Slashdot Mirror

"Floss had never been researched by the committees that review science". In other words it's never been studied, and it's mostly bullshit, unlike other dental cares like brushing or adding fluorine to water.

You don't use anonymous sources because they can't be fact checked by third party sources which means you could just make it all up. They do that all the time now.

You're wrong on both accounts. Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking that big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to the citizens. Think "Deep Throat" and Watergate.

And contrary to your claim that use of anonymous sources is on the rise, it looks like the opposite is true: “Over the recent decades, quality news organizations have been less and less inclined to use anonymous sources, and more and more inclined to set guidelines for reporters and editors about these decisions,” - Ivor Shapiro, Associate Dean at the Ryerson school of journalism.

What msmash probably doesn't realize is that just because an article has the Forbes logo on it doesn't mean it was written, commissioned, or edited by Forbes staff. Like an increasing number of publications, Forbes has a contributed content program where anyone who "meets their qualifications" (heh heh) can sign up to publish articles on the site. Forbes claims to "vet" the content, but I've never seen them object to anything. What Forbes gets out of it is free content. What do they care if it's garbage?

Oh wait ... you were thinking /. editors are supposed to weed out crap like this. You must be new here.

Hey ya go snowflake: https://www.poynter.org/news/2...

https://www.americanthinker.co...


Do pussy hats help with your butthurt?

I find thing to both agree and disagree with in this comment.

I agree that ideally the web should be mostly about serving static content. Unfortunately, with a web funded mostly by advertising revenue, much of the JavaScript on the web is about putting together feeds of multiple items to entice you to click on other documents to get the next ad impression served -- as well as to track those clicks. Why should, say, a news site have a sidebar with current articles to click on merged into content for each article? Should not each article stand alone like a pamphlet or book in a library, with at most an article-specific "see also" section at the end? There is something wrong in using JavaScript to mush together all sorts of unrelated content and also invading everyone's privacy about what they look at -- although that wrongness is more about socio-economics based on scarcity ideology than about technology.

Contrast with personal websites from the late 1990s which were mostly collections of static pages each on some topics, with at most a site navigation sidebar as extraneous content. In such a system, search engines, manual indexes, and feeds of new items play a big role in finding the specific content you want. And then your browser should be able to display the resource ideally without needing JavaScript from the website to help display it.

It's great to see some sites now offering text-only options as a retro nod to the value of simplicity:
https://www.poynter.org/news/t...

I disagree about turning off JavaScript entirely everywhere because I see the potential of the web as a way to deliver applications like editors, analyzers, and simulations -- especially applications that are multi-user supporting fine-grained collaboration.

That's why I started learning JavaScript/HTML/CSS and various related libraries and design patterns (like Mithril and Tachyons and Flux etc) even though I already know how to make such tools for the desktop. I made that transition after seeing even Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls (of Smalltalk fame) move new work to JavaScript on the web (with the Lively Kernel) because they found it difficult to get people to install Squeak on the desktop to try it out (and Squeak generally has a very easy install).

Yes, it is true those editors, analyzers, and simulators could run as internet-enabled desktop applications which request data and send data from and to wherever needed in the internet. But such applications would have more problematical installs and upgrades from the user perspective (as Kay and Ingalls talked about). Mobile app stores for Android and iOS, desktop app stores for Mac and Windows, and package managers for Linux help with that install issue. But most of those app stores also create other problems including a bottleneck of a few companies controlling what billions of users can install. Also, desktop apps typically can access all sorts of data on your local storage and so are more of a security concern when trying them out.

The URL is the web's biggest feature, leading to my web-age adage: "If it does not have a URL, it is broken". So, if software does not have a URL that you can click to start it running in a specific configuration with specific data loaded, that is a problematical situation these days. We might be able to rethink how URL handling is done locally though for a typical desktop situation. But until then, for most people, the benefits of the URL are often exceeding the benefits of local applications.

Nonetheless, I will agree that running complex applications in the browser is not what the original web browsers or web protocols were designed to do. And that has created a lot of headaches for a lot of people for a long time -- and still does.

