Why did Google decide to "be evil?"

[SquireJons]

Forget the motto "don't be evil", it's so yesterday. They're evil as sin now. I'm not really sure when it happened, but probably around the time of the IPO, so my guess is that the "why" is unimaginable wealth. But for a company that set itself up as the anti corporate corporation, they sure have gone right wing in a hurry. Everyone knows about how they're working with Chinese authorities to censure and prosecute dissenters, but what about the crap they feed Americans? I notice a while ago that their "news" kinda makes faux news look reliable. Here's a taste of the kind of stuff they post all the time:

'America's mayor' praises Bush in state GOP speech'

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/11/GIULIANI.TMP

This is an insufferable article about Giuliani that bears no resemblance to reality, but I'm sure millions of Americans read it none the less. Calling him 'America's Mayor' is Worse than calling the Dallas Cowpokes 'America's Team.' Empty marketing, but it sure is insulting to everybody else. Of course, that's Rudy's style.

[sam sarrha]

1. same as all the rest.. threats, blackmail.. intimidation.. visits by Archangels of Death

[SquireJons]

9. I wonder...

Is it likely that they were coerced into cooperating with the republican machine? I tend to doubt it. I think that they were simply bought off.

Here's a great analogy I heard from Bill Moyers the other day. It's a story attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

A ships captain was visited by two men who wanted him to pilot a vessel with contraband into port, because he was the best captain in the region. They offered him $5000 for one nights work. He told them that he had never done anything illegal in his life and he wasn't about to start now. So they upped their offer to $10,000. The captain still refused. So they upped the offer again, saying that $15,000 for a few hours work would set him up for life. At that point, the captain pulled out a pistol and held it on the two men and ordered them off of his ship, saying "you boys are getting too close to my price."

[sam sarrha]

24. no not at all.. Chris Mathews said he was visited by 3 Archangels of Death, and others have said

they were intimidated by the media... during Nixon's term, Cheney called a female investigative reporter and told her if she published her article ...'Her TIT's would be in the wringer'..notheing has changed, to the contrary the stakes are many factors higher.. we are talking chaney and * committed Treason and are about to start a Nuclear war which russia and china will back Iran.

[blogslut]

62. That was John Mitchell

John Mitchell threatened Katherine Graham (former owner of the Washington Post) and declared that she would get her tit caught in a wringer. Also, Mitchell didn't call the Washington Post, the Post called him. The reporter was not a woman. It was Carl Bernstein.

[DisgustedTX]

2. Are those infidels eating SNICKERS?

:rofl:

[OKNancy]

3. Huh, google just pointed you to an article

from the San Francisco Chronicle

[SquireJons]

7. I saw the source

But read the article and see if you don't vomit. Equating Giuliani with "great men" and uncritically christening him "america's mayor" is right up there with calling the contra's the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.

Google doesn't write any news strories, they simply repost other news stories. But the process of deciding which stories get headline status has become a political one, and their politics has become mindless right wing. Considering their clout on the internet, that is significant.

[bbinacan]

4. I assume you saw this on Google news

What determines the placing of stories. Is it number of hits or is it decided by some editorial board at Google?

[SquireJons]

5. I'm certain that the stories are chosen

You can't rate a story on hits unless you post it first. They are very selective about what stories they post as headline stories, and almost always there is a "Murdoch" quality to these stories. It's as if the Washington Times makes Googles news decisions. I think I read a couple months ago, that Google did enter into some agreement with News Corp, which if true, pretty much seals the deal to make Google another propaganda portal aimed at disinformation and confusion. And it's a shame; they didn't have to do any of this. They could have simply dominated the online search market, they didn't have to become evil.

They have thrown their lot in with the pugs. Of course, hypocrisy and republicans go hand in hand.

[Omphaloskepsis]

10. At the bottom of news.google.com

"The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program."

[SquireJons]

27. And you believe them?

Got a bridge for sale... interested?

Just a thought though... I wonder if they mean all stories, or just some? As Smelicoff says in Dr. Zhivago, "if you place a knife with a fork and spoon, it looks harmless." If you stick propaganda in with sports scores and incredibly important stories like who gets custody of Ann Nicolle's daughter, you may not notice the sharp pointy thing.

[ContraBass Black]

56. Right, and the google ads on DU are chosen by a committee

Of people who have nothing better to do than read DU and find links that they think will match.

A significant part of the google ranking algorithm is number of links bearing the target phrase to the source, with redundancy and context checks to reduce farming and bombing.

[SquireJons]

73. How does that affect manipulation of links?

You assume that all of the stories are automatically generated. I think that most are, but a few per day are not. They are placed there deliberately in an attempt to subtly influence public opinion. You can believe what you will, but I've seen the articles.

As I stated earlier, if it truly is random, how come we don't see an equal (or any!) articles condemning republicans or promoting progressive theories. I have listed articles that I saw there questioning global warming, peak oil production, and now declaring that Giluini is a great man whose time in history had come (yelch). Not to mention headlines insulting the Dixie Chicks and Obama... today!

Unfortunately, I posted the wrong link initially. The San Francisco Chronicle article wasn't that bad, it simply reported the facts. But under the link to the the SFC story was another link that I did not save. That was the one that tried to combine the best qualities of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill and give them to Rudy. It really made my skin crawl and I don't even dislike Giuliani that much. My issue was with the propaganda that google was pushing on everyone.

For the life of me, I can't think of a link to a generous story about Obama, or Edwards, or any other democrat or critic of the current administration or the previous congress. They are silent on republican corruption, but they're not silent on trying to connect Obama with Bin Laden or calling the Dixie Chicks ludicrous on the day of their greatest accomplishment. I found it disgusting, and I'm really surprised that others here are not offended as well.

I really don't understand why you folks are so eager to defend google. If you haven't noticed negative articles, just say so. But your not having noticed doesn't make them not exist, nor does it address any of my concerns about googles lack of responsibility.

[SquireJons]

75. OK everybody... here's the link

This is the story I meant to link to. The link to this article was right at the top of google news either yesterday or the day before. It's a truly nauseating piece, but that's not surprising considering the source.

Ah... but that's the rub, isn't it? Consider the source... something that either google doesn't do, or they are ok with their sources, which somehow never seem to include links to critics of the administration or critics of conservatives in general.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/ok_so_what_is_it_about_rudy.html

If this is representative of google news links (it is), and you folks are ok with it, then I must be in the wrong place (or you are).

