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.

Comments

The Law of Hyperbole Language Change

[QuantumG]

I'd like to take a moment to coin a new "law" that I have observed in recent years. Maybe I'm just seeing something "new" where there is nothing. Maybe I'm just wrong. But let me propose that hyperbole has a profound effect on language. As actual occurences of some objectionable activity becomes less and less prevailent in society, the tempation to use hyperbole to imply that some lesser action is equivilent to that objectional activity becomes more common. The above "story" has two examples of it. First, there's Google who have used hyperbole to justify their self interested actions of rejecting some stories. They've claimed something is "hate speech" to make a point that it is not the content they want on their web site. In response, the sites being chucked have used hyperbole to suggest that Google is "censoring" them. Nevermind the fact that no actual hate speech has occured. Nevermind the fact that Google has not stopped these sites from delivering their content directly to interested parties. How does this affect language? If more people are refering to behaviour as "hate speech" when in fact a better description would be a "bitch session", doesn't that change the definition of the word? What if censorship were completely eliminated (as it is in most western societies, with the obvious exceptions to matters of national security) and the word were used to refer to other behaviour, like telling someone to shut the hell up because you're sick of hearing them blabber. "Can you two go argue in the lunch room, you're giving me a headache." "Hey man, you can't censor us!" What's annoying is that these are really important words. You can't talk about keeping the world safe from censorship with a straight face when every idiot is claiming they are being censored.

And that was mod'ed "Interesting"?

[khasim]

That is a perfect example of the kind of "thought" that also went into those "articles" that the story is about.

The "facts" are wrong and just strung together to "support" a heavily biased opinion.

One of the reasons why the USA is hated not only by others of the World especially in the Islamic countries but also the Liberal/Left Wing faction is because the ordinary, common person has a lot of leeway to make decisions about their life without elitist interference.

Really? Then which political party in the US supports a woman's right to her own body?

In Europe, there are still some old social rules that you cannot patronize certain restaurants if a member of the lower class even if you can afford to go there.

And where, specifically, would that be?

On the surface, they say they care so much for the common person but yet, look at people like John F. Kerry and similar people. They send their kids to elite private schools. Live in gated communities. Control neighborhood HOA's where pickup trucks are not allowed or must be parked inside a garage.

And Bush went to a community college? No?

Yet someone mod'ed your post "Insightful".

Many corporate executives are liberals and the same type of disdain is shown towards rank and file workers. A person I know had a manager that was a proud Liberal Democrat and he was a jerk when it came to taking vacation.

You might want to look up the word "stereotype".

Someone I know met someone (political/race/gender/age/religion) who was (mean/stupid/arrogant/dirty/immoral).

Yes, the proud tradition of bigotry remains strong. And even gets mod'ed up at times as "Interesting".

And This Is News, How?

[tqbf]

Here are samples, from all three of the cited articles, of what Google didn't want appearing in news search results:

"Honestly, I cannot open a paper or turn on the television without seeing mobs of Muslim savages celebrating in front of burning embassies..."

"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?"

"Islam is moving across the world like a dark, evil cloud."

"Worshiping a sex-maniac and a child molester? [...] Muslims are true victims of Islam. However, they fail to realize that Islam is a cult, and the prophet was a demon ..."

The funnier thing is watching WorldNetDaily stick up for The Jawa Report. Apparently nobody there has seen Star Wars or watched South Park. "Jawas?""You know, sand people."

These aren't news stories critical of Islam. They're "editorials" with as much credibility as content from Stormfront.org.

Re:And This Is News, How?

[g8oz]

1) How many times is this old bit about Prophet Muhammed marrying a 9 year old girl going to be passed around? He wasn't married to her, he was *betrothed*. The early marriage tradition is based on a unverified hadith by an author with little credibility. Other traditions says she was 14 to 19. Who knows when consumation was, but its worth pointing out that he wasn't doing anything strange by marrying a young girl, thats just the way was in Middle East at that time. Betrothal and consumation were typically seperated by several years until the girl reached puberty at least.

For a good read on this and other Islamic issues please read "No God But God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam" by Reza Aslan

2) Expressing opinions and criticizing Islam is one thing, hysterical bigoted ranting is another - it has no place in Google news.

Re:lets try this from another angle

[williamhb]

I'm curious to see how these same people would react if Google started indexing sites lambasting Christianity and calling Christ a false prophet and pedophile and whatnot. I'm willing to bet that they'd launch a "Boycott Google" campaign if those sites weren't immediately removed.

What uninformed rubbish. Google does index a lot of sites that denegrate Christianity and "these people" are yet to launch a single "Boycott Google" campaign. Christians are by and large extraordinarily tolerant of disparaging comments.

In fact, lets use one that didn't just get reported on Google but on Slashdot as an example. Richard Dawkin's response to The Edge's annual question, in which he responded "An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as 'atonement' for 'sin'.". Any sign of that "Boycott Google" or "Boycott Slashdot" campaign? No. Christians let it drift by with a shrug of "Dawkins is off on a rant again".

Now try labelling anything about Islamic belief as "warped and disgusting", and see how many milliseconds elapse before you are accused of a hate crime.

Re:liberal group think.

[JavaLord]

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.

Re:Good on you google!

[AuMatar]

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".