On a practical basis, I use uMatrix and NoScript as browser plugins to turn off most JavaScript (especially third-party JavaScript) on most sites -- for reasons of security, performance

Someone posted a linkbelow with both sides of the story. If I understood correctly, his ex-wife sold her 50% of the company to that very "outside vendor" so they are really co-owners now. He is being accused of gross mismanagement, possibly because he felt it was still his company and tried to get the money out. (That's just my assumption based on their story which I may have misunderstood, by all means read the linked article)

Not taking sides here, just pointing out that other opinions exist.

It's worth understanding that there are, as always, two sides to the story. You can get a sense of the side of the "vendor" (otherwise known as 50% shareholder) by reading this.

You are all operating based on a false premise, since Proper Media own *LESS THAN* 50% of Snopes. But why let facts get in your way, since we can't go check Snopes...

Might want to read this too, as it has a lot more background on the case and lawsuit.

My girlfriend asked me about this earlier. I read an article and a PDF of the complaint (in court, against Mikkelson) and the best summary I could come up with was this:

1] He owned the company (Company A, which owns Snopes) 50/50 with his wife
2] They divorced badly, she sold her shares to Company B
3] Company A was founded such that a COMPANY cannot hold shares in it for smallprint legal reasons. So the 5 owners of company each INDIVIDUALLY got some shares of Company A
4] Company B has been doing a lot of the running of the Snopes.com website and controlled some aspects of it (this is unclear)
5] He (Mikkelson) has recently been courting one of the 5 owners of Company B to come over to his "side" so that he controls more than 50 per cent of Company (controls, not owns) and can do what he wants
6] The other four owners of Company B are angry, as the 5th guy appears to have defected. They claim variously that Mikkelson has used company funds to pay for personal stuff, that the 5th guy was legally bound, via an agreement, not to act against the interests of the other 4 guys, and that Mikkelson has done something wrong in enticing him to move to the "other side".

Mikkelson is now appealing on GoFundMe for money... so he can fight for ownership of the company and defend himself from the lawsuit brought by Company B.

And people are throwing money at him, a quarter of a million dollars in just 9 hours.

I don't know who is right, who is wrong, and what claims from the PDF are factual or not, but the general feel of the GoFundMe page is slimy. He is not raising funds to pay off some debt that Snopes owes (like Wikipedia), he is instead RAISING MONEY SO HE CAN FIGHT FOR OWNERSHIP OF THE BUSINESS THAT PAYS HIS SALARY. And if wins, the rest of the money is pure profit, which he could then pay himself with.

PDF of complaint:
http://www.poynter.org/wp-cont...

You got it backward, the person who put up the gofundme is trying to cut Proper Media out. See their complaint.

The rest of the story is well worth a read. This is a shareholder dispute. One shareholder is trying to take over the company from its other, 50/50 owners. The gofundme appears to be making wild claims about what is happening. Its been widely reported that Mikkelson (an original 50% owner) has been treating the company like his personal piggy bank in various prior legal actions. To put his dispute with his prior cofounder to bed, she sold 50% interest to this new group of owners and then appears to have gotten back to the same stuff that caused the dispute with the prior cofounder.

It's far more than that. The group that bought out the wife claims they have been frozen out of management and the other partner is draining funds from the company. the complaint paints a dirty picture:

"Mikkelson was unhappy that Barbara maintained ownership of half of what he always considered to be his company after the divorce. Thus, after Proper Media’s purchase of Barbara’s share, Mikkelson sought to finally gain control of Bardav by aligning and conspiring with Green. Although Green purportedly holds only a small fraction of Bardav’s equity (which he only holds for the benefit of Proper Media), when combined with Mikkelson’s 50% interest, it would purportedly give Mikkelson majority control of the company."

