Google News, Censorship or Responsible Journalism?

MSTCrow5429 writes to mention an article published by WorldNetDaily attacking the policies and actions of Google News. The author takes issue with the practice of removing sites that offer very frank discussions about radical Islam and terrorism as "hate speech." Several sites have complained about removal including The Jawa Report, MichNews, and most recently The New Media Journal. In the termination email to The New Media Journal Google cited several stories as objectionable in order to further explain the action.

Good on you google!

The new media journal [newmediajournal.us] is pushing the Mohamed is a paedophile meme:

He did not spare anyone; even 9 year old girls were not immune to his sexual wrath. Worshiping a sex-maniac and a child molester? I think NOT.

and has this charming tidbit that really reveals alot about the author's way of thinking

Is it really tacky of me to smile at the nightly scenes on TV showing Arab, Afghani and Pakistani Muslims bombing mosques and killing their Muslim brothers, sisters and children at a brisk pace because that's all they know how to do?

The Java report rehashes the incorrect (and two year old) rumour that Iran was introducing Nazi style clothing for non-moslems.

Mich News has appalling layout & a rather distasteful red, white, blue color scheme (why is he so obsessed with the french flag?) [google.com]

In short, the blogs were not news sources, they were at best aggregators of chauvinistic news, at worst (like the first link), poorly written anti-moslem blogs, that just happen to tie in current events.

Frankly, I new google news was going to hit this sort of trouble as soon as they started indexing this blog [google.com].

Anyway, good on you google for not linking to hate as 'news' - the reaction of the moslem haters is as predictable as allways, crying about censorship, but frankly, everyone just thinks you're a bunch of whiners.

Re:Good on you google!

Perhaps the editors might actually look at both sides of an issue before they post propaganda from hate groups?

I think the slashdot editors are to some extent forced to post issues to the front page when they get big enough on the internet. I mean, there's been plenty of slashdot readers, like this dimwit [slashdot.org] who are talking about this (his sig is "Liberal Slashdot Bias. [slashdot.org]")

Anyway, I don't hold slashdot to the same standards as other organisations - after all, you can just read the comments - they'll certainly let you know if the story's wrong! (Something none of the linked blogs have the courage to do)

Re:Good on you google!

Please note this uses the European definition of liberal. Which is totally different than the American version- Margaret Thatcher once called Reagan "The greatest liberal of our time".

Re:Good on you google!

If you don't think the majority of slashdot readers are liberal, you are the dimwitted one.

And if you don't see that liberal is an extremely subjective term, then you're the dimwitted one.

For instance, from where I'm sitting in the Netherlands, most posters on slashdot seem conservative, but I imagine that someone reading slashdot from Saudi Arabia would see most posters as Liberal.

I presume that from where your sitting, you would see most posters as Liberal, but I hope you can also see that Liberalism/Conservatism are comparative terms.

Re:Good on you google!

So in your world, all liberals have the goal of total domination, and are simply communists in disguise? What an immature and self centered point of view. Are you just trying to be inflamatory, or do you really believe that?

Re:Simple formula

Majority of Liberals = smart and educated
Majority of Slashdot users = smart and educated

When is this stupid myth going to die. The actual "curve" is U shaped. The majority of high-school dropouts are liberal, the majority of phds are liberal. High school graduates have a slight liberal edge, and masters degrees have a slight republican edge, and 4-year degree holders have a slight republican edge. I don't have to time to dig up the numbers and provide a source, but it's reasonably easy to find, if I remember.

Furthermore, the average slashdot reader is definitely not smart (ha ha). More seriously, he doesn't have a phd. It has nothing to do with education. If you want to find a correlation between slashdot audience and political spectrum, you should try age. I realize you want to believe the reason you are liberal is because you are smart and educated, however the real correlation to be found has to do with youth.

liberal group think.

Educated and/or well-paid people tend to be more liberal than conservative.

I know this is a talking point, but it's absolutely false. In fact, the more educated and well-paid people are, the tendency is that they become more conservative.