[crispini]

6. Every single story on Google News has a link

called "all 727 news articles »" or some such thing, where you can pull up all companion articles from a wide variety of sources on the topic.

Furthermore, down at the bottom of the Google News page, you see their blurb, "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program."

I completely fail to understand how ONE article by someone OTHER than Google themselves makes them "evil." Furthermore I see no evidence of this trend you claim to be there.

[SquireJons]

8. Automatically placed stories?

I saw that disclaimer. So, you believe that the front page of Googles News site is randomly generated? Come on, that's insane. What multi-billion dollar company would allow it's reputation to be randomly generated by a program? That makes even less sense than the bull crap that they keep telling us about the touch screen voting machines. A) there is no such thing as true randomness in computer programs and B)without editorial over site, they could easily end up posting BS or highly controversial articles from their home page. They wouldn't do that, so they're lying. They are deliberately putting biased articles right at the top. It's subtle, but it's there.

It's propaganda. And it's not an isolated incident. I stopped using Google as a news source because it had become consistent. They do ok if simply reporting a world event, but politically, they aren't just leaning right, they've fallen off the cliff.

As for the links to other stories... so what? If you have one of the most popular web portals, and you plaster the front page of that sites news section with stories that are hard core right wing... then you're right wing... it's that simple. Sure, the average person can inform themselves by reading more, but the vast majority will simply read the headline or perhaps the first article and that's it. No critical analysis is involved for most people. The conservatives count on the lack of intellectual curiosity of the average american.

Yes, intelligent people can use Google for news research, but can it be trusted? And that's not my point anyways. They have made a conscious decision to be a tool for the republicans just like Walmart did. I haven't done in depth research, it's just an observation over the last year or so. If they wanted to balance their news story about Giulani, I guess they could find a story about how Obama is the first black prophet of God, or something like that. But finding articles that whacked is pretty hard. Maybe that's the problem... not enough fruit cake opinionated news stories generated from the left? Somehow I doubt it.

[Omphaloskepsis]

11. I think you have fallen off the cliff.

Really, people think different things. If you only want to hear things that reaffirm your beliefs you should turn off the computer and TV. And Google's entire business is generated by a algorithm. And for the love of god Google "pagerank".

[SquireJons]

17. ???

People may think different things, but for an organization like Google to even post an article that portrays Giuliani as a great man in history whose moment has arrived... that's just propaganda, pure and simple. It's not news, it's political opinion (and absurd). And it's at the top of their news page. What serious news outlet leads with opinion articles without even stating that they are opinions?

Your second comment is simply wrong. Googles entire business is not generated by an algorithm. I just took an excellent telecommunications course and I asked specifically about that, because it has come to be common thinking. Google's search engine does not use a super algorithm, it simply looks at the data packages differently than older search engines (i.e. it's not how the program looks at data, it's what data the program looks for).

And your point about pagerank is what? Do you think that Google ranks news story hits before they post them? Wow... can they do the same thing for sports and the lottery? I'd sure love to know who was going to win a game before it happened or what tonights winning lottery number will be.

I never realized that their "algorithm" was that good. My point is that you can only rank a link after it has been posted, not before.

[JackRiddler]

33. It's not out of the quetion that google edits their news page, but

Nevertheless you are showing ignorance on many levels. If you search for Giuliani and get his own campaign page at the top, does this constitute an endorsement by the search engine?

Google News is a search engine.

Thousands of news sources submit their feeds to it.

Results are based on an algorithm that measures how many hits and links a given story gets. It's a measure of the ratings, and unfortunately I think a very accurate one if it also includes a lot of Murdoch-type sources.

It's obvious that the algorithm is at work because the page changes faster than editors could manage. Try reloading it once a minute, you will see that the headlines for each of the stories tend to change to other sources.

Many alternative, foreign, left-wing sources and blogs of all kinds are included.

At times I have seen stories extremely critical of the Bush regime up top, stories that would never make the front pages of any US newspaper.

You can always click and see dozens or hundreds of other stories on the subject. You can also search for key terms.

It's a much more varied mix than the NY Times (though the Times may have a number of far higher quality stories on some subjects).

All this is obvious, so what you're really betraying here is an obsession.

[SquireJons]

37. An observation is not an obsession

I'm some what of a news junkie. But I've never read such unapologetically conservative bias articles in other media outlets for mass consumption, like USA Today or CNN. As a news sources they suck, but they at least have some journalistic standards. What you are suggesting is that google news has absolutely no standards at all. Why would a billion dollar business take that risk? It's far more likely that the page is managed. Believing that google just happened to put headline articles that were blatantly false is akin to believing that Guckert got his white house press pass legitimately. Here's an example of the bias they exhibit from a headline today.

"2007 Grammy Awards: Dixie Chicks Make Nice, and Ludacris Remarks"

It's not all stories or even close to it. It's very selective, but I have seen it for a while, and I never see them put up insulting headlines about republicans, nor do they link to stories from progressives. But they have no problem linking to wing nut stories? That's not random.

So they rotate stories; is it that easy to fool intelligent and informed people? Just say things like "we don't torture" and everybody goes home happy? No business should put un vetted "news stories" on their site... even DU with their shoe string budget manages to get that right. Why are you so willing to give google a pass? Is it because of their early years and that cute little motto?

[blogslut]

12. I believe the Google news is auto-generated

Granted, the news sources that Google culls from probably are pre-approved via usage licensing. However, I still believe that the page is auto-generated.

Try this. Keep your eye on the top story of the main page. Refresh that page every five minutes. You will see that even though the top story will cover the same subject, the news source linked to, does indeed change.

[SquireJons]

19. Slippery terms

Auto generated news? Hmmm...

OK, here's my idea for a news site. The top of the page has two articles that rotate among 6 or so stories. These articles are subject to editorial over site. Then accompany those stories with static headlines linked to stories by Mother Jones and The Village Voice. These stories are specifically chosen for their liberal views.

Below that section, I will post articles semi randomly generated based on contracted services, and categorize them. My contract is with Radio America and the Huffington Press.

Is my site biased? If I have 90% of online traffic, is it a problem if I am biased but people think that I'm not?

[blogslut]

21. I think your logic is slippery

Perhaps the problem is that Google news links to mostly corporate media sources and a good many of the lisitings are repeats of Wire service stories by the likes of AP and Reuters.

