an American people unchanged and unafraid (though more vigilant) they will know that their tactics will get them nowhere. The rest of the world has always proven vulnerable; now we are too. We must not show fear; we must show that we are too strong to be affected. What this means is that you don't hide behind your computer "supporting" our war but not supporting our soldiers. If you support the war in Iraq so much, why don't you enlist? We could use a little help here. If everyone who supported this war had signed up in the first place we'd already be out of Iraq and taking care of North Korea (not to mention Sammy "The Bastard" bin Laden). We are coming up short in recruitment because of people like you- you can talk the talk but won't even try to walk the walk. Silly little chickenhawks. No one should be able to become Commander-in-Chief without any real military experience. Now I don't have the manpower to complete my missions and your policies are making our military appear weak in the eyes of the world as we falter in Iraq and still haven't gotten Osama bin Laden. You and I should be walking side by side with 150,000+ other Americans through the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan, looking for bin Laden. That is how we will find justice and stop the recruiting of terrorists-not by forgetting our priorities. Sitting around pointing fingers at each other and calling others unpatriotic while acting unpatriotic yourself is sheer hypocrisy. Heard of Jesus? He didn't like hypocrisy much, did he?
Just something to think about little Yellow Elephant. Not that you'll print this anyway.

Posted by: A Patriot with arms, not just a mouth at August 1, 2005 04:12 AM

You actually did print this. I take that statement back. The rest of it I suggest you marinate on a little while. Too bad no one reads this website. And it appears as though the host is too dumb to understand truth and the importance of Real Action anyway.

We should be glad that this "Iraq pullout" plan is in the news. What a terrible idea. The Democrats want to tell the insurgents when we will leave. Any other info you'd like to give them that they can use to help their 'cause'? On that note, maybe Karl Rove is a Demmy too. It's time we start calling out our own so people will listen when we call out others. Treason and Truth are apolitical. Both sides must be held accountable. If we let Truth and Ideals speak then we can have a clear winner in the political debate. Instead our politics are compromised and the facts fade into mud and our strength weakens each time we cede the high moral ground to protect someone who is replaceable. It's the politics, not the people, that get us elected. The individual who puts himself above the Cause and Ideals hurts the Cause. If it wasn't for Rove's dirty tactics in S. Carolina we'd all be saluting John McCain as our President right now. And we wouldn't have one-tenth of the problems we do now. We'd have a real leader who has put himself on the line, not some spoiled rich kid that makes us all look dumb. The actions of the Bush Administration are selling the GOP down the river. Politics won't end in 2008, but the behavior of a small group of cheaters and liars is mortgaging the future for small but immediate gains.

Posted by: A Patriot with arms, not just a mouth at August 1, 2005 04:34 AM

Ah... a Patriot with arms, but without a "return" key.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 1, 2005 06:19 AM

My email address is written in its appropriate spot, as it should have been before. I apologize for accusing you of being afraid to print my thoughts, but I still stand by my other statements until I am proven wrong. Send a message if you'd like to exchange some thoughts. I don't mind apologizing or changing my mind when I'm wrong. It's worth it if I can learn a lesson.

Posted by: A Patriot with Arms at August 2, 2005 12:09 AM

Pat, All the blogger is doing is posting on the slant that Google headlined on the Ohio Marines. Dang, man, give it a break! Possibly you could comment on that post? Now, everytime I google, I have to think that google may be on the enemy's side with the headline slant.

Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at August 4, 2005 08:29 PM