That link, is a complaint from Proper Media to the courts, saying that:

- at first, Snopes.com was owned by David and Barbara Mikkelson
- the two divorced, and Barbara held on to her 50% of the company
- then she effectively sold her 50% to Proper Media, a company
- but technically she couldn't do that, because Snopes.com had to be owned only by people, not by companies
- so, she sold it to 5 people who owned/ran/were Proper Media company. These 5 people pinky-promised that it would be just like Proper Media itself held the shares.
- so then, it was 50% David Mikkelson, 50% Proper Media
- but then one of the Proper Media people by the name of Green conspired with / got seduced by David Mikkelson, and went over to the dark side! (cue dramatic music)
- now, with David's 50% plus a little bit more from Green who quit Proper Media and is now in David's employ, David controls more than 50%!
- that's not fair!! Green *promised* that he was holding the shares for Proper Media!

Personally, I'm not sure that Proper Media has a case. If there was a legal requirement that shares couldn't be sold to a company, only people, then there was a reason for this, exactly so that individuals could make decisions and not have to act like a coordinated legal entity. If Proper Media says that Green "should have" done such and such ... well, that's going to be hard to argue. So, legally, I think David Mikkelson has better standing.

From the legal documents I can see, The parent company split with the divorce of the two mikkelsons. Because the way the company is structured, the shares could not be bought directly by a corporation. The company that bought in (Proper Media) split their shares with 5-6 people. One of those people defected, and voted with mikkelson to oust Proper Media. According to the contract that was signed, he was not allowed to do that, nor leave Proper Media and work directly for Mikkelson, which violated his non compete. It sounds like Mikkelsen is in the wrong here actually. http://www.poynter.org/wp-cont...

For anyone interested, the gofundme update #1 linked to an article with far more details.

They've raised $111k out of their $500k goal in the 6 hours they've been up so far (4000+ donations).

There's almost always 2 sides of the story

Yeah, Snopes is caught again being biased. The other side of the story is that they don't have controlling interest in SNOPES.COM anymore. They gave that up. It would be nice to know that this is a divorce in business, and it is gonna get really nasty.

http://www.poynter.org/wp-cont...

Just "give us money to file a lawsuit".

More like, "give us money to defend against a lawsuit that was filed against us months ago, which we're not going to mention because it might make us sound unsympathetic (at the very least)." The complaint is here.

It's worth understanding that there are, as always, two sides to the story. You can get a sense of the side of the "vendor" (otherwise known as 50% shareholder) by reading this.

All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)

Moderator note: your personal disagreement with the following analysis does not make it less relevant or true. Please keep your post election rage/safe space down-mod votes to yourself.

The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left. They started teaching journalists in school that their goal shouldn't be to "get the scoop" or "get to the truth" or "accurately report the facts." They started teaching them that their goal should be to "change the world." Once that happened, objective journalism died a quick death but the American people have been slow to catch on, but they have caught on, and only 6% of the population now believes that the MSM gives the news without bias/selective filtering/manipulation etc. In the 90s, Rush Limbaugh and later Fox news began providing a counter point to this pervasive bias, and in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts. (If you are a Fox news hater, realize that doesn't change why Fox has been so successful or what their formula is or why they are the most trusted news network in the US.) Fox is also one of the best researched, best sourced news outlets on the planet. The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets (not necessarily what guests say though, who by definition are supporting a POV but whom are usually challenged by the host/other guest when they are wrong on the facts)

While the MSM usually does not outright fabricate a lie, what they do is source lies from Media Matters/HuffPo/other alt left sources. They take half truths, clips out of context etc that fit their narrative, irregardless of the complete facts. Occasionally they get caught and a producer somewhere gets fired. The level of dishonesty has created an atmosphere where fake news sites have more credibility than the MSM, which is a credibility problem for the MSM, not a commentary on the gullibility of news consumers. The fake news sites have still lied less than the MSM, which has a history of lying going back decades. Why the younger generation is using social media as its news source shows just how hard the MSM has fallen and how low their credibility is. The solution is for Fox news to improve and extend it's online presence so that all those who see the MSM for the shills they are can have a reliable, accurate online news outlet.