But no, I don't think that Google makes a human decision which stories run at the top of the page nor in the featured categories. Personally, I believe the news page links are generated by the number of stories written on a certain subject + some keyword heirarchy.

[SquireJons]

26. Really?

If you ran a billion dollar company, you'd regularly place articles at the top of your website with absolutely no editorial review? Wow...Are you looking for investors? Where can I send my check?

If you contract with News Corp. I'll probably double my investment.

[crispini]

13. It would be easy peasy to automatically govern news feeds

and post the ones that generate the most stories, or the most links.

It is simply ridiculous to say that the front page of Google news is "hard core right wing." Do you even KNOW what "hard core right wing" looks like?

All this over one story about Giuliani and all of a sudden they're evil sellouts. It's stupid. Honestly, take off the :tinfoilhat: cause it's cutting off the air to your brain.

Edited to add: If you really want to complain, then make a tally of what's on their front page at the top of the hour, every hour, and check the sources to see if they ARE in fact RW papers. Log all of your details & put it in an excel spreadsheet, and graph it. In other words, if you're going to make silly accusations like this, PROVE IT. Put up or shut up.

But no, that would be work, eh?

[SquireJons]

22. No, it's not over one story... and I stated that.

It's an observation over a sustained period of time. I don't know where you get your news from, but if it's not Google, I recommend watching it for a while. I think you will see what I mean.

And yes, I do indeed know what right wing means. Is only fox news right wing, or would you include the editorial page of say the Washington Post? I would, but they still have the reputation of being a liberal rag. So I'm more interested in what they are saying rather than the terms you wish to apply.

An outlet doesn't have to be 100% biased to be effective.

As to your suggestion, yes, that would be a lot of work that I don't have time for. In this case, I only have dozens of visits and scores of incredibly biased articles to choose from. How about the one around election time that explained why there is no fuel crises because all we have to do is open up the North Slope to drilling and everything's fine. Or the one about how creationists aren't being taken seriously enough, or my favorite was explaining how climate change is a liberal hoax. Happily, I don't have time to watch Google all day, every day. And I also am loath to download or link to crap. So, unfortunately, I can't provide links to said stories, but they were there. At first it shocked me, then I realized that it's part of a pattern. And sources don't mean squat, as we can plainly see from the Giuliani article. If you want to link crap, it can come from the New York Times, The Washington Times or even the Huffington Press. All outlets occasionally print BS, but if you can pick and choose, because you don't provide the content, just access to it, then you have an added responsibility to be sure of your sources and it's content. I believe that they do monitor and edit... just from the wrong perspective.

Are my concerns valid without an accompanying dissertation? Your call. I guess that you don't form any opinions until after exhaustive research. Bravo. But I think I'll stick to forming opinions based on some, but not all information given my limited time. Seems like a more functional way of thinking and living, but maybe that's just me.

And, if it's ok with you, I'll keep discussing my ideas and observations. Actually, I don't really care if it's ok with you or not.

[SquireJons]

14. Timely and on topic link...

I just saw this on PBS's web site. It's from Frontline and it's titled "News War." In this series they have an interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google and he discusses the affect that the Internet has had on traditional news media. For now, it's only a trailer, but it looks very good. Interestingly, Schmidt doesn't say anything in the long trailer that refutes my basic assumption that Google is in bed with the RNC and is trying to manipulate public opinion by being selective about which articles they provide links to.

[SquireJons]

35. Here's the link

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/preview

[northzax]

43. did he also say anything

about not being controlled by aliens from planet Xerxes? cause that's my theory, and if they didn't refute it, it must be true.

Look, news.google represents a snapshot, at any given time of what the larger media is saying. at least the media that submits articles to news.google. this is like going to the newseum's link of all the front pages in the country and saying it is biased, simply becaue they report, verbatim, what other people are saying.

[SquireJons]

45. where's the logic?

"this is like going to the newseum's link of all the front pages in the country and saying it is biased, simply becaue they report, verbatim, what other people are saying."

No it's not. A news room has links to many different stories. But a responsible outlet then runs them by AN EDITOR! (before releasing them to the public)

News papers, news shows, web sites and even comedy shows do that. But a high profile online corporation who gets all of its money from advertizing... why should they bother to be responsible? I guarantee you that CNN doesn't put a single story on their news site without it being approved by someone. Why do you think it should be any different at google? They obviously don't review all of the news links, that would be hard (they still should though... otherwise, how do they know weather or not they are posting a link to anti US propaganda?). But I'm only interested in the headlines, because most americans only read the headlines and maybe the first paragraph or two. That's a fact and it's well known.

Here's what I think google does. 98% of the headline stories are middle of the road, not really taking a position or simply reporting on non controversial subjects. But 1 or 2 percent of the stories reflect a right wing view of world and US events. They distribute blatant fabrications, but since they didn't write them, they have no legal liability for the inaccuracies. Add to that the occasional insult hurled at a leading democrat or progressive and an absolute dearth of positive reporting on issues that are important outside of the republican party. It's a remarkably simple plan, that depends largely on the apathy of the american public. And blinders.

[northzax]

47. but it's not a news organisation

that's the point you are missing. it is an aggregator of news headlines, not a generator or reporter of such news. a news room takes information and repackages it for consumers (notice, say, cnn.com, where most of the links, almost all of the links, are to cnn.com websites) not one single link on the googlenews site that I have ever seen, links to another google page (except maybe a google press release) they are not presenting news, they are linking you to other people presenting news. There is, in fact, a major difference between the two.

[SquireJons]

77. Can they not do both?

Seems to me that you can be both aggregator of news headlines and still attempt to use the news links to present a point of view. Why is that so hard to grasp? I believe that they pick and choose certain links and no one has offered anything to refute my charge. They have simply pointed to the google statement and said case closed.

Need I remind you of statements made by other corporations, like, say Enron? Just because a company says something doesn't mean it's true, particularly when what they say is vague. In any event, the article links speak for themselves.

[northzax]

79. it's not vague

they say, straight out: The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.

how the heck is that vague in any way, shape or form?

[SquireJons]

83. Try going to court with it and you'll find out

It says nothing. All that means legally is that some of the stories were generated by a program. That's it, and in no way obligates them to any actions with regards to the SEC or investors. It's not a legally binding statement, but documents filed with the SEC are. If you have seen them, please... do tell.

