BRAD BLOG Sibel Edmonds Article 'Disappears' from Google News

[BradBlog]

BRAD BLOG Sibel Edmonds Article 'Disappears' from Google News
PLUS: Follow-Up Article to Come Detailing Response to Our Monday Exclusive and the 'Gagged' FBI Whistleblower's Challenge to the American Mainstream Media...

Well, this is interesting. It seems our Monday Exclusive (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5197) on "gagged" FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has disappeared from Google News. Sort of.

In related news, we'll will have an exclusive follow-up soon on Edmonds, and the interesting response (or lack thereof), she's so-far received from the American mainstream media in the wake of the blockbuster Monday report. Here's a hint, she's called it "disgusting"...

FULL DETAILS, EXPLANATION: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5231

[tesla78]

1. Just More Google Censorship

From a company that promises to "do no evil". They also have an interesting history on censorship involving the 9/11 truth movement.

[BradBlog]

8. To be clear...

...If you read the full linked article, the original piece is still there at Google News, but it takes some work to find it. For reasons which remain wholly unclear, especially since a link to a two week old story I did which included some Sibel stuff (and which was far less popular/linked), does show up in a simple search.

[waterdancer]

13. link relevance suppression

I believe that is what it is known as. At least, that's what I recently read in regards to this http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22link+relevance+suppression%22&fr=yfp-t-471&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Which I didn't know about when I posted the pics. Learn something new every day, huh?

I diaried about this "story about a missing story" at DKos, if anyone wants to give it a boost over there.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/1/03810/4051

Waterdancer, AKA Wecanchangetheworld

[AntiFascist]

42. I've often heard that Google has ties to the CIA and government...

that's why I use other search engines.

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[valerief]

3. Maybe Al-Jazeera will interview her. nt

[Bitwit1234]

4. With google's nose up republican ass what do you expect.

I can't wait for the democrats to get a spine and get rid of the FEC chairman and give this country FAIR AND CORRECT coverage of news. I am waiting for one of them to come out with a lie that can be proved. I will go to ACLU and anybody who will listen and sue.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Does Media Matters track what Google 'disappears'? Can you even

imagine what the meetings were like to set up the networks to do what they are doing to us - creating an act worse than the USSR because they, the networks, pump the crap out of the propaganda about our being a democracy with the freedom of speech. What a hypocritical nation we live in. I want to know who, when, what, where and how much when the truth comes out about the agreement to screw us on news.

[Trillo]

6. So, what's with Waxman?

Did the bulldog find his nemesis?

[tomp]

22. my question too. nt

[bonito]

7. K&R!

[cascadiance]

9. Brad, this reminds me of some suspicious stuff I saw early in 2006 too with Sibel then...

Right at the beginning of the calendar year, we got email alerts from Google about a news story that happened way back in April of 2005 (and it wasn't showing up in their current searches in case something had changed on the web page that had it spidered mistakenly then). I'd recalled that there was a blackout right around and for a while after Larry Franklin got arrested as a spy for AIPAC. Even though at the time then it didn't seem like Sibel Edmonds' story was linked to Israel much, it did make one suspicious, and from what we know now of how likely these stories might be linked, it seems more suspicious (like some how that those stories that perhaps were covered up then weren't all "sealed up" the way they should have, which had the side effect of one of them being "alerted to" at the beginning of the subsequent year. Here's the earlier thread I started on this at that time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=39220

I also have recorded a clip of a story that INS had on the air last night on Free Speech TV that discussed Sibel Edmonds' MSM challenge if you're interested in it. I'll try to get it up on Youtube in the next day or two, but still are trying to recover from fires and other work issues down here which are just now starting to get sorted out.

It might be interesting to see if there might be the same people involved with both of these "curious" situations at Google.

[cascadiance]

10. Interesting, just NOW as I was typing my note here, I got a google news flash on your latest story..

Interesting timing there too! The email is just two minutes after my post time here...

