Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sites in question were just removed from Google News, not Googles general search? So all they did was refuse to label the sites as "news", which after skimming the three linked articles I would have to agree that they are not.
I must admit I've never looked at Google News until today, so if it really is all opinion then I guess these sites have as much right to say what they will as anyone else. If Google chooses to ban them because it's hate speech (unquestionably), that's Google's choice although I can't say I agree with it.
Ok, so Pat Robertson isn't as radical as al-Masri. Point conceded, I'm not even trying to argue that. The point I was trying to make was that Muslims who are as extreme in their beliefs as Pat Robertson is in his would be labeled as radical clerics while their western counterparts are not.
Maybe I should throw out some more names besides Roberston? How about Fred Phelps, the guy who organizes the celebration of Mathew Sheppards death. Or what about Ann Coulter, who said about countries she thinks harbor terrorists "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
I also have to wonder, what would our religious right do if the situation was reversed? Right now they have the luxury of being citizens of a wealthy, powerful nation many of whom support their beliefs. For guerrilla fighters fighting a superpower, the options are pretty limited. Note, I'm NOT condoning taking hostages, killing civilians, or any of the tactics being used. I'm just saying it's easy to condemn anyone who disagrees with you, it's harder trying to see things from their perspective.
I actually wasn't arguing against calling the Muslims radical - I don't follow the mainstream media closely enough to know whether it's justified or not. I was merely pointing out that none of the radical Western clerics (Pat Robertson et al.) are explicitly labeled that way when they are talked about.
Do you believe that there is an undercurrent of racism and bigotry in the media's portrayal or Arabs?
Of course there is. I've never heard anyone talk about the radical cleric James Dobson or the radical cleric Pat Robertson, but it seems like every Muslim priest is referred to that way. Don't you think describing someone as a radical cleric creates instant negative connotations?
Look at the sheer number of people who believe being an Arab equates to being a terrorist, or how many times you hear inane comments like, "They hate us because we're free." Those ideas perpetuate because people aren't being presented with a complete picture. Isn't that what the news media is supposed to do?
Could you define being-for-itself? Because I'm really not clear on why only humans apply. Too me, your post seems to be making up arbitrary terms based on unproved assumptions and then tries to apply logic to them.
The grammar nazi in me must also point out it should be "only a human is a being-for-itself" or "only humans are beings-for-themselves."
It's not that they don't allow it, it's that they offer much lower prices if a company will sign a contract that guarantees they won't sell a computer without an operating system. As far as I know, they don't specify which OS you have to load though, which is why you can buy pc's with freeDos preloaded. It fullfills the terms of the contract, even if everyone knows the first thing the buyer is going to do is blow it away and install the OS of their choice.
I don't work for a major computer manufacturer though, so all of this is just hearsay.
I'm not denying newsweek has a liberal slant; I honestly don't ever read it so I wouldn't really know. Your point about the whole koran nonsense is spot on. It's just that skimming the headlines of the source you chose to support your statement, I think that website might want to rename itself. "Accuracy in the Media" doesn't really apply if you're just presenting the conservative/republican view rather than the liberal/democratic. True accuracy would involve calling foul on any misleading or untrue article.
I put much more weight on your specific Koran example than on any opinion posted on a site such as that. It's like Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh - more about swaying the ignorant masses than presenting real information.
I'm not sure you can call something informative when one obviously biased source is calling another source biased. I agree "troll" is overly harsh though.
Love the sig btw.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sites in question were just removed from Google News, not Googles general search? So all they did was refuse to label the sites as "news", which after skimming the three linked articles I would have to agree that they are not.
I must admit I've never looked at Google News until today, so if it really is all opinion then I guess these sites have as much right to say what they will as anyone else. If Google chooses to ban them because it's hate speech (unquestionably), that's Google's choice although I can't say I agree with it.
Ok, so Pat Robertson isn't as radical as al-Masri. Point conceded, I'm not even trying to argue that. The point I was trying to make was that Muslims who are as extreme in their beliefs as Pat Robertson is in his would be labeled as radical clerics while their western counterparts are not.
Maybe I should throw out some more names besides Roberston? How about Fred Phelps, the guy who organizes the celebration of Mathew Sheppards death. Or what about Ann Coulter, who said about countries she thinks harbor terrorists "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
I also have to wonder, what would our religious right do if the situation was reversed? Right now they have the luxury of being citizens of a wealthy, powerful nation many of whom support their beliefs. For guerrilla fighters fighting a superpower, the options are pretty limited. Note, I'm NOT condoning taking hostages, killing civilians, or any of the tactics being used. I'm just saying it's easy to condemn anyone who disagrees with you, it's harder trying to see things from their perspective.
I actually wasn't arguing against calling the Muslims radical - I don't follow the mainstream media closely enough to know whether it's justified or not. I was merely pointing out that none of the radical Western clerics (Pat Robertson et al.) are explicitly labeled that way when they are talked about.
Of course there is. I've never heard anyone talk about the radical cleric James Dobson or the radical cleric Pat Robertson, but it seems like every Muslim priest is referred to that way. Don't you think describing someone as a radical cleric creates instant negative connotations?
Look at the sheer number of people who believe being an Arab equates to being a terrorist, or how many times you hear inane comments like, "They hate us because we're free." Those ideas perpetuate because people aren't being presented with a complete picture. Isn't that what the news media is supposed to do?
The grammar nazi in me must also point out it should be "only a human is a being-for-itself" or "only humans are beings-for-themselves."
It's not that they don't allow it, it's that they offer much lower prices if a company will sign a contract that guarantees they won't sell a computer without an operating system. As far as I know, they don't specify which OS you have to load though, which is why you can buy pc's with freeDos preloaded. It fullfills the terms of the contract, even if everyone knows the first thing the buyer is going to do is blow it away and install the OS of their choice. I don't work for a major computer manufacturer though, so all of this is just hearsay.
I'm not denying newsweek has a liberal slant; I honestly don't ever read it so I wouldn't really know. Your point about the whole koran nonsense is spot on. It's just that skimming the headlines of the source you chose to support your statement, I think that website might want to rename itself. "Accuracy in the Media" doesn't really apply if you're just presenting the conservative/republican view rather than the liberal/democratic. True accuracy would involve calling foul on any misleading or untrue article. I put much more weight on your specific Koran example than on any opinion posted on a site such as that. It's like Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh - more about swaying the ignorant masses than presenting real information.
I'm not sure you can call something informative when one obviously biased source is calling another source biased. I agree "troll" is overly harsh though. Love the sig btw.