[northzax]

88. see post 81

and ask Ken Lay what happens when you make false public pronouncements, sworn or unsworn.

you are basically arguing that the entire concept of google, automated, algorithm driven searches and content, is a fraud. This is, no doubt, the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the planet, it makes Enron look like child's play. if you have evidence that a company with a market cap of $140 billion is obtaining that value through fraud, I suggest you produce it.

[SquireJons]

94. See post 91

And how is a search engine a fraud? Stick to the subject, which is news manipulation on their news page. There is nothing that precludes this just because they have a successful search engine.

I'm not saying that they don't ever generate stories randomly... they do. But I maintain that the stories at the top of the news page are manipulated, and I gave specific instances.

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. see my post I just made

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x188087

[SquireJons]

23. I don't know much about Google Bombs

I know of them, but it's not something I focus on. I am more interested in what they are actually pushing to folks than what they do passively during a search. I'm sure it factors into their thinking, but it's out of my scope. It sure does fits in with the China pattern though. I just wish they would drop the "don't do evil" bull shit. At least the NRA, Walmart and NASCAR don't pretend to be something that they aren't. I hate hypocrisy.

[krispos42]

20. I think it's more automated than you think

A few months ago, I think it was Yahoo News, when some Repub's aide was busted on major federal campaign funding violations or some such law, that same Repub's re-election ad was plastered all over the story. Automatic ad placement gone awry.

[SquireJons]

28. Some thoughts on disorganization

The Internet is messy, no doubt. How online portals handle news is tricky, to be sure. The next Frontline series looks into these very issues. Should be very interesting.

But here's where I question you post. Is Yahoo comparable with Google? Yahoo has been losing money. They have been beaten by Google and are just trying to hang on. They have no extra cash to throw around. But Google? They have so much money that they can pay a billion dollars for YouTube even though the site doesn't make a dime.

So, that same company can't afford a single experienced editor for a major part of their service? I'm not buying it. Plus, I don't think they are that sloppy at Google. They're smart, but no different than IBM or Microsoft now, except for that portal thing... and that's what has me worried. The pugs already have a lock on the traditional media, the largest retail outlet in the US, and the fastest growing spectator sport (if it can be called that)... why not try to own the companies that do most of the business on the Net? That's what I'd do if I were Mehlman and the RNC.

[charlie]

29. And how did Google beat Yahoo?

By cutting out the editors. Yahoo had them. Their "portal" model had a brace of editors you had to petition for inclusion. Google concentrated on algorithms that made search results more relevant and efficient than what Yahoo could provide. They've applied the same automation to their other domains.

[SquireJons]

31. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

A company that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in profits can easily afford a gate keeper on their end. The moderators for Yahoo controlled the users. I'm talking about editing what they put themselves on their own web page. Any company that doesn't do that is asking for trouble. I don't believe that they don't edit their content. They have too much to lose and nothing to gain. Reputation is everything.

As an analogy, imagine a five star restaurant (which google is in the internet world), then imagine them sending out food using neither a chef, nor an expeditor. For those of you who might not be familiar with the restaurant world, just let me say that it wouldn't happen; not in a million years.

If they actually run google that way... my recommendation would be to sell the stock soon, as they will not be around in 5 years. But that's not how they are running google. They intend to dominate for decades, like Microsoft and IBM. If you use them as models, it's hard to imagine them letting their reputation to be generated randomly with no over site.

So, if google is lying about how stories are placed on their site, how can they be trusted on anything? I think the pugs bought them lock, stock and barrel.

[charlie]

36. You keep bootstrapping

from one supposition to the next until you have what you want. If they can afford editors, they must have them. They plan to dominate, therefore they're doing every unscrupulous thing I can imagine. If I can't believe they don't do ideological editing, they must be lying. Therefore the Republicans own them, case closed.

The moderators for Yahoo controlled the users. I'm talking about editing what they put themselves on their own web page.

I don't know what sort of distinction you're trying to make when you say Yahoo controlled "the users." Yahoo determined who got into their listings and weighted which ones got the coveted spots at the top -- by hand. In other words, they were "editing what they put themselves on their own web page." Yahoo did what you're accusing Google of doing.

A news aggregator isn't a restaurant. Not every dish served needs to be a boffo hit. Timeliness and the reliability of sources is what matters.

If Google has the ideological editorial team you're certain of, their office must be like a Wall Street trading pit. Refresh the GNews page every 5 minutes for a while and watch the content change. While you're doing that, watch the articles from a specific site, say the one that's vexed you above, SFGate, and see the rearrangement and replacement that happens. Multiply that source by a few thousand and you've got a Red Army sized team culling the Republican-slanted stuff.

[SquireJons]

44. Nope

"If they can afford editors, they must have them."

You said that, not me. I said that it would be irresponsible for them to place stories on their news site without being aware of what they say, particularly the headline stories at the top of the page. So, if a news portal is a primary part of your image, you need to control that image and maintain your reputation as an accurate source.

"They plan to dominate, therefore they're doing every unscrupulous thing I can imagine."

I have no idea what you can imagine, but if you are trying to defend corporate ethics, don't waste your time with me.

"If I can't believe they don't do ideological editing, they must be lying."

I said that it is unlikely that they would leave their image to chance, but they include a vague statement that says "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program" in tiny print at the very bottom of the page. That is a legal way of covering your butt. Nothing more. The statement actually says nothing about the thinking that goes behind the site. Are you suggesting that there is no planning going on at google? Or do you generally accept what corporate america says to be true? If so, that's a big difference in the way you and I look at things. I'm cynical, but it has served me well.

"A news aggregator isn't a restaurant. Not every dish served needs to be a boffo hit. Timeliness and the reliability of sources is what matters."

Gosh, were to begin with this one? I assume you understand the usage of an analogy, so google doesn't have to send you a burger for it to be relevant. Actually, in a good restaurant, every dish does have to be perfect. If not, you may never see that customer again, and worse, he will tell everyone he knows that he didn't enjoy his meal. News outlets don't need to be that particular. They don't need to make sure that every article will win a pulitzer prize. But they sure as hell need to be sure of their sources and the accuracy of their stories. That's what a reputation is built upon.

As for timeliness, I think that helps my argument more than yours. People keep saying that a program selects the news articles and placement based on hits. But if you look at the top headlines, they have times on them to indicate when the article came out. 12 minutes is not enough time to generate enough hits to place the story at the top of the page. So how did it get there? Simple, someone placed it there.