[troubleinwinter]

11. "response... or lack thereof"

"In related news, we'll will have an exclusive follow-up soon on Edmonds, and the interesting response (or lack thereof)..."

Why did Sibel issue her offer to MSM via an "exclusive" to a small blog?

I maybe don't 'get' how these things work.

[BradBlog]

12. Right...

Yes, it doesn't seem as you do.

Read the full article linked above. The original piece had an *extraordinary* number of eyeballs looking at. What you seem to have deleted from the sentence you quoted above was the key part of the sentence. I'll highlight, so you don't miss it this time:

"...response (or lack thereof), she's so-far received from the American mainstream media..."

As mentioned in the article linked above, I'll have a follow up soon with more details. Which should make it clearer why such a "small blog" carried the exclusive (no quotes needed).

As well, while I realize, troubleinwinter, that you've decided that you're no fan of The BRAD BLOG (if your previous notes are any indication), the Chief of the Voting Rights section of the DoJ Civil Rights Division -- the one who precleared the disenfranchsing Photo ID law for the state of GEORGIA -- is damn near out of a job in the wake of what our "small blog" reported about John Tanner a few weeks ago.

If you missed yesterday's hearings, (here's an AMAZING video if you did: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5225), those comments, video-taped and reported EXCLUSIVELY by The BRAD BLOG (here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5145) were the topic of a couple of hours of hearings in the U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee with Tanner on the grill yesterday.

Other than that, your "small blog" comment is duly noted. Carry on.

[Imagevision]

14. It's been obvious from the start that Sibel Edmonds was/is too serious a threat to

be allowed to speak and Cheney ordered Ashcroft to gag-order her ASAP!!! - censorship in the US.

[Pooka Fey]

15. Thank you, Bradblog, for covering this story. K&R

[WilliamPitt]

16. YO BRAD: They have it under "Blogs"

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&client=news&q=sibel+edmonds&ie=UTF8

...which makes sense, as the link has the word "blog" in it.

[waterdancer]

18. That doesn't get Google off the hook.

Since they also have Brad Blog in Google news. For certain stories, at least. Ones like: "BRAD BLOG Sibel Edmonds Article 'Disappears' from Google News" for instance. Google news it and see for yourself (at least currently). http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=sibel+edmonds

[WilliamPitt]

20. I did

Is there any available data on how Google captures articles for their news page, and is there data on Google procedures/programs that re-categorize links after they are collected?

In other words, do they:

1. collect shitloads of news/politics/op-ed links;

2. dump them all into their 'News' bin;

3. and then 'organize' the pile, post-collection, by category or site type?

I know nada about Google. But I'd be impressed if someone at Google was able to eagle-eye, and then dump/hide, one link amid the millions their search/collect programs capture every day.

Help? Honestly, it seems pretty innocent to me. Your site is named Brad Blog, so it doesn't surprise or concern me that your link wound up getting placed on their Blog page. Explain why I'm wrong; I really do need to learn much more about Google etc. than I know now.

Thanks.

:toast:

Kick-ass reports, by the way.

[waterdancer]

26. The exclusive story didn't show, but other Brad blog stories do

Not being terribly technically inclined, I can't really answer. But the previous story registered:
Note to Limbaugh, Boehner & Friends: Republicans Pushed Turkish ...
and the next story registered (once Brad published it, of course)
"BRAD BLOG Sibel Edmonds Article 'Disappears' from Google News"

You can't find FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All
BostonNOW, MA - Oct 31, 2007 anymore, though it was there when it first came out (wish I had screenshotted it) nor can you find
FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All, Name New Names ...
Huffington Post, NY - Oct 30, 2007
or
NSA translator could blow whistle on Dennis Hastert bribe
Bay Area Indymedia, CA - Oct 29, 2007
or
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds: 'I Will Tell All, & Name (new) Names'
OpEdNews, PA - Oct 29, 2007
it's not just Brad Blog in other words.

