Conspiracy Theory About Google In League With UN Corruption Doesn't Pass The Sniff Test
from the um,-please dept
It’s no secret that people are fairly opinionated (one way or the other) about Fox News. I’m not going to weigh in on that debate, other than to note that there’s a bizarre story making the rounds on FoxNews.com claiming that Google made a journalist “disappear” from Google due to his efforts to expose UN corruption. The problem is that this is simply untrue, and any basic fact checking by the Fox reporter would have made that clear. The guy in question wasn’t removed from Google, but from Google News, which the search engine is quite clear is only a hand-chosen collection of publications, which the company reviews regularly. For better or for worse (and I actually tend to think for worse), Google has set some rules in terms of what types of sources can appear in Google News — and this guy’s site did not appear to qualify, hence the site getting bounced from the Google News index (not the wider Google). However, when people complained, and the guy provided proof that his organization might actually meet Google’s standards, Google News agreed to put it back in the index. In other words, there’s no story here. It has nothing to do with his reporting on UN corruption or Google’s political views. It’s certainly unlikely that the UN asked Google to remove him (as the guy implies). It’s nice to cook up some conspiracy theory, but there’s nothing to support the charges here. The Fox article does lay out some of these details at the end of the article, but the headline and opening certainly make you think that Google vindictively removed this guy from its index to punish him for exposing UN corruption.
Filed Under: google news, un corruption
Companies: google
Comments on “Conspiracy Theory About Google In League With UN Corruption Doesn't Pass The Sniff Test”
Like Google would even give a rat’s ass what the UN thinks
Faux News
Fair and balanced BS
Re: Faux News
They are no less impartial, nor do they perform any worse job of fact-checking than any other news source…
They are all wrong and biased. The vast majority (read every single one other than a few radio shows and Fox News) are left-biased. So it depends on what your personal bias is as to which news source is biased…
They are all incorrect all the time though. To say that ONLY Fox is because they do not share your view is short-sighted and closed-minded.
Re: Re: Faux News
I see the light …
cough cough
Re: Re: Faux News
Fox “News” is actually decidedly worse, they go a little bit further with their descriptive liberties and a little bit further with the dramatization and omitted facts then most news broadcasters do.
Though they are all horrible versus any practical standards.
Fox's M.O.
This is a tradition at Fox News. They can have some journalistic integrity by providing alternate view points, but their headlines will be VERY misleading. For example, in reviewing President Bush just before the midterm elections, there was a standard piece about how history will view him. But, the title of the article was somehing to the effect of “Bush: Greatest president ever?”. It’s like having an article pointing out the possible personal foibles of the president an calling it “Bush: Sadomasochistic homosexual serial killer?”.
They caved to political pressure from China…. you seriously don’t think they would to the UN?
I’d say they have already made their intentions clear. Why is it that people go on and on and on about how Google caters to China, but an accusation is made about Google giving in to the UN and everyone’s like “OMG no, it couldn’t happen!”
Really?
Re: Re:
“They caved to political pressure from China…. you seriously don’t think they would to the UN?”
China represents 1.2 billion potential customers. UN represents… err… represents… nothing of value to Google. Yes, you are right, Google made their intentions clear, they are all about business and UN has no effect on it. Case closed.
Not that I think Faux News is in ANYWAY fair or balanced… lol – just making sure to add that 🙂
Misleading Headlines?!
Say it ain’t so! Where could they have possibly have gotten this idea? Maybe from every other publication in the history of the planet?
Google News - As Leftist as it gets
Google News…Where Stormfront & Vanguard are valid news sources but Jihad Watch, Michelle Malkin, and LGF aren’t.
People familiar with Google News’ history shouldn’t be surprised at this.
Google News only applies the rules of qualification to sites they disagree with.