Slashdot Mirror
MS admits Newsbot Biased Towards MSNBC
JasdonLe writes "According to this article at the Washington Post, Microsoft's recently unleashed news aggregator site, Newsbot will choose to display MSNBC articles over other articles on the same topic.
"As Newsbot resides on MSNBC and is branded as such, MSNBC is considered a first among equals, meaning that if they and another top-tier source offer the same story, information, etc., MSNBC will be listed first, followed by other sources," says Elizabeth Herrera Smith, Microsoft spokeswoman."
Sounds like that... except note that the URL is typically http://{cc}.newsbot.msn.com/ ... such as... ... etc.
http://us.newsbot.msn.com/
http://uk.newsbot.msn.com/
It's only the US that has the msnbc URL option - likely another branding strategy.
Riiiight. Ever watch MS-CNBC and notice how often they seem to be focusing on MSFT. I was watching their NASDAQ reporting one day where the female announcer was breathlessly blathering on about a 6 cent raise in MSFT. That same day RHAT was up about 2 bucks. It was never mentioned at all.
Monopolys are dangerous and self replicating especially when they begin to control the news media.
I'd say that this is hardly suprising. First time I looked at newsbot, I just assumed I'd see lots of MSNBC stories. Also, I'd imagine that many slashdotters will see this as more evil doings from Microsoft, but really there is nothing wrong with it. They have a news source, they list theirs first, it IS their site after all. Nobody faults google for placing "sponsored" ads at the top of the page, this is no different really. There WOULD be a problem if MS _removed_ news stories from the listing because it conflicted with MSNBC/MS/Windows/etc. Bottom line is: If you don't want to see MSNBC stories...MS Newsbot probably isn't the best place to look. Plus, there's always google or your own favorite news site.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
But I don't see it as being any worse than other cross-market or cross-brand advertising. It's like how the iPod supports AAC over WMA. Somewhat sleazy and irritating, but pretty much the norm in today's capitalistic world.
That is not to say that we shouldn't try to stop it; only that this shouldn't appear as shocking or insidious as Slashdot is trying to present it.
You're wrong. I'm looking at the beta site and it contains lots of links to other news sources.
But, what's the problem, anyway? It's a commerical enterprise. It's got a big freakin' MSNBC logo on it. Why wouldn't they give preference to their own stuff?
It's not like Google's system is perfect. I don't use their news aggregator because there is no human judgment used in its story selection. When you are looking for coverage of an event, it's just as likely to give preference to a useless tertiary wire service pickup carried in some backwater newspaper as it is to primary reporting from competent sources. That lack of bias is phony, and, worse, wastes my time.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Unlike MSN, and to a lesser extent Yahoo, Google is a primarily a search engine. It will provide a list of results based on the user query. The results will be ordered based on a predetermined method or ranking that attempts to put 'top ranked' results at top. Because Google's purpose appears to be to serve users, and not cross promote other corporate assets, users will tend to believe the results are relevant to their queries. It is true that outside sources try to manipulate the results, but that is not intentional manipulation by Google. All ads are marked, and manipulation generally obvious.
All this is idealized, but the issue remains. MSN, like most MS products, do not primarily focus on providing customer service. While all MS products provide a generally useful service, they are all have reduced usefulness because an equal priority of the product is to cross promote MS goods and services.
Why is MSN behind google? Most would say simplicity. Most of the public doesn't understand simplicity. What they understand is trust, and google, due to it's lack of inherent corporate conflicts of interest, has trust. This bit of shenanigans just reinforces MS lack of credibility.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I've found Topix.net to be more encompassing than either site. The site was created by former Netscape employees. It categorizes news into very specialized topics. The search functions better than Google News's, which seems to have a much small database for many subjects when compared with Topix.
All of the news aggregates seem inadequate. Google News has a great interface, but often I don't find news articles on specific subjects when searching the site. Obviously, MSN Newsbot will be biased towards MSNBC. (BTW, the URL, newsbot.msnbc.com, is really redundant!) Even Topix, which I pimped up there, has some bad points too. Google remains the king for relevant and enticing advertisements, and the ads are sometimes annoying or irrelevant on Topix (tho not nearly as annoying as with most sites). And sometimes there are some repeats from other services; although, it is mostly OK. Are aggregates the "new" search engines?
(I know this is a little off-topic, so please excuse my tangent.)
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
It would be news if the above qualified for the following:
- Newsbot publicly keeps up that it is an unbiased news-site
- Newsbot is not owned (in a way) by Microsoft
- Newsbot is refusing to show the news from other equal sources, while stating otherwise
I see none of that here, so erm: why is this news ?
It's M$'s right to chose their own news over other news. Heck, they can do whatever they want with it, even spreading FUD about Linux losing shares in server-land and Windows being the most stable and fast server platform ever.
This wouldn't be a surprise, it is M$-policy.
On the other hand, we have the right to not chose newsbot for our news, and happily stay with Google's version.
So again: is this news ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Given M$'s slave driving ambitions, the reference to autocracy must be intentional. Microsoft's audacity never ceases to amaze.
If you like that kind of thing, you might as well do your research in pre 1990 Pravda or Tass which are essentially identical. Remember the Russian proverb as you do, "There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth."
The admission of preference of message is a symptom of much greater dishonesty. The other symptom is the huge proportion of the Microsoft budget that goes into PR, hype and slander.
For all the alledged "noise" RMS is accused of, can anyone imagine him doing something as pointless as the things Bill Gates did for XP launch? Imagine RMS renting helicopters to transport a carboard box, hiring Madonna and putting his face on a 40 foot high screen to announce a new version of emacs. That, my friend, is the "news" MSNBC trumpets.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Google also refuses to advertise for firearm sites. They still index them, but will refuse to advertise them. Try doing a google search for terms like pistol or rifle. Rifle turns up one link to a german artist who has nothing to do with firearms. You'd tend to think that the various firarm manufacturers would be happy to buy advertisements, right?
I don't read AC A human right
What do you mean? What criteria do you use to determine whether or not results display bias?
How do they know Google isn't doing the same, only more subtly?
Google has their standards.
This does not mean that I know what they are.
This does not mean that Google always follows them.
This does not mean that they are always the highest in the industry.
The same will apply to the New York Times (and I'm sure plenty of others).
Reporter fakes stories and the powers-that-be "are not amused".
Both are "main-line" and I see no reason either should feel any compulsion to feature any and all crack-pots that come along. They both have some sense of journalistic integrity and a reputation that they value and will do things to destroy it light. I'm not saying there's anything in common between them except that both seem rather trustworthy and likely to remain so.
If I choose Google, then I halfway expect and am not annoyed by Google giving itself some kind of preference. If I do not choose MSN, but have it thrust upon me, any indication of preference by Microsoft's MSN to other entities tied to Microsoft that put Microsoft's name in my face to further Microsoft's idea of Microsoft's mind-share of Microsoft's captive audience, becomes more than a little annoying and Microsoft becomes a synonym for aggravation. It's not that Google can do no wrong, it's that they'd have to fall so far to match Microsoft that "Google can do no wrong" is an effective abbreviation of the long-winded fully qualified reality.
This "branding" aside, I find the MS site not all that well done. First off, the photos are way too large. With news.google.com, I can load the page, and see 10 or 12 stores at once. With microsoft, I might see one headline and a large photo. I run 1024x768 due to my eyesight, and so increasing resolution is not an option. The microsoft side simply does not have anything that appeals to me as it is currently designed. In addition, You need to click on the story link to see the other news sites; goolge lists them under the "dominant" headline-Drew