The more mature and wiser conservative crowd moved to Fox news or main stream talk radio news sources 20 years ago, and those left consuming MSM pap have been so brainwashed that even the mention, let alone watching Fox news is like salt on a slug. I challenge anyone reading this to take the Fox news challenge. Tune into their primetime lineup for a week before you call them the great satan. Un-brainwashing may be a little unpleasant at first, but it is a liberating experience on the whole.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

http://www.poynter.org/2014/th...
http://www.newsweek.com/faults...

Fake Call Centers in India Scam Americans Of Millions

I denounce this racist spin for advancing the hillbilly prejudice against brown people as rapis..., err, never mind, scammers. This advances the othering and contributes to building of evil walls instead of welcoming bridges.

Obviously, specifying the criminals' country of origin, sex and gender-identity (not the same!!!!) as well as religion or skin-color, is racist.

(Unless, of course, they are White Christian males.)

And Poynter are the same openly liberal people who own the Tampa Bay Times, and politifact. But y'know, they're totally objective in their judgements, no bias whatsoever there.

Fake Call Centers in India Scam Americans Of Millions

I denounce this racist spin for advancing the hillbilly prejudice against brown people as rapis..., err, never mind, scammers. This advances the othering and contributes to building of evil walls instead of welcoming bridges.

Obviously, specifying the criminals' country of origin, sex and gender-identity (not the same!!!!) as well as religion or skin-color, is racist.

(Unless, of course, they are White Christian males.)

What we need is more rigour on posting updates to stories where the facts change while the story is still fresh.

Like how The New York Times kept changing the content of an exclusive story on its website?

http://www.poynter.org/2015/new-york-times-changes-its-hillary-clinton-story-again/360545/

Riiiiight... http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.poynter.org/news/me...

As to examples, your ignorance of common knowledge is not my problem. Look at his wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

http://www.esquire.com/news-po...

http://www.poynter.org/news/me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

There you go. Links. Suck it long. Suck it hard.

You thinking it is only the Republicans is kind of cute, but you really need to grow up.

http://www.poynter.org/news/me...

Obama the Nobel Peace prize winner bombed 7 different mostly Muslim countries.
Bush the war mongering Republican bombed 4 (which are also in Obama's list).

Much the same can be said of Clinton, he was involved in many offensive actions, though no declared wars (YES, Iraq and Afghanistan were declared wars, congress passed resolutions declaring both wars).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

So, Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, at least in the last 20 years. Trying to pin all the war mongering on the Republicans makes you look ignorant.

> There is no law saying that any medium needs to label an advertisement as such.

Actually there is. Does slashdot qualify? Probably not. Does hothardware qualify? Borderline. Plus there are so many ways to compensate without actually using money, so loopholes abound.

> *well, this used to be true...

For that, there is AdDetector. It puts a big red banner at the top of many such 'articles.'

The point is that legally DICE can do whatever the fuck they want with this site. There is no law saying that any medium needs to label an advertisement as such. The reason newspapers don't try to pass ads off as legit news* stories is about journalistic ethics, not legal concerns.

*well, this used to be true...

I'll grant you that this specific article was way too simplistic, but:

All of the people who rely solely on NPR for their news are misinformed.

You're way off with that one. Source: http://www.poynter.org/latest-...

I was referring to FUD/Spin in general and yes it is associated with TFA. All you have to do is watch Sunday morning news programs and it's full of shit talkers who have nothing better to do than try and convince you that their position is correct. Likewise DC is full of lobbyists whose job it is to cloud the issues with FUD to the point that you and I, much less the lawmakers, can figure out what the truth is. Couple that to 24 Hr. News programs who don't do journalism but just 5 to 6 minute sound bites about something then move on. With more and more people getting their news from Twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia, is it any wonder why the Russians and Congressional staff are all out there putting out false stories and editing things? To put their spin on the subject to people who won't dig for their own answers.

Um, yeah. It's China.... If you say things that the government doesn't like, they lock you up. (If they find out and get around to it - for run of the mill stuff, they will have people with the drive and efficiency of your average telephone sanitizer on the job.)