I do think that google management has an ideological bent, and controlling content is easy. Why would it be so hard to manage the news site? One person could do it easily. You don't need to manage every story to have an effect, only a handful. Sort of like a referee at a sports event. He doesn't need to call fouls against a particular team each play to control the outcome of the contest. Just one here, and another there does the trick.


How about a little contest? I'll keep track of google news for a week and log all of the headline stories that I think are placed with conservative ideology in mind. You do the same and keep track of all the headline stories that either promote a progressive ideology or insult prominent conservatives.

Deal?

My belief is that I'll win hands down. I don't think you will have a single article to support you. I've already got two just from this morning. The first was a dig at the Dixie Chicks and the second one I just saw. How's this for an unbiased google headline?:

"Mr Howard smells a rat: you say, Obama; I say, Osama"

Or here's another one from today:

"A FTER 11 years of solid political judgment and stable leadership, the question many voters are now asking is: has John Howard lost the plot?"


Personally, I think it smells a lot like fox news.

[MyNameGoesHere]

59. Are you sure you are not looking

at your personalized news? My google/news page does not have all that of which you speak. My guess it is reflecting your search habits of rw news sites.

[SquireJons]

78. I don't personalize my page

So, what I see is the generic google news. It is what it is. If you want, I'll post links to all the negative articles here...

I've asked for just one person to post one link to a positive story about democrats or progressives that came from google news. I'm still waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.

[charlie]

65. Oof

You said that, not me.

Is that so? So your incredulity that a company with pots of money that could afford an editor but doesn't, was typed... by me?

I have no idea what you can imagine, but if you are trying to defend corporate ethics, don't waste your time with me.

Can that supercilious shit. And put your halo back in the closet.

...in tiny print at the very bottom of the page. That is a legal way of covering your butt. Nothing more.

Legal way of covering your butt against what? If they did have a hard ideological slant, you think they could get arrested or sued, but the disclaimer keeps that from happening? Under what law? That makes no sense.

Or do you generally accept what corporate america says to be true? If so, that's a big difference in the way you and I look at things. I'm cynical, but it has served me well.

And put your hero's tights and cape back into the closet too.

Gosh, were to begin with this one? I assume you understand the usage of an analogy...

Yeah, I do, thanks for the assumption. I'm a little baffled though, that after that high-handed intro, you'd just re-elaborate the point I made. "google doesn't have to send you a burger"? No kidding, it's good we're both clear on that.

As for timeliness, I think that helps my argument more than yours. People keep saying that a program selects the news articles and placement based on hits. But if you look at the top headlines, they have times on them to indicate when the article came out. 12 minutes is not enough time to generate enough hits to place the story at the top of the page.

If pagerank was the only algorithm they used, every story would hit their page long after others carried it. It'd also make their page nothing more than a reprint of a handful of sources like WaPo, NYTimes, CNN. They'd lose. Badly.

Pagerank isn't the sole criteria for their web search results, either.

So how did it get there? Simple, someone placed it there.

Or not.

I do think that google management has an ideological bent, and controlling content is easy... You don't need to manage every story to have an effect, only a handful... Just one here, and another there does the trick.

And then they're "less reliable than Faux News." Except Fox News is one of their sources. As is CNN, Washington Times, MSNBC, UPI, et al. If you had a news aggregator with US media sources, you would have to have editors... to keep your 10-minute roundups from looking like a conservative rag.

How about a little contest?... I don't think you will have a single article to support you.

I'll just borrow one of yours.

"AFTER 11 years of solid political judgment and stable leadership, the question many voters are now asking is: has John Howard lost the plot?"

Of course, you're fixated on "solid" and "stable", but you can't imagine your doppelganger on Free Republic howling about Google's biased "lost the plot" headline. That headline's a wash and you're claiming it for your own.

[SquireJons]

84. We will just have to disagree

I don't accept anything you have said and you don't accept anything I have said. I'm tired of trying to get you to understand my point, because you have missed it completely.

"Lost the plot?" Oh.... those meanies. Thank goodness he's not ludicrous or too closely associated with Bin Laden.

[charlie]

89. Bullshit

You're the one mischaracterizing other's posts, taking haughty umbrage at mere disagreement, offering bridges to the credulous, reserving noble intent only for yourself, gotten so many assertions of fact wrong and tried to elide them with later qualifications... I haven't missed anything. You've seen the slant of the media and decided it must be Google. 1 or 2 percent is skewed right, you say? That's what set you off? Well hell, I'd say there MUST be a clutch of Hard Left Google editors filtering your news, how else can you be getting stuff that's so comparably bias-free?

[SquireJons]

96. Go away if that the best you can do

...now where is that ignore feature?

[rinsd]

85. You must have a large bottom

Because it seems to be an endless source for your "information".

[SquireJons]

98. Lean in towards your monitor...

and I'll be delighted to moon you.

[Richard Steele]

30. A multi-billion dollar company whose reputation is BUILT ON programs like that, that's who.

"What multi-billion dollar company would allow it's reputation to be randomly generated by a program?

That's kinda what they -DO- y'know.

[SquireJons]

32. Wrong

A) They may have started in the search engine business, but that's not how they generate income. When was the last time you paid for a google search?

B) They do not use randomness in their search engine, it's based on meta data; they just do a better job on searching the data portion of the frame.

C) If you rely on advertising to generate income, as google does, then you are highly dependent on your ad revenue... which comes from big companies. They are very vulnerable to blackmail from their add accounts.

D) So, is their business model based on being the best search engine? There's no money in that... it's free. No, their business model is based now on being a top tier internet portal with which they generate enormous advertising income. That is the business. Therefor... if you get a reputation for putting up crap that you never check, the chances of success as a news portal decrease dramatically. Particularly if your audience is young and informed.

I will never believe that google doesn't control their content. The very notion is absurd. I'd love to go to a board meeting and have them try to defend that business practice.

[rinsd]

87. LOL.

"A) They may have started in the search engine business, but that's not how they generate income. When was the last time you paid for a google search?"

Then why aren't dogpile and some of the other search engines making as much money off ads? Could it be that Google has attained status thru its accurate results to become the go to search engine? Wouldn't maintaining that status against a well funded rival like Yahoo make sense? Could it be that Google realized people hated pissing away money on banner ads first and made the decision to go with a Pay per Click model?

