May 24, 2006
Jawa and Google News, Setting the Record Straight
UPDATE: Slashdot picked up the story so I bumped this to the top. The crux of this post is that The Jawa Report is currently a Google News source after initially being dropped for alleged hate speech.
The Jawa Report was mentioned today in a World Net Daily column about censorship at Google News. In it, the author correctly identifies the fact that I received a letter from Google News which said, "Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News."
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
The Jawa Report was mentioned today in a World Net Daily column about censorship at Google News. In it, the author correctly identifies the fact that I received a letter from Google News which said, "Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News."
The March 29th date he mentions, is also correct. But for clarities sake I just want readers to know that it was March 29th of 2005, not from this year.
Also, to be fair to Google, after an appeal from readers The Jawa Report was reinstated as a Google News source. We are currently a Google News source.
Go read the article at WND. There does seem to be a pattern at Google News of bias against right-of-center websites. But, at least in our case, there was a corrective mechanism. Somebody at Google--perhaps some one higher up the editorial chain of command-- did some further research after hearing complaints and decided that the initial 'hate-speech' accusations were unfounded.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:11 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
1
>>>Also, to be fair to Google, after an appeal from readers The Jawa Report was reinstated as a Google News source.
Then I may have to reconsider my own Google policy and lift my boycott of them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:18 AM (8e/V4)
2
That should really make a difference!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:34 AM (FCC6c)
3
Yeah, seems like at least one person over at Google has a heart.
Posted by: Rusty at May 23, 2006 09:44 AM (JQjhA)
4
Let's assume for a moment that the cries of "liberal bias" at Google are true.
Google would be within its rights to limit its content in the same way that say, a private golf club would be allowed to decide who can be a member or not.
That's the problem with the whole "liberal bias" argument - it assumes that businesses cares more about their politics than the bottom line. They don't.
Rupert Murdoch manages to run a conglomerate that runs a right-wing pro-family news network (which actually IS biased, because it purports to "correct" the assumption of liberal bias), yet gives Paris Hilton a TV show and runs "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"
It's not about the red states or the blue states, it's about the green.
Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 09:50 AM (7AEHv)
5
>>>That's the problem with the whole "liberal bias" argument - it assumes that businesses cares more about their politics than the bottom line. They don't.
Hollywood proves you wrong just about every day.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 10:05 AM (8e/V4)
6
Theo,
Of course, you are correct, but at the level of deciding which sites are "news" and which sites are not "news" there is a great deal of discretion. Also, one man's 'hate speech' is another man's comedy. Thus, who makes the decision is very important. The people making such decisions are usually not those high on the ladder--those interested in the bottom line.
While McDonald's may be about profit, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that every decision made by the guy who takes your order is about what is in the best interests of the company.
This is why Chomsky and Hermann's media bias model is so flawed--because it doesn't take into account many things, including the fact that those charged with implementation and the owners of a company may have different interests and conflicting visions.
Posted by: Rusty at May 23, 2006 10:10 AM (JQjhA)
7
"Hollywood proves you wrong just about every day."
No, it doesn't.
"The Da Vinci Code" did monstrous business this weekend, while offending a few kooks on the fringe.
Hollywood can't cater to every taste, but they pretty much give us exactly what we want (as a whole), or they'd be out of business, too.
(All of a sudden, capitalism doesn't apply to the entertainment business?)
Occasionally the fringes will squeak through a "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "Passion of the Christ", but that's the exception, not the rule.
To paint with the broadest brush, America is liberal socially and conservative economically. You may disagree with that personally, but it's true of the majority.
Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 10:22 AM (7AEHv)
8
Media appears to be as good as a free market model as any other. Maybe it wasn't when we had only 2 or 3 channels of TV to watch, but Americans have plenty of choices now. Caveat emptor !
Posted by: john Ryan at May 23, 2006 10:30 AM (FBW1e)
9
Google blows:
"Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-frie
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:40 AM (8e/V4)
10
>>>America is liberal socially
No, LIBERALS are liberal socially, while America is socially conservative. It's why you have to resort to the courts 24/7, and it's why there will never be "gay marriage" unless the Liberal judges force it down our throats. Left to the legislatures it would never pass. The fact is even Liberals have to pretend to be conservatives to get elected in this country (see Hilary), and if Hollywood wasn't injecting their Lib politics into everything they make they'd be making twice as much money.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:45 AM (8e/V4)
11
So, Carlos...your "logic" is that gay marriage is being "pushed down your throat" (pun intended?)? I'd say that you denying people rights that other people enjoy is "pushing your agenda" at us.