You seem to be under the impression that sort of behavior is exclusive to the Chinese government.

They don't have freedom of the press.

Neither does 'Murica, apparently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/politics/06cnd-leak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/209539/fox-news-reporter-who-wont-reveal-sources-threatened-with-jail/

The only article that even seems to come close is one from the Daily Mail. As usual they do not cite their sources nor do they get commentary from anyone but an alarmist charity.

How about some actual citations?

The Daily Mail has had people make up stories to fit their viewpoint.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/173261/daily-mail-reporter-cant-explain-how-false-report-got-published/

The problem isn't government. The problem is the passive, benighted electorate that tolerates it. We, as a population, get the government we deserve.

To be fair, the media has its thumb on the scales.

News Consumer Study: Media Helped Elect and Continue to Promote Obama

“A large majority, 89.3 percent, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama,” according to a summary of the findings. “Just 10.0 percent suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9 percent agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5 percent disagreed. Some, 3.6 percent, were unsure.”

And 86.6 percent said they believe the news media try to influence public opinion and that they have their own public policy and political positions. This compares to 87.6 percent in 2008 and 70.3 percent in 2003.

I'm sure it'll come up sooner or later if you follow Poynter -- they cover journalism / misdeeds of journalists / etc.

They've got a pretty good roundup of criticisms, mostly in regard to some news channels refusing to apologize for their errors.

I'm sure it'll come up sooner or later if you follow Poynter -- they cover journalism / misdeeds of journalists / etc.

They've got a pretty good roundup of criticisms, mostly in regard to some news channels refusing to apologize for their errors.

re: That applies even to journalists, as well as to fake journalists like O'Keefe, and to bystanders who record it on cellphones.[emphasis mine]
.
There's no such thing as a "fake journalist". If you keep a journal, whether as a writer for a newpaper (french "journal", "journaux") or as a writer for your own newsletter or as a typer for a web-page that publishes your own writings and musings, you are a journalist. Calling someone a "citizen journalist" is a way for the news-service employed to look down on the news-gatherers and reporters who may not be getting paid for their services.
.
Even freelancers (and possibly plagiarists) are getting offended when these for-profit corporations and companies dare to request free work from them, or to copy and publish their work without a fee: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/206237/atlantic-is-sorry-to-have-offended-freelancer-with-request-for-free-content/#comment-820797749
.
Actually, let me take back part of what I said. There is such a thing as a fake journalist: perhaps when someone prints or makes or purports to have fake credentials or calls themselves a journalist in order to get information which they have no intent of publishing or using in a story but is part of an investigation, or is just part of a ploy to be somewhere or pass through an otherwise restricted area. That would be a valid example of a "fake journalist". What you were describing is NOT a fake journalist. It's just someone who's not "credentialed" by some corporation or business as a newsie. And we don't even want to go into the problem of allowing governmental bodies to be the accrediting or validating agency for "journalists" or "news gatherers" or "reporters".

Wall Street might be closed but the Wall Street Journal is open however. Both they and the NYT have removed their pay walls for the duration of the storm

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/193261/new-york-times-to-suspend-paywall-for-hurricane-sandy/

One huge difference, even if the tax returns were stolen by the DNC, is that the goal of the Watergate robbery was to cover up information, and the tax returns were stolen in order to give the American public more information (or to make a million bit coin bucks, but you'd have to be pretty dumb to think you would be able to get away with that).

I agree with the parent that well known figures receive much more than their share of protection by the law. It makes some sense for political figures, as they can make some pretty powerful enemies in the course of their work, but it makes me sick when millions are spent chasing down a kid email hacker when murder cases are closed because no one really gives a damn.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

Well we all can't be NPR listeners I guess... But Daily Show viewers did rank right under them for answering the most questions regarding domestic and international issues correctly..