"C) If you rely on advertising to generate income, as google does, then you are highly dependent on your ad revenue... which comes from big companies. They are very vulnerable to blackmail from their add accounts."

Google's ad revenue comes from millions of advertisers. Its not like TV where only the big boys can play. It also doesn't cost as much as traditional advertising so even the big boys don't have to spend tens of millions.

"D) So, is their business model based on being the best search engine? There's no money in that... it's free. No, their business model is based now on being a top tier internet portal with which they generate enormous advertising income."

Which is based on the perception that they are the BEST search engine.

"That is the business. Therefor... if you get a reputation for putting up crap that you never check, the chances of success as a news portal decrease dramatically."

So that proves they are using hand editors to bump up rw propaganda? Because using an auto-generated system could lend itself to accusations against you? How do you get yourself twisted in these logic pretzels?

"I'd love to go to a board meeting and have them try to defend that business practice."

I'd love to see it to.

"Sir, we have a internet crank on the line that is assailing our business model that has made us the highest valued company in history, should we put him through?"

[SquireJons]

93. What does the best search engine have to do with news bias?

I'm not arguing that they don't have a good business model; they make loads of money. I'm saying that news manipulation is being used on their site. The statement they make about randomness means nothing legally.

This is not a study or investigation, it's an observation with questions. If you have not made the same observations, say so. But just because you think that google would never do something doesn't make my concerns go away.

It will be interesting to see what Schmidt has to say on Frontline on Feb 27th. It looks to be a very interesting show.

[rinsd]

99. You've said alot of things. Most pulled from thin air with no evidence.

"If you have not made the same observations, say so."

I'll say even more. Observations such as "I clicked on google news
and there was a story praising Guliani at the top. I have no link but take my word for it they;re biased based on my observations" are worth shit. It would be akin to me accusing you of being a shill for Askjeeves because you mentioned it in this thread.

And to that you add classic strawmen

"But just because you think that google would never do something doesn't make my concerns go away."

Well you certainly have down the whole manipulation thing.

[northzax]

39. "I haven't done in depth research"

really? you can barely tell.

seems my googlenews headline is about the Dixie Chicks winning grammies.

[SquireJons]

46. You really don't get it, do you?

Seems to me you are a black and white person... no shades of grey. The article you read wasn't insulting, so therefor they don't have a bias nor do they ever insult the Dixie Chicks... except in the earlier article. But since you didn't see it, it doesn't exist.

Perfect logic to me.

[northzax]

49. well, you are the one who is saying

that while you haven't actually researched it, based on your casual impressions, a publically traded company is lying to the public about how it conducts its most basic business.

you are saying, based on your casual review, that the CEO of Google is a felon (since the company is publically traded, any SEC reports on google news would therefore be considered false, and since the CEO is required to sign those reports, he is committing a felony a quarter)

Youn understand that, right? without doing research, you are calling someone a criminal, based on your gut feeling. but hey, why do more research? it's easier to call someone a liar than bother to even come close to proving it.

[SquireJons]

67. What?

No, I don't follow. Why can't goggle post a link to a story regarding the SEC? That doesn't make sense to me. The only thing I know is that they can't make false statements to the SEC or to investors. But to the public in general, why not? Particularly when it doesn't have anything to do with google.

They may indeed be felons, I have no idea. That isn't what I was saying. My point is that they are becoming a right wing outlet for propaganda, which is not against the law in this country. So, I have no idea of what you're talking about.

[northzax]

71. if google discloses, in public documents, that the news service

is simply an aggregator, and not edited, and then they edit it, they are lying to the federal government and to investors (shareholders, of course) Federal law makes it illegal to lie to the government on sworn statements, or to lie to shareholders on official documents or pronouncements. This is what Ken Lay did, remember? lied about his company?) It is not a crime to edit something, far from it. it is a crime to sign legal documents saying you don't edit something while you are, in fact, editing it.

read up on Sarbanes-Oxley.

[SquireJons]

80. OK, Show me where google has made that statement

In a legally binding way. The statement on the news page has no legal standing. So, what's your point? Have they made such statements to the SEC and investors? If so, please provide the link. My guess is that they haven't been so dumb as to make any such legally binding statements to anyone, regardless of their ideology.

[northzax]

81. um, here?

http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?answer=38428&topic=9124

[SquireJons]

91. You need to read more carefully my friend

"When you enter a search query..."

and

"Your news search results are compiled by computer algorithms, without human intervention. "

What if you don't enter a search query? They don't say boo about that. If I look up "Bush", I'm likely to get what they say. But if I simply go to google news, that's a different story. And that's what I've been talking about. It's the stories at the top of google news generic page that are being manipulated.

Folks like my mom will go to google news, just to read the headlines, not to search. It is those people that they are trying to influence.

[incapsulated]

15. lol

:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Google's employees do overwhelmingly donate to Democrats

But I'm not sure how that effects the decisions of the company as a whole. BTW if the phrase America's Mayor was in quotation marks then I think it changes the context.

[SquireJons]

25. Yes, as do most IT workers

Interestingly, the IT industry employees are very progressive as a whole, while the corporations and CEO's are just the opposite. My theory is that that's one of the reasons for a sustained attack on IT workers (i.e. outsourcing). But, it's only a small factor, along with Y2K, co worker jealousy and a backlash from IT arrogance over the years.

[bigtree]

34. they are ambitious

and there are consequences to that ambition from the products and enterprises which spring from that ambition.

[Amused Musings]

38. Didn't

Google give tons of money to the Kerry Campaign? I remember it being exceptional enough to warrant news articles about the fact.

[SquireJons]

48. Unknown to me.

But I doubt it. The 2004 election was before the IPO, so google wasn't worth anything yet then, even though they had a strong online presence. At the time that Kerry was running for President, the two guys running google were poor and still living in relative poverty.

[northzax]

51. actually, google went public in August, 2004

so there was time to contribute. and multiple news reports indicate that 98% of money that comes from google employees is to Democrats.

the only donations open secrets lists for either Brin or Page (the founders) is $5000 each to Google's PAC last year. Here is google's open secrets list for the workforce based in California:

http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=&txtState=CA&txtZip=&txtEmploy=google&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&Order=N

the company, as a whole, gave more money to Ned Lamont than Republicans as a whole in 2006. damn conservatives.

see, this is what happens when you back hunches up with a little reaserch, you learn all sorts of interesting things.

