1 But, Doc, You have guys like Grey Rooster that are admitted racists and regularly use hate speech. I don't get the surprise or modesty of it all. I agree that Google, as a HUGE corporation, has to defend its bottom line. If you want to stay on Google, drop the racists and stick to conservative/neocon/libertarian comments. Or, you could start warning and banning. At least then you've got some CYA insurance... I'm just sayin', you can't complain about getting punched in the face when you constantly slap a man's wife on the ass.

2 Blue, How can WE be held responsible for what Greyrooster says. Honestly, I didn't even know he was still around.

3 I think the basic problem is not that Google News is biased, but that the media is biased -- that there are far more socialist-leaning media outlets than libertarian-leaning ones. That has to change.

4 Yes Rusty, Greyrooster is still around. He said his friends from the Bronx were coming to get me !!! I was soooo scared. Honestly when people say things like that I think a reasonable reaction is first laughter, followed by some analysis. The Bronx ? He must have seen from a movie that this was a somehow "bad" part of New York City. What does he think that life is... like in the movies ?

5 I signed up to this RSS when I read about Google's ban

6 pitty on them.

7 All folk should be able to express their views, however I do agree that making personal threats only puts us on the level of the terrorists. This site has always had people from the left and right arguing their point and why is condemning islam considered hatred? Yet it is ok to condemn the nazis, stalinist Russia or Pol Pot for example. To me the oppression in the name of Islam is no different to these periods in history ...just look at the world situation now and tell me radical Islam is ok.

8 Any and all organizations and governments with violent creed and doctrine should be put down!

9 Actually, THIS ONE is a great one to talk about. When the story of Rep. Murtha and the accusations of the marines killing innocent civilians broke on the MSN the other night. I went home and started scanning Google News to see how quickly it showed up on the top stories at Google news. On the FIRST night there was only 87 articles related to this issue, and for most of the night it went back and forth (meaning, it kept showing up in the main page, then disappeared for a few hours, then came back. By main page I mean at the bottom of the page, on the "Other Top Stories" section.) Interestingly I notice a pattern: The only sources of the story during that whole night were articles from international press (England, Australia, Middle East, etc) and right wing blog websites. It was there were I found the Jawa Report, which at that moment was in the top 20 of that particular story at that particular time of the night: Very few liberal blogs had reported on it, and almost no main news sources other than MSN and ITB, not even Fox or CNN. Then as the story grew and went up in the Top Stories sections the next day, the right wing blogs slowly faded and eventually disappear and the bulk of the story was now reported by most media outlets. Eventually it also faded as other relevant news took its place. Now here are two interesting observations (Based on the default Google news page, not the main news pages for each country): A) Google places stories in the top of their news page base on a formula that takes into account the following: 1) How many news outlets are reporting it, 2) how many people (traffic) are reading these reports (Which accounts for the order in which they are shown. This is why at night the countries in the Middle East and Europe tend (not always) to pop at the top at night: Their citizens are waking up and reading while ours are asleep), 3) the DATE in which the article was written. 4) Words matching, terms and names used in these articles. So, for example, a smaller blog like this will get top rating at first when it reports something that the main outlets haven't reported first (as it happened the other night), but as the main outlets start reporting, their sites draw much (much, much) more traffic, their DATES are newer and therefore, they take over the ratings as the smaller blogs slowly fade to the back of the list. This is basically what happened in the example given above. B) Here is the kicker: Whenever a political issue becomes offensive to either political group (left-right) , the bloggers/pundits are usually the first ones to talk about it and report on it. However, by doing this the bloggers themselves ARE creating the news that gets listed in Google. This is what happened with the Murtha story: It was the bloggers that put it in the front page of Google and made it news. Granted, it would have been news anyway, but those initials posts got the ball rolling. Consider that a non-partisan observation. I JUST happened to be talking about this with a buddy of mine who is doing a study on the subject for his book.

10 Blue drees patriot: Like I said before you are a coward. Cowards call for help and tell the teacher on others. Seeking protection by getting the teacher, or mommy or daddy, or Google to agree with them. You are shit. Personally, I believe this to be the Jawa report. Not a crybaby blog whose purpose is to find fault with anything America does simply because a leftard idiot like you disagrees. You crybaby assholes lost the election. Quit crying. RACIST: Racists are allowed because the truth is that 100% of blacks are racist. Probably 90% of Asians are racists. And I expect 70 to 80% whites are racist. So as a majority, I rule. I don't lie. Idiots like Blue dress and John Ryan are pitiful lonely little pricks. Seeking friendship from the enemy because their own kind wants nothing to do with them. That's why I consider them more the enemy than the terrorists. At lest the terrorist don't aid the enemy.