Liberals have a long history of espousing that they'll help the poor, but in reality they either don't help at all or worse, give them no way out of being poor. Worse, the really radical liberals think that people in countries that support oppressive dictators aren't worth trying to help. I mean, how weird is that? They call conservatives in this country facists, yet they turn around and support facist dictatorships. Doesn't sound too "educated" to me.

Don't give me any lines about "what about universities, they're really educated, and they're liberal". The liberals there have a base camp from which they can't be extracted because they can't be fired. They grant this same status only to people who buy into the same "group think" they do; rarely do conservatives slip past this gauntlet. Look at that kook in Colorado who's been posing as a Native American and has been proven a plagurist. The guy is a complete wack job they STILL can't get rid of him.

Yeah, real "educated".

Re:liberal group think.

The political compass is full of loaded questions. Everyone comes out a leftist because of how the questions are worded.

Here is a fun one

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

and this one

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races

It basically dresses up humanist, leftist positions and makes any positions to the right look like dictatorship.

But do you look at both sides of the story

What if a muslim gay basher is beaten up in jail by skinheads? Would you cry for him?

Lots of left-wing people seem unable to fathom the idea that some muslims might just be right wingers who just happen to be muslim rather then protestant and have a slightly darker tan.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an old saying and is the way a lot of the world seems to think. Sadly it is also 100% wrong.

It led to a lot america's foreign problems. India was the friend of the soviet union, wich was america's enemy, pakistan was the enemy of india therefore america now finds itself the friend of a military dictatorship and on shaky terms with the world largest democracy.

It led to america being friends with Saddam because he was the enemy of Iran. That all worked out wonderfull didn't it?

Same with the support to Al Queda in their fight against the hated soviets. Another wonderfull case of the enemy of my enemy is my enemy as well.

If you are leftwing you are probably for gay rights. So how do you defend being pro-muslim then a religion that is very anti-gay rights? How come so many leftwingers defend right wing muslims when they would never ever defend a right wing christian?

It is not that all muslims are right wing offcourse. Far from it. In fact a lot of the real refugeee muslims came here precisly because they were left wing. but they tend to keep quiet. Just as in the west it is the right wingers that make the most noise.

But just because they are muslim doesn't mean they are not right wingers and oppose every politcial ideal of left wingers.

Hatred because of someone's religion is very bad, but so is loving someone because of his religion. Judge a person on his political believes. If they are not yours then act like it and don't led the fear of being called a racist stop you from calling them out on their ideas.

Re:But do you look at both sides of the story

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an old saying and is the way a lot of the world seems to think. Sadly it is also 100% wrong.

Here's another saying, "There is no black or white, only shades of gray."

You build a false dichotomy of "right-wing" and "left-wing" assigning motivations and beliefs with broad, inaccurate strokes. You try to make it sound as if freedom of religion and freedom to make individual life choices are mutually exclusive. It is possible, you know, to support everyone's right to choose any religion they want and at the same time support the right for people to choose to screw people of the same sex if the feel like it. Both are wholly consistent with the view that individuals should make choices about their own life, for themselves.

...some muslims might just be right wingers...

There is no such thing as a "right-winger." I imagine most devout muslims hold beliefs I disagree with. I take issue with several fundamental themes advocated by the religion, while I appreciate and agree with yet others. So what? If someone has beliefs I disagree with, should I fight with them over it? Why should I care what they believe so long as they don't try to force that belief upon me, and if they do is it the fault of the religion? No, it is the fault of the individual.

Hatred because of someone's religion is very bad, but so is loving someone because of his religion.

Who here ever proposed that muslims are all blameless and perfect because they are muslims? I've never seen it.

Judge a person on his political believes[sic].

Judge a person based upon their actions.

You need to stop buying into all these imaginary classifications and start looking at what individuals think and do. I know it is a lot harder to judge people as individuals, but anything else is called, "prejudice."

Re:Good on you google!

I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for a Nazi skinhead who's beaten up in jail

Depends on why he's in jail...

and I can't find it in my heart to feel sorry for a racist jackass whose blog has been "censored" from Google News.