And please don't tell me what would and wouldn't pass in a Democratic administration. Republicans rode social issues all the way into the White House and Congress, and what have they done about any of them? Not a goddamn thing.
Even that Focus on the Family kook Dobson agrees with me on that one.
Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 01:53 PM (7AEHv)
12
Theo:
I offer the following as evidence that the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender agenda is being pushed down our throats: in California, working its way through the legislature is a bill which will require text books for kids to include information about the acceptablility of the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender life style. It has passed the Assembly with all of the California Democrats voting in favor.
The content for text books in California sets the content for text books nationwide with few exceptions because the California market is so big and the competition among the publishers is minimal. So this will be an important victory for the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender lobby.
What a stupid waste of time and money! Based on the recent exit exam currently in the news, 10% of California high school graduates can't pass an 8th grade Algebra test.
More evidence: The Gay/Lesbian/Transgender Lobby has demonized the Boy Scouts and is legally challenging them in many instances. Their selfish demonization jeopardizes the Scout's future availability for boys. THis is not a great time to be a boy apparently - there is pervasive gang influence, boys bring guns to school, many have no father. Boy Scouts is a tremendous positive socializing force for boys but the Gay/Lesbian/transgender lobby does not care. Their agenda always comes first.
I personally don't care if someone is Gay/Lesbian/ or Transgender. I do care that special interests of the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender community is being pushed down my throat through nonstop political advocacy, specifically targeting kids.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 03:37 PM (aH6Zf)
13
I love it when foreigners come to this country. Become successful because of our ways and then tell us to change.
Screw the candy asses at Google.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 04:42 PM (BEvWK)
14
Here's an idea Carlos:
The reason it is, is because the state is legally unable to show any sort of discrimination towards anyone who has not actively committed a crime.
Here's a good solution: get government out of schools, and you can concentrate on teaching instead of making sure no one feels discriminated against.
Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 04:58 PM (B9sDR)
15
MIB: Amen.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 06:00 PM (BEvWK)
16
Theo,
my only point is that this country is NOT socially Liberal-- it's CONSERVATIVE-- and I think my gay marriage example more than proves it.
Now you kids can argue amongst yourselves about "gay marriage" if you like.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 10:08 AM (8e/V4)
17
The point was made that we are a socially liberal country but I haven't seen any facts to back that up. It may be liberal where you live but "the country" goes beyond the borders of your hometown. That's the problem with Hollywood and the MSM - they seem to be sheltered from what goes on beyond their circle of friends and can't understand why anyone would vote Republican.
Against gay marriage: not liberal
anti-ACLU: not liberal
If put to a vote, at best abortion gets 50%: equal
war on terror: not liberal
controlling the borders: not liberal
stop illegal immigration: not liberal
lowering taxes: not liberal
These are just the hot-button issues I could think of off the top of my head and all but one are overwhelmingly issues that conservatives have majority support on.
So, I don't see where the 'socially liberal' label comes from. There is a reason why Republicans have been elected president so often. The one recent anomolie was Bill Clinton being elected which never would have happened without Ross Perot splitting the conservative vote. And Carter? Well, we see what happens when someone that far to the left gets elected. Anyone who was actually alive when he was president would never want to see that happen to the country again. A truly conservative Democrat could be elected but the extreme left will never allow that to happen. It's not good for politics when the extreme wing takes over your party.
A socially liberal country? Not as clear-cut as you may think.
Posted by: slug at May 24, 2006 11:52 AM (wcNc2)
18
I didn't say ALL if America is liberal, you twits - I said "to paint with the broadest brush". Any national poll will tell you that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, for universal health care, stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, against the Iraq war, on and on.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948
To answer Heroic Dreamer :
1. Californians are more tolerant than the rest of the country, and they want tolerance taught in their schools. It's a state issue - if Californians want it, it'll pass.