[BradBlog]

38. Will, some others have answered, but...

Looks like a few folks have jumped in with thoughts before I got back to this thread, so I'll keep my answers short:

I know nada about Google. But I'd be impressed if someone at Google was able to eagle-eye, and then dump/hide, one link amid the millions their search/collect programs capture every day.

Indeed, I concur. And similarly know very little about the mystery that is Google and their rankings, etc.

Help? Honestly, it seems pretty innocent to me. Your site is named Brad Blog, so it doesn't surprise or concern me that your link wound up getting placed on their Blog page. Explain why I'm wrong; I really do need to learn much more about Google etc. than I know now.

Replied to this a bit above, but BRAD BLOG stories all go to Google News, as did this one originally (and even while it had "disappeared" if you knew how to search Google News in a special enough way to have it come up).

I've got no position on whether it was all "innocent" or not, since, as mentioned, I know nothing about how the rankings/search results work either.

As I noted in the original report, I don't know what it means, only that that's what it was doing. And there wasn't any real sensible explanation for a much older (two week older) story showing up there via a simple search for "Sibel Edmonds" but not the more recent story which was also *vastly* more popular.

Didn't and won't make any accusations, because I do not have enough info to do that. But it seemed worth noting.

It also seems worth noting that the story is now appearing again via simple news search for "Sibel Edmonds". I'll note that in an update to my original post at BRAD BLOG, along with the additional info that I still have no idea why it was either gone, and why it now seems to be back.

(And thanks for the kind words about the recent reports, Will. Hope you are well!)

[Recursion]

47. They use pigeons

http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

More seriously, they have a very sophisticated automated process that weighs a stories value mostly based on how, when, and to what extent other venues link to it it and/or cite it.

The time delay does at least initially suggest that there was some human meddling later on (though I make no definite assertion of that).

[BradBlog]

37. It had (like all other BRAD BLOG stories) been under "News"

All BRAD BLOG stories are carried in Google News. This one was as well (and still is, if you search correctly) until it stopped appearing there via simple search.

[mmonk]

17. I just got a new name from a print media source I was given.

I'm going to try that person for awhile. Print is better than nada. And by the way, thanks.

[proReality]

19. Google "Sibel Edmonds" and you have to wade a mile, BUT...

"Sibel Edmonds news";

"Sibel Edmonds latest";

and "Sibel Edmonds tell all" easily produce some good results.

It's what I call the crossword search, where you have to come up with the word AND the right clues to get you where you want to go. It's annoying, and only determined research gets you where you want to go.

[lukery]

21. interview on sibel's case

i gave an interview on sibel's case

new thread here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2181435

[navarth]

23. What about Keith Olbermann???

Am I being naive here? General Electric has given him free rein so far...has anyone tried him? I'll try emailing him if nobody else has. Perhaps a flood of emails?

[calimary]

25. Welcome to DU!

Actually, your question is an EXCELLENT one. Not the one about being naive. Sending to Keith Olbermann will at least be doing SOMETHING. Our side has one really strong voice: his. And he's getting stronger because of that fact, as more people discover him, and he gets more favorable press, his ratings keep climbing (especially as compared to the others on MSNBC that aren't experiencing his growth) - which means more advertising revenue. They're not going to pull a Donahue on him and kill the golden goose this time - especially when external conditions have changed, this White House has been severely discredited, and the country's not rah-rah-rah'ing for war anymore.

Go for it. Send the emails. How can it hurt?

[BonnieJW]

32. When I try to email Keith now,

it bounces back. I saw his email changed to [e-mail], but it still comes back

[navarth]

35. Ok, I mailed Keith Olbermann.....

and I got an 'Returned mail: delivery problems encountered'. This was using the [e-mail] address. Now I've sent it to [e-mail] with the same result. Maybe there's a filter that won't accept mail with links? Or too much text? For convenience of the reader I included the link to the brad blog article as well as the text of the article itself.