Sigh... once again... the first amendment does not protect your right to hear what you want, but other people's right to say what you don't want to hear.

Censorship in any form is really touchy. Not hearing each side of an argument is rediculous, especially when labeling one side "racist" by default.

Like this, for instance (warning - inflaming material ahead.) There is evidence [americanthinker.com] in the Holy Quran that (among other sexism) slavery of women is allowed, and sex outside of the marriage with any woman who is deemed a slave is acceptable.

By today's standards this is attrocious - slavery alone, aside from deeming someone sexual property - and even mentioning that this exists in the Quran is considered by many a racist tirade the effort of which is simply to put down a race of people or Islam as a whole.

But the fact is, by censoring me, you're closing your eyes to simple fact, and branding me a racist for believing that Islam could support such acts in an effort to discredit Islam.

Of course, the Quran doesn't say anything about forcing one's self on slave women and the article I've linked to proports that the Quran supports rape in an attempt to show how Christianity is better. It does show some support or understanding of the times that slavery exists... The debate is unsolvable, but by censoring one side, you're closing the argument or debate all together.

And that, my friends, is unacceptable in a free society. The exchange of ideas cannot be the exchange of "acceptable" ideas, or free society is no longer free.

And so I can be modded down, but hearing what you don't want to hear is no reason to censor anyone.

Re:Good on you google!

This all maybe inflammtory and hateful, but it is truthful about the reality of the situation. both sides have there slants represented on the web. It serves no purpose to censor one and not the other. Sadly most news reporting in the media today is biased in one way or the other.

For example, my newspaper kept referring to the may 1 protests as immigrant rights protests, when they really should have said illegal immigrant. rights protests. Little changes like that can make a big difference when read. I don't think many writers realize this though.

Re:Good on you google!

> I'm sorry, but masquerading hate speech as news does not make it news. Calling 'Mein Kampf' a semi-factual
> analysis of the growing inequities in post WW1 Germany does not make it news.

I'm sorry to see yet another product of public education. Mein Kampf sits on the shelves of every public library in the country, right beside Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto and Chainman Mao's Little Red Book. I'd also bet you can find the text of all three on Google if you try just a little. And yes serious historians DO study Mein Kampf in their studies of Pre War Germany. Hitler's arguments have the annoying reality that they were successful (remember, he WAS popularly elected... once.) so a study of his writings are pretty much required to gain a full understanding of his times.

You can't have an open debate and free inquiry while slapping a 'hate speech' label on all opposing views and banning from the public square. Protecting the right of Free Speech is at it's most important when it is something you don't like. I think Daily Kos is an almost perfect example of 'hate speech' but I would never move to bad it, would oppose Google dropping it from their index and in fact pass by and check up on 'the disloyal opposition' every couple of days. An echo chamber reflecting only your own positions isn't useful for learning new things.

Re:Good on you google!

I'm sorry, but masquerading hate speech as news does not make it news. Calling 'Mein Kampf' a semi-factual analysis of the growing inequities in post WW1 Germany does not make it news.

Mein Kampf isn't current so it isn't 'news'. It is history however, and making it illegal is stupid. It's a link to how one of the worst regimes ever in history came to power, and ignoring it, censoring it, and making it unavailable as they do in many european countries is downright stupid.

Free speech is important, especially when dealing with radical opinions. I'd rather have the racist yelling in my town square so people can argue against him, rather than having private meetings where his garbage goes unchallenged.
The internet is the same way, I'd rather have access to both the far left and far right news websites via google, then just the mainstream media. The beauty of the net is that you get to hear different opinions, and if they are nutty you have the forum to say so.

The difference between calling illegal immigrants "illegal immigrants" and just plain old "immigrants" is negligible,

Bullshit. The whole debate is about illegal immigration, not immigration. Many want to streamline the process of legal immigration. Very few people want to end immigration in the US, but the majority of people want to end illegal immigration. Thus, calling illegal immigrants just immigrants makes a huge difference. Especially to the uninformed shmuck who turns on the evening news once a week and hears 'immigrants come out to protest!'. It frames the debate in a dishonest way.

especially because there were more than just illegals in the protests, and it was more than just the rights of the illegals that were at stake.