Can I remind you that Californians were way ahead of the curve on fuel efficiency standards? Or to put it another way, Californians are "funding the terrorists" at a lesser rate than any other state.
2. The Boy Scouts are absolutely discriminatory against gays. You admit as much yourself. The Boy Scouts enjoy benefits from the government, are an official adjunct of the government, and are therefore subject to its laws.
I'd like to note that the Girl Scouts have no such policy regarding lesbians.
Besides, the gay thing is merely a wedge issue designed to get ignorant people to the polls, and it appears to work. Ever wonder what America would be like today if we held the rights of blacks up to state referendums? The day is coming where it'll be a federal issue - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.
Until then, Mary Cheney and the heathens who raised her will have to wait. 
Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:18 PM (7AEHv)
19
Theo: You referred to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" as 'the fringes squeaking through'. I believe that shows your bias. IMBDB shows that it was quite successful. The topic itself is something that many Americans hold quite dear.
Concerning the 'Jesusland' voters, look back at gay marriage and how it fared in 2004. Gay marriage referendums were voted down 11 or 12 states, including Oregon. I don't know if Oregon was the only state voting for Kerry that mixed gay marriage.
Here in Massachusetts, gay marriage was forced upon the commonwealth. The Supreme Judicial Court pulled it out of thin air on a tie vote. The chief justice gets two votes in a tie, so it became law. The Massachusetts legislature utterly refuses to put it to a vote because the outcome is not clear. Matters like sweeping social change are far too important to be jepordized by constitutional process.
Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 01:26 PM (UxguT)
20
"Matters like sweeping social change are far too important to be jepordized by constitutional process."
Uh, then why are the Republicans trying in vain for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage?
Gotcha.
Hey, if LBJ hadn't signed the Civil Rights Act, the red states would still be blue. But no, it was a matter of principal, of fairness, and marriage equality will be federal law one day. After which, our children will ask us why we were such douchebags. And like our parents and grandparents regarding blacks, we'll feebly answer, "That's just the way things were then..."
Hey, if LBJ hadn't signed the Civil Rights Act, the red states would still be blue. But no, it was a matter of principal, of fairness, and marriage equality will be federal law one day. After which, our children will ask us why we were such douchebags. And like our parents and grandparents regarding blacks, we'll feebly answer, "That's just the way things were then..."Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:36 PM (7AEHv)
21
"...why are the Republicans trying in vain for a constitutional amendment..."
That shows the difference between the left and the right. In Massachusetts, the Democrats will not put gay marriage to a binding referendum vote. They don't trust the hoi-polloi, with good reason, to pass gay marriage.
The Republicans are willing to put it to a vote.
Yes, LBJ signed the Civil Rights act after congress voted on it, not 6 judges. Congress then had to stand for re-election. If you think the Civil Rights act was good, remember to thank the Republican party ;]
Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 01:50 PM (UxguT)
22
Earlier I asked:
"Ever wonder what America would be like today if we held the rights of blacks up to state referendums?"
An answer, please?
Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:53 PM (7AEHv)
23
No, I haven't wondered, but I'll give it some thought today.
Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 01:59 PM (UxguT)
24
How soon they forget the souther Democrats were the racists
Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 02:03 PM (D3+20)
25
Thanks, fluffy. That's all I ask.
And Howie, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, all those "Democrats" became Republicans, didn't they?
There's a reason red states and old slave states correspond, and it ain't because of fiscal policy.
Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:09 PM (7AEHv)
26
I only know of one and I think later in life he regretted a lot of stuff he did.
LBJ caught hell for signing it too. But he did anyway Becuase LJB was a Real Man Democrat like they used to make. Not a semi communist moonbat.
Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 02:14 PM (D3+20)
27
Hey, prompted by a poster on a well known blog, I was wondering what America would be like today had the civil rights of black citizens been left to state referendums. I think that the majority of states would have passed these referendums and that a lot of blacks would have moved from states voting against.
It's an interesting question with a wide scope. It could probably be the subject of a very thick book.
Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 02:16 PM (UxguT)
28
"LJB was a Real Man Democrat like they used to make. Not a semi communist moonbat."
Awesome McCarthy imitation.
I'm sure he called Gen. Eisenhower something similar.