So I tried again without the body text, just my intro and the link. It failed. WTF. And dig the return addresses:

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

[e-mail]

WTF is nbcuni dot com? I KNOW I sent it to msnbc dot com.

and also, the gatekeeper that turned me down was

[e-mail]

So: emailing Keith Olbermann FAILS. Strange........

[eek]

46. nbcuni = NBC Universal

That's the merged name.

[AntiFascist]

43. Here's a thought...

if someone like KO gave Sibel Edmonds a 5 minute window of time to divulge as much as she could within that time, would she go for that?

[lonestarnot]

24. Kick

[StateSecrets]

27. K&R

Thank you Brad; keep up the good work!

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. I don't want to keep on using Google. Is Alta Vista the next most powerful

search engine, technically?

I found a ton of stuff the other day on the first page of Alta Vista, having found nothing relating to the topic - on the first page at least - of Google. And I believe it was political, though I don't remember specifically what it was

[waterdancer]

52. I shopped around a bit

This page ranks the top three as being Google, Yahoo, Ask (and doesn't recommend metasearch engines.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/SearchEngines.html

But I kept going through engines and meta engines until I ran into this meta engine; I like it. Better than anything else I've seen. No comparison, really, at least on this particular topic of interest:

http://www.polymeta.com/search/ui7/searchresult.jsp?sc=133&q=sibel+edmonds

Note that this is news results, at least according to their definition of it. 41 results. Nothing else comes near that level on a news search that I've seen.
Also has blog searching available which includes Ask, Google and Technorati results.

[Joe Chi Minh]

54. Thank you very much, waterdancer. Looks as if it will be very interesting.

I mean polymeta, in particular.

[truedelphi]

29. I don't think this is correct.

First of all, any news story has an immediate effect. SO it will have more attention and be on more active links the day it is entered into the blogosphere and for a few days after that.

Then it recedes. Unless for some reason it is posted again, perhaps because of an update.

THink about it - if Edmonds was reported on a week or two ago, unless the Brad Blog updates it, it sinks back in the rankings. It's the way Google works.

After all, if the Edmonds article is given prominent display and positioning on Brad Blog, readers there will read it the day it is posted. Will they re-read it four days later? Probably only those doing research on that will do that. So it sinks down.

Now corporate news is aware of this. That is why when any of their "faux news" stories appear, they are sure to update them CONTINUOUSLY. Anna Nichole Smith dies, there is then an update on it eight hours later, and that is updated, and that is updated.

And of course even scurrilous and trivial takes on the death tend to count for more viewership. "Was Anna wearing a pink nightie or was she TOTALLY NUDE at time of death - film at 11Pm."

We on the blogosphere don't do that. Brad didn't bother to sensationalize the Edmonds story - as to this date, I have not seen any "Later today on Brad, we will discuss Edmonds penchant for revealing outfits." If that tactic was taken, Edmonds would undoubtedly stay current in the "google" listings.
For as long as the T&A trivia continued.

[BradBlog]

39. Problem with your theory

THink about it - if Edmonds was reported on a week or two ago, unless the Brad Blog updates it, it sinks back in the rankings. It's the way Google works.

After all, if the Edmonds article is given prominent display and positioning on Brad Blog, readers there will read it the day it is posted. Will they re-read it four days later? Probably only those doing research on that will do that. So it sinks down.

The theory doesn't make sense, in that the two week old story, which mentioned Sibel cursorily and didn't even have her name in the headline, and was far less popular, still showed up on the list of news items in a simple "Sibel Edmonds" news search at Google.

As to the notion that it doesn't show up on the regular front page of the News site, of course, that's understandable after time, as you suggest and I've not suggested that's a concern. But why it wouldn't come up when searching news for "Sibel Edmonds" and the other, older, less popular story did is certainly strange.