Really? Who else had their 'rights' at stake. Please inform us.

Same as Hirshi Ali said ...

Here in the Netherlands there was a big uproar when Hirshi Ali basically said the same thing: Mohammed was a pedophile because he took a 9 year old for a wife. Yet she gets elected Woman of the Year by Times magazine.

What's the difference?

Anyway, I thought Americans were so big on freedom of speech. I'd said get ready for some real rucus, because Hirshi Ali (or Magan actually) is coming your way!

Ah, the old double standard

2) Criticism from within a culture is different to criticism from without - can you imagine if it'd been an arab who made piss christ?

They do a lot worse all the time. I'd like you to list one reaction even remotely similar to the staged protests over the Mohammed photos in the Jyllandsposten. Just one.

What you imply is that if a culture suppresses criticism from itself, it should be immune from all criticism. That is a double standard. Further, you imply that the validity of a critique depends not on what it says but on who says it. That's ad-hominem. It's standard leftist ideology, and it's amazing that any person can espouse it and claim to be educated; the cognitive dissonance required to hold it should break any functioning mind.

Re:Ah, the old double standard

What you imply is that if a culture suppresses criticism from itself, it should be immune from all criticism. That is a double standard. Further, you imply that the validity of a critique depends not on what it says but on who says it. That's ad-hominem. It's standard leftist ideology, and it's amazing that any person can espouse it and claim to be educated; the cognitive dissonance required to hold it should break any functioning mind.

Actually, in my experience, it's only "educated" people that espouse it. As the saying goes, you'd have to hold several advanced degrees to be that stupid.

Most reasonably intelligent people with a high-school education can figure out that something can be true or false, good advice or bad, independent of where it's coming from; it seems to be universities (and particular departments of universities) that convince people that the source of a particular viewpoint is more important than its content, and that some viewpoints are more valid than others.

At any rate, bull on that. While I'm not saying that some people don't have more background or authority on which to speak from than others, to blindly write off "external" criticism amounts to sticking one's head in the sand (especially in cases where most if not all "internal" criticism is suppressed or self-censored). That sort of litmus testing is totally contrary to the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and greater understanding; unfortunately, it's almost endemic in some places.

Yeah, I am dutch and ashamed

We got one dead politican, a death filmmaker/columnist, a columnist from the same newspaper beaten up and one politican fleeing the country.

Dutch policy seems to be to cover everything up and hope it goes away.

We hoped WW2 would pass us by too. That worked well.

now freedom of politically correct speech.

we are rapidly turning into a nation of "freedom of politically correct speech" which is a sad state of affairs.

I discount most arguments used any side to any argument when they toss out the terms "hate speech" or "racist". Its the old "boy who cried wolf" syndrom. After awhile the people using the terms so compromise them that they no longer have any real effectiveness.

I think the issue with google news is that it is bending to pressure from outside groups to modify its content. Just as they caved into the Chinese they cave into groups who claim that any non-compliance is the same as supporting hate-speech or racism. It is no different than the blackmail some groups use against corporate interest. Either pay us or we will sully your name.

Discussion is only permitted if you agree with the PC stance. Any deviation from the PC stance and you will be villified. If you fight back you will have the extreme examples tossed at you as if they were the majority and not the minority they are. Favorite phrases will include "you don't like Nazis do you" while comparing the target you are defending to them. Along the lines of "its for the children" to thereby attempt to dissuade any potential objection.

If Google News is going to be unbiased then they need to list all views, even those the staff at Google does not agree with. Anything else reduces the value of their service.

blog != news

At first I was shocked to read the /. blurb, but then I realised that all of these were mere blogs and thus had no place in a news aggregation site to begin with.

Can't wait till /. starts filtering entires tagged "blog".