Eisenhower, that communist hippie!
Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:18 PM (7AEHv)
29
Hey Theo: You seem to be mixing apples and oranges when you mix the gays rights issues up with the Civil Rights movement, holding blacks up to referendums etc. Maybe you don't realize this but being Gay/Lesbian/Transgender is not a race issue. It's sexual. Sexual. Being gay means you like to have sex with people of your own gender. It is not a race issue. It is not in any way a Civil Rights issue. It's about sexual preference.
Regarding your puzzlement over why the Girl Scouts don't have a lesbian issue. Girls are very different from boys. Have you no common sense? or do you just have no regard for the well-being of young men? Sexual issues have no place in Boy Scouts.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 24, 2006 03:31 PM (aH6Zf)
30
So blacks have the same rights now, but they forfeit them again if they fall in love with someone of their own gender?
I agree sexual issues have no place in the Boy Scouts, but the Boy Scouts are making it one, aren't they?
You also cannot profess to be an atheist and join the Boy Scouts. Since the Boy Scouts are a public, government-funded arm of the government (not a private club), how is that legal?
Being an American and being a Christian don't always line up, I'm sorry. But that's the way the founders, in their wisdom, designed it. Suck it up.
Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 04:05 PM (7AEHv)
31
Theo,you say: "Being an American and being a Christian don't always line up, I'm sorry. But that's the way the founders, in their wisdom, designed it."
I say: What is your point?
You also say: "So blacks have the same rights now, but they forfeit them again if they fall in love with someone of their own gender?
I say: Huh? You really like to mix up your issues. Sorry, but this is a waste of time.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 24, 2006 04:39 PM (aH6Zf)
32
Theo,
The Boy Scouts have been consistent about sexual issues from the start. They said no girls - thus no sex. Of course Sir Badden-Powell likely didn't think it was necessary to say "and no buggery, too, lads". The problem IS a liberal issue, as that is the force that started the "if it feels good, do it" way of life.
The Boy Scouts want to have no sexual content, period. Gender doesn't matter, but NOW they have to explicitly state WHAT kind of sexual content is unwelcome, and no longer rely on a prevailing social standard as a point of reference.
BTW, the Boy Scouts have never had any government affiliation. AND they were started in England first, only later came to US.
You are just too sloppy with your facts & history.
Your implied statement that the founders did not want Christianity to have any place in America is blatantly false.
But of course, you are a product of California's educational system, aren't you? You never learned the truth, and were too ??uninspired?? to do some personal research.
Go Pound Sand.
Posted by: Chris at May 24, 2006 04:40 PM (o+3dL)
33
Theo,
The Boy Scouts have been consistent about sexual issues from the start. They said no girls - thus no sex. Of course Sir Badden-Powell likely didn't think it was necessary to say "and no buggery, too, lads". The problem IS a liberal issue, as that is the force that started the "if it feels good, do it" way of life.
The Boy Scouts want to have no sexual content, period. Gender doesn't matter, but NOW they have to explicitly state WHAT kind of sexual content is unwelcome, and no longer rely on a prevailing social standard as a point of reference.
BTW, the Boy Scouts have never had any government affiliation. AND they were started in England first, only later came to US.
You are just too sloppy with your facts & history.
Your implied statement that the founders did not want Christianity to have any place in America is blatantly false.
But of course, you are a product of California's educational system, aren't you? You never learned the truth, and were too ??uninspired?? to do some personal research.
Go Pound Sand.
Posted by: Chris at May 24, 2006 04:40 PM (o+3dL)
34
And Howie, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, all those "Democrats" became Republicans, didn't they?
No.
Since the Boy Scouts are a public, government-funded arm of the government (not a private club), how is that legal?
Um, no, it's not. It's privately-funded. The hook the loons have on it is that it often makes use of public facilities, like many other private clubs.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at May 24, 2006 04:58 PM (Gn9tM)
35
Any of you guys work for a living? Just an observation but look at the times of postings today. Government workers??
Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:02 PM (8MCDk)
36
Government worker?????? ha, ha. I mean government employee.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:07 PM (8MCDk)
42kb generated in CPU 0.0272, elapsed 0.1512 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1342 seconds, 285 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1342 seconds, 285 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