[SquireJons]

58. The company is not the same as it's employees

As I said, I don't know what contributions that google has made as a corporation. I doubt that there is any way to really know, any more than it is possible to tell what Merril Lynch does regarding political donations. That's all part of the funny money in Washington.

The link is interesting... now I know where some of the google employees sent teency weensy amounts of money. All totaled from your list, 50 donations totaled roughly $40,000. Spread over multiple campaigns, that's a pittance (though I'm grateful for each donation that the individuals made) I thought it quite interesting that the founders only list google as a recipient of donations.

Can you provide links to any place that indicates that the company google donated to Ned Lamont's campaign? That would be interesting.

[northzax]

69. first off

you may have noticed that this was one page of many (or do all employees have names starting with A or B?)

plus, corporations are banned from giving directly to campaigns. they can give 'soft money' wich is disclosed, or to 527s (like moveon or the Swift Boaters) Again, this is easily determined on the Center for Public Integrity's 527 database (http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/db.aspx?act=main) which shows zero 527 donations for Google inc. through the fourth quarter of 2006.

so, maybe Eric Schmidt, the CEO you wonder about, is a Republican? let's find out! here's his list of campaign donations since 1994: http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Eric_Schmidt.php you will notice that is a total of $245,716 over the past 13 years. $219,216 to Democrats. That's some republican. a whopping 2.96% of his campaign donations have gone to republicans.

And yes, it looks like Brin and Page only have donated, once, to the GoogleNetPac, which gave 61% of it's donations to REpublicans last year (logical, since the company needs favours from government, and gives to those capable of granting them, most corporate PACs gave a lot more than 61% to republicans lately, I bet it's 61% to democrats this time) and hey, the CEO, Schmidt, gave more money to the DSCC than the PAC gave out total.

you are reaching. your statements are not backed up by data, or by experience. you say they didn't give enough, now. well, I frankly, respect them more for not allowing themselves to be shook down by the blatant extortionism most candidates use to get money, especially incumbents.

[SquireJons]

82. Stop putting words in my mouth

OK, you're right that I didn't see the button for the next page of donations from googles employees. But I never said that the individual employees of google were conservative, I said that google as a corporation is now in bed with Murdock and the rest of the MSM yellow journalism. As evidence, I listed several articles to illustrate my point and provided links to the most recent few.

Make all the excuses you want for google PAC. That's how we got to where we are today. So, I guess what you're saying is that they had to give money to Delay.

Right.

[JacksonWest]

52. You are just wrong. About Almost Everything.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/29/technology/google/


Google was worth quite a bit. And the two google guys were millionaires many times over. The company had made a profit of 106 million in 2003.

[SquireJons]

60. That may be

But I read an article at the time of the IPO which clearly stated that the two founders of google had made no money of their own until the IPO. They were poor and kind of proud of it.

I think the wealth changed them, or at least made them heel to their corporate masters. My bigger concern is how the company acts now.

Remember, Walmart started out as a good thing too. Now look at them.

[JacksonWest]

68. You're not really backing this up. Aside from their censoring of stuff in China,

which they expressed regret over, Google is a model company.

Best place to work, ect....

Oh well. You're certainly free to think what you like. GBA friend.

[lovuian]

72. I just know from my experience on You Tube is that

Google is using its dirty tactics to effect and destroy You Tube

it will only help promote You tubers to move on

Heres their tactics
Limiting comments
Long Downloads
malfunctions all over the place
not accurate view counts
I know one You tuber who saw his view counts DECREASE

Its all ways for google to destroy You Tube

I don't use google anymore for my search engine

[JacksonWest]

102. Google owns youtube. Why would they use "dirty tactics" to destroy their own property?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6034577.stm

[SquireJons]

86. Apologized?

I've read that they have deepened their relationship with the Chinese government. The apology was for public relations, nothing more. They haven't stopped what they were doing at all.

I'm sure it's a great place to work. I've always heard that, but of course, that's not my point. They can be a good place to work and still have an ideological bent as a company. The door swings both ways, but again...

(sigh)

If there were no bias and it were all random, we would see top page articles from more progressive publications and by progressive journalists... at least occasionally. I've asked for one such link...


And I'm still waiting. In contrast, I have provided links to three articles posted in the last two days to illustrate my point. What more can I do?

[JacksonWest]

101. Well, I don't have to disprove your assertion.

It would sort of be like me saying "Hillary Clinton drinks blood". You couldn't prove that she didn't, right?

Google is based on web hits. If those headlines are at the top of the page, it's supposed to be the result of traffic. If you can prove Google is not abiding by that, and placing headlines at the top on a whim, you have something.

Your beliefs are noted, but you're not backing it up. All you can demonstrate is that a lot of people are reading news articles that have a purported right wing slant.

[lectrobyte]

40. and I thought this was going to about their deal with NC and getting

out of paying all those property taxes and such:

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/542147.html

Officials in Caldwell County and Lenoir, the city where Google is building, have promised to cut most of the company's tax bill for 30 years, a move that one public estimate shows could lead the community to forgo $165 million.

Legislators also passed a measure last year exempting Google from sales tax on the electricity and equipment it purchases in North Carolina. Sen. David Hoyle, a Gaston Democrat and one of the sponsors of the state bill, said last week that he did not know the full scope of the local incentives at the time.

[SquireJons]

50. Figures...

Just goes to show their true colors. Many companies are good corporate citizens and have no problems paying their already low taxes. I guess google isn't in that category either.

Seriously, I need to stop using them, just like Walmart. I know of other search engines that really are better according to some IT folks I've spoken with.

[lectrobyte]

55. So what other search engines do you use? Thanks. nt

[SquireJons]

63. Besides Google? I'm just starting to try others

I've been brain washed into using Google, just like everybody else. As a search engine, it's fine. But I am starting to have reservations about the corporate philosophy, and therefor may not want to support them at all.

In my MCSE classes, I was told of a search engine that is supposed to be as good or better than google, but I never started using it. At the time it was called "Ask Jeeves.com" but now it's called "Ask.com"

I really don't know how good it is personally, but that's what was recommended to me. There is another one as well, but I can't find it in my notes yet. I'll keep looking and post if I can find it.

[lectrobyte]

70. Thanks, I'll give that one a try, too, I'm pretty much in a google habit, too.

[The Straight Story]

41. you do much web programming/db etc?

Auto-gen content is the way to go, you set up a series of formulas to evaluate web pages based on how they are set up and you suck that content onto your page (rss for example....).