[truedelphi]

51. Hmm, that is a cause for concern. You might do what I did a few yrs back

I called google and asked which tech I should talk to about an interesting phenomenon that was occurring. That it probably was not only affecting me but many other users. (Can't remember what exactly was occurring - but I was rather concerned about whatever it was.)

Mentioned I was a staff reporter for my newsopaper.

I ended up talking with Eric Schmidt. (Didn't know who he was at the time so I was surprised when I found out!)

I think that there may be enough cache with you heading bradblog for him to get jiggy with you and discuss why this happened.

[truedelphi]

30. Now as to Google "limiting" the website shares your website or mine

Might have.

I just googled my main website. Carol Sterritt + www.coastalpost.com

It has 829 listings. They are all valid.

The website WOULD have oh maybe 1.2 million listings if every component was taken into account. But thankfully Google censors out those.

Carol Sterritt can give me "Sterritt" and lots of listings come with that due to David Sterritt being a first rate film critic. But it isn't any relation to me or things I post. (I'd be pleased if David was a relative but he isn't.) NONE of the David Sterritt listings are included in the 829 listings I found. But they are included in the 1.2 million listings that Google "Censors" out to give me a more accurate portrayal.

Carol Sterritt can also give me "Carol" as in Christmas Carol and as in Carol Smith who is part of a geneaology project posted on the web. I gain another 120,000 listings from things like that unless
Google "Censures" those.

Now I also believe the following is true: Where the corporate culture is injurious to us bloggers is that there are paying features nowadays. People with the resources can pay to have a higher ranking than they deserve without the payment.

[cascadiance]

31. By the way, I.N.N. World Report covered Sibel's story on their October 30th show on Free Speech TV..

Go here for the archives and watch until just about half way through the show (right before the Greg Barker interview segment) for the October 30th show.

http://www.innworldreport.net/archives.html#

So though we don't have MSM attention for this yet, at least some of the alternative news shows are giving it some visibility.

[truedelphi]

53. Thanks for posting URL. n/t

[Baby Snooks]

33. Nothing new...

Stories began "disappearing" from Yahoo/Reuters not long after 9/11. And the mainstream media knew it. Someone suggested Pierre Salinger should send his stories out via email. If you watch the "wire service stories" on the various feeds including Google you will notice that not only do the stories never appear in the NY Times or the LA Times or the Washington Post they are no longer on the feeds themselves.

My personal opinion is the major media is afraid of running stories until they have "approval" from someone.

I've heard that some "cached" stories on Google have disappeared. Apparently they have. And what doesn't disappear often differs from the original story.

Rule of thumb these days is to print the story when it hits.

[JPZenger]

34. Story has now moved up on Google

When I typed in "sibel edmonds" and exclusive, the Brad Blog story is now the 1st response on google. When I type "sibel edmonds" and news, the Brad Blog story is the second website listed on google.

By the way, he is a transcript of a 2004 radio interview with her:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

[BradBlog]

40. Thanks...

The story now seems to come up appropriately, and as expected, when doing a simple news search for "Sibel Edmonds". No clue what has changed since our original report.

[shance]

45. Oh I have a few.....

;)

[Lord Helmet]

36. this story has been languishing for years

let her speak

[drm604]

41. There has recently been a shakeup in Google's ranking algorithms.

The net has been buzzing about this at least a week.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=50z&q=lost+google+pagerank&btnG=Search

Page's rankings have been jumping all over the place. There's no reason to believe that this one article was singled out.

[EVDebs]

44. Proudly #50 vote for Greatest Page. K&R to the max IMHO. nt

[2 Much Tribulation]

48. Hint: Disgusting treatment of real news.... nt

[spooked911]

49. we don't need Sibel Edmonds to tell us the truth about 9/11

it's already pretty clear what happened-- though it wasn't pretty:
http://911overview.blogspot.com/

[BelgianMadCow]

50. All news on the Arcelor-Mittal merger got disappeared at once

to be replaced on the sponsor side with a link to the news page of these companies.

I went soooo wtf then. Sounds the same.