For some reason there was no link to the original source that kinda got the scoop. So here's the link to 'Switcheroo' which is This American Life's episode that covered this. It's free to stream, you can click the third link to Act II just to hear the coverage of this thing. I listened to it on the radio when it aired and sent it around as I found it really interesting (also a follow up here). There's a funny part where Ryan Smith is revealing everything about Journatic and he makes a comment about how it's not what journalism is supposed to be and Sarah Koenig says, "You are so fired. You realize that, right?" And then there's this odd pause and he says "Yeah, I am I guess. I'm okay with that." Another great part of that clip is when the owner of Journatic (CEO Brian Timpone) comes on and openly talks about it and defends his company (quite unsuccessfully, in my opinion). But hats off to him, he is a huge fan of TAL and so instead of giving one of those canned "could not be reached for comment" they got a real person arguing for his business venture. He actually argues that this saves newspapers money and therefore allows them report on the important stuff while outsourcing the inane stuff to Filipino freelancers who get absolutely no credit (and ridiculously low wages) for their (often correspondingly subpar) work.

it's often the #1 selling paper in the US

Not best selling, it's among the top in circulation because they give it away. Almost two-thirds of USAToday circulation is given away to hotels and schools. And even with that their circulation is dropping; free and still not worth the price.

The original article on Poynter also conspicuously fails to mention the recent RightHaven debacle.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475823/death-panel-deception
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475253/death-panel-comeback
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4313344/first-sign-of-death-panels
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-has-happy-fearmongering-session
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac3_1251310849
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSI4RTWRTxo
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/return-of-death-panels/?playlist_id=87937
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101020001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkbzoGZTelU
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101060003
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/glenn-beck-ny-times-vindicates-death-panels-foxnews-2010-10-04

You were saying?

Do you want more? Because I can show you a lot more death panel videos from Fox.

Oh by the way, you might find this interesting:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/110179/memos-reveal-how-fox-news-spun-the-health-care-debate/

Fox News and "talk radio" (both sides, but talk radio is dominated by "conservatives") seem to want to take us back to the "bad old days" where facts don't matter.

I just want to keep this quote around for a second.

And then we have the underhanded "we don't know" reporting about Predident Obama's place of birth. We were long past the point where there was legitmate cause for discussion on that issue long before the election took place. Yet the Fox "News" channel kept that flame burning.

In the lead up to Obama releasing his birth certificate, MSNBC spent twice as much of its airtime covering birthers as Fox did. (If you don't want to click through the link, MSNBC devoted 10% of its airtime to the topic. Fox and CNN each devoted 5%.) Maybe this is coincidence. But maybe MSNBC wants conservatives to look stupid and racist, so they overexpose the birthers. But keep telling yourself that conservatives are the ones who think that facts don't matter. It's clear you've discarded them long ago.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/129708/factchecking-obama-birther-controversy-was-3-4-of-newshole-economy-was-39/

CNN and MSNBC are the ones constantly blathering on about it. So that should read left-wing hacks.

from the memo:

Disposable accounts are similar to the service a pre-paid phone offers to drug dealers (a disposable, untraceable communication device).

I wonder how did he come across this service? I mean, even if you think doing drugs is ok it's a questionable example to use in a corporate memo.

[citation needed]

Some the links over at the Romenesko blog shows that Mike Wise at the Washington Post was suspended for a month for his twitter hoax reguarding the Pittsburg QB.

Letmeguess, someone (you? us?) is beging tested to see if the difference between a month's suspension and begin terminated is noticable.

Did your secondhand source involve a “casino employee in Lake Tahoe”?

If you're into the, uh, "news media" you might want to check out Romenesko.

Absolutely! It's so upsetting how ready everyone is to believe a lie and argue so feverishly that people are "evil" for doing something they've no actual intention of doing. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=188249 [poynter.org]

Not true. Google are always for net neutrality and this story was fake. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=188249 [poynter.org]

Google have issued a response: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=188249

Upsetting how quickly everyone is willing to jump on the "Google is evil" bandwagon and slander their name.

Nothing happened to it. This story is completely made up. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=188249