Just for fun, take a look at how their code looks (the html generated code), click view and then source.

Their selections can change on the fly based on what their program is getting back from it's inquiries, and most likely at some point it uses a fair source rotation of primary source w/headline - so you might see the headline 'conservatives vote against X in congress' or you might see 'conservatives lose close vote due to internal bickering'.

Google is showing you many many sources. Their will be headlines linked to things you don't like sometimes :)

[SquireJons]

54. Yes, some.

But my point isn't really about the technology. I know it can be done. But that doesn't mean that it should be done or that it can't be manipulated. So, there is nothing in their statement about random generation that addresses bias, nor is it absolute.

If there were no bias, and it were all random, then one would expect to see an equal number of progressive articles as conservative ones. I have not seen that. In fact, I can't remember any articles that were blatantly pro democrat or condemning of conservatives. It's a one way street. Granted, it's a street with very little traffic, but how many cars do you have to get hit by to get hurt? The danger is there.

[jberryhill]

42. It's a link to a story that ran...

In the San Francisco Chronicle.

Google didn't write the story, but they do generate links to stories that run in major newspapers.

The links on the news page are auto-generated by the same type of ranking algorithm which is used to generate search results. The results change about every ten minutes or so. The fact that an SF Chronicle article about a presidential candidate scored highly enough to be linked is unsurprising.

You are probably also unaware that results are geo-targeted by IP address. Hence, what a viewer in one region may see at any given moment differs from what might be seen elsewhere.

[SquireJons]

57. Man, even I'm getting tired of this dead horse

I'll try one more time... another way.

If I have a used care lot, and most of the cars are in good shape, am I an honest businessman if I maintain that all of my cars are in good shape? 98% of the people who purchase a car from me are happy, so why worry about the other 2%?

Then, what if those 2% were all 1978 Pintos with exploding gas tanks? Would you be pissed at the dealership for selling them even though they knew that the cars were dangerous?

That's kind of the way I see it. Two out of one hundred stories on google news are exploding Pinto's, and they know it. Most of the google apologists maintain that there is no other 2%, and I can't prove you wrong... I don't have the time. But I have observed it, even if you have not.

Show me one google news link that is complementary of Democrats or progressives. That's all I ask... should be easy, right? I've already posted three from today that were insulting.

[jberryhill]

100. If it's 2%, then there sure is a bias

Because the right-tilted stories in the mainstream press, which constitutes the body of text to which google news links, sure is more than 2%.

Search for Google over freepville, and see if they think it tilts in their favor. The fact that Google news links AT ALL to AP or Reuters news stories is enough for them to be convinced that Google, like reality, has a leftward bias.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. This Is Irrational Paranoia At Its Finest. Google Is Perfectly Fine And I Found The Declaration Of

it being 'evil as sin' as one of the silliest and irrationally exaggerated things I've seen on here in quite some time.

This is just really, really silly.

[Cetacea]

61. I agree

I have google news set as my home page. It is a great "barometer" on what the MSM is carrying. I've also gotten some great news articles from Google News that were no where to be found on MSNBC, Yahoo, ad museum.
Google doesn't write the articles.

[SquireJons]

64. So, Google News is your home page?

And you have not noticed a regular dose of right wing headlines? And what about those great articles you spoke of. I don't really go there too often any more, because I consider them suspect. Can you give an example? I really can't think of any articles that I have seen there that have been complementary of Democrats or progressives. But I've seen lots of articles portraying them in a negative way. I listed two that were there just today in earlier threads. It's not like logging onto Free Republic, but it doesn't have to be. One or two articles a day is sufficient to turn me away.

[Cetacea]

76. Yes, but more as a barometer of overall coverage.

I check to see how many "related articles" there are on any given news items. I do admit that in the last year they sometimes pick out a sentence that is right -slanted on their lead-ins. However, I also usually find upon reading the related article that the story is balanced or in fact left-leaning. That being said, I think most of the MSM journalism sux big time and I use Google to see if such stories as the Plame trial and Climate Change are getting enough coverage. Google , for me, remains the best search engine. So it's all-around convenient for me to have them set as my home page. At least for now.


edit: verbiage

[SquireJons]

90. Finally...

A post I can relate to.

"I do admit that in the last year they sometimes pick out a sentence that is right -slanted on their lead-ins. However, I also usually find upon reading the related article that the story is balanced or in fact left-leaning."

I have noticed that as well. But you have to understand modern journalism to understand what they are up to. Bill Moyer's has a great series on what's happening in journalism today in America and it goes into some of it.

In the Early 90's (after the first gulf war), CNN made the corporate decision to get rid of established anchors and reporters, and replace them with pretty faces. Unfortunately, it worked, and they started bleeding viewers away from traditional news shows. On top of that, it is a given in the print media, that the vast majority of readers don't have the patience to read an entire article, so they use what is known as the "inverted pyramid structure", whereby the most important information is right at the top. They make the assumption that most readers will not go more than 2 or 3 paragraphs into the article... at best.

So, how important is the headline? Very. All encompassing. Absolutely the most important part. Take your pick.

I would suggest that even though some of the articles are actually reasonable, for 60% to 70% of readers, they'll never know. They got the message from the headline and the first paragraph. Also, it must be noted, that only sometimes is the article reasonable. Often, a pugnacious headline is followed by an even more nasty article. It's only a few stories, but how many does it have to be? If the pugs have their grubby hands on googles short hairs, that is a significant development for the Democrats.

As an aside... have you notices how concerned the republicans are with the effect of the internet on politics and voting? I have seen no less that two dozen right wing commentators decry the influence of You Tube, The Daily Show, Olbermann and the rest. They have been gnashing their teeth, and with pugs, it never stops there.

Why is it so hard for most of you to accept that the pugs would attempt to control one of the major portals on the web. If I were a republican, that's what I'd do. They have most of the cash, and everything is for sale...

[Hosnon]

66. Aaaaah.

Always a breath of fresh air, OMC.

[Orsino]

74. For money.

Easy one, right?

[SquireJons]

92. What... are you crazy?

Haven't you read a word these good people have written? Google would never.... never eat babies or drink the blood of kittens. That's reserved for Halliburton.

Well, maybe for the right price.

[cool user name]

95. The Cowboys *are* America's Team .... n/t

[SquireJons]

97. Not in these parts cowboy... n/t :-)