 |
 |
The Value of Google News to the P/L Poster
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Value of Google News to the P/L Poster is considerable. ESPECIALLY so when you hear a news bulletin on the radio and need written details or confirmation of a story.
The reason Google news is so good in this regard is because the stories on the site are updated constantly and seemingly in real time.
http://news.google.com/
This is really helpful. I can't tell you how many times I've gone from one news site to another waiting for a particular news story to make it's way to the web.
The most recent time this happened to me was when Saudi King Fahd died.
Google news is the way to make sure you have the LATEST updates on a story before posting it.
|
|
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status:
Offline
|
|
OMG! King Fahd died?
<subliminal>It's all about the OIL</subliminal>
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by AKcrab
OMG! King Fahd died?
<subliminal>It's all about the OIL</subliminal>
Sorry you had to find out this way, crab. 
Another useful feature Google news permits is side by side comparison of news coverage, which source is more accurate, faster, more thorough and etc.
|
|
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Google News is broken. It is an automated news headline generator that draws on a database of news sources hand-selected by left wing lunatics.
You can't read that headline and tell me it's an unbiased piece of news. It's opinion masquerading.
The Wahhabi schemers who run sites like ArabNews are well aware of this, and are exploiting it relentlessly to spread their propaganda. They aren't the only ones. DailyKos has been featured on GoogleNews as if it were somehow news, and yet when sites like powerline and littlegreenfootballs break the story (yes, LGF originated the proof) that showed 60 minutes and Dan Rather had used faked documents as the basis for a story intended to change a presidential election, GoogleNews says they aren't newsworthy.
Google News had even listed National Vanguard (neo-nazis) as a credible news source, but removed them after protest.
Oh, and here's another good one:
See at the bottom of that pic where it says "USVP Cheney says torture facility will stay open" ?
Yeah, no bias there. More interesting is that if you had clicked through to the article, the ACTUAL title was "USVP Cheney Says Alleged Torture Facility Will Stay Open" - but for Google News, 'alleged' isn't important, apparently.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...=Search%20News
Conspiracy News (link above) is regularly used as a source on Google News' front page as well. Between it and IndiaNews (pic above) can anyone deny that Google News is broken?
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
DAMN!
Thanks, vmarks.
It was a good idea, though. I thought it used algorithms and hocus pocus to scour the news releases and, well you know.
But having a bunch of sources in one place does have SOME value, right? 
And, if it IS using a variety of sources one would expect those headlines to reflect that source's news slant. (Which, if that has any redeeming value it would be that their bias is out in the open for all to see.)
|
|
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mojo2
DAMN!
Thanks, vmarks.
It was a good idea, though. I thought it used algorithms and hocus pocus to scour the news releases and, well you know.
But having a bunch of sources in one place does have SOME value, right?
And, if it IS using a variety of sources one would expect those headlines to reflect that source's news slant. (Which, if that has any redeeming value it would be that their bias is out in the open for all to see.)
Don't worry about what he said. If you are going to read ArabNews.com prepare for a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli POV. If you are going to read Arutz Sheva (IsraelNN) prepare for a pro-Israeli, anti-Arab POV.
There is no grand anti-US, anti-Israelis conspiracy on google news. It's just that you notice the "differences" better when they list three to four articles together from different sources.
So keep using it because it's one of the more effective ways of seeing the difference in how things are reported.
|
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I tend to take the aggregator aspect of Google News with a grain of salt. Exactly how stuff makes the front page isn't clear -Google isn't saying much about its algorithms there- but it's certainly not random. I don't know if I'd necessarily say that it's biased toward liberals or conservatives, but it generally seems to view most things in a negative context, whether that requires a liberal viewpoint or a conservative one. I don't know if this is intentional on Google's part, some kind of freak coincidence, or the general attitude of news organizations, but either way I only use it for cursory glances over the news.
This said, the search-engine aspect of Google News is extremely useful, particularly when you wish to find multiple viewpoints on a given subject. It's very good for research.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Von Wrangell,
You soft-pedal completely over the fact that Google News lists Conspiracy News as a source and did list National Vanguard (neo-Nazis) as a source.
The fact that they refuse to list sites that actually did break news and list sites that do not, on top of that obvious bias is not just the gentle 'differences in how things are reported' that you make it out to be.
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
vmarks is teh winnar!!11!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow. I suppose coin-flipping has a liberal bias too. The order of the digits in pi? The alignment of the stars? Those inkblots?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
Von Wrangell,
You soft-pedal completely over the fact that Google News lists Conspiracy News as a source and did list National Vanguard (neo-Nazis) as a source.
As you rightly point out. National Vanguard was listed. It isn't anymore. Perhaps you are just forgetting that Google News is still in beta?
The fact that they refuse to list sites that actually did break news and list sites that do not, on top of that obvious bias is not just the gentle 'differences in how things are reported' that you make it out to be.
What is news? Do you have a good definition or list of news sites that should and shouldn't be on there and also an explanation for why they should or shouldn't be there?
And one last thing. Be careful of who you call neo-Nazis. Not everyone who's a racist f*ck is a neo-Nazi. Could you show me where they call themselves neo-Nazis or if you can't do that something that proves that they are neo-Nazis?
(Last edited by von Wrangell; Aug 29, 2005 at 12:41 PM.
)
|
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
As you rightly point out. National Vanguard was listed. It isn't anymore. Perhaps you are just forgetting that Google News is still in beta?
What is news? Do you have a good definition or list of news sites that should and shouldn't be on there and also an explanation for why they should or shouldn't be there?
And one last thing. Be careful of who you call neo-Nazis. Not everyone who's a racist f*ck is a neo-Nazi. Could you show me where they call themselves neo-Nazis or if you can't do that something that proves that they are neo-Nazis?
You be careful who you choose to defend. NationalVanguard.org publishes many white supremacist articles, is racist against Blacks and Mexicans, but pays particular hatred to Jews, and in any article that brings up history, talks about how great the American Bund was, how wonderful Nazi Germany was, and how terrible Anti-Nazis were.
Any site that happily publishes such Nazi loving should be called for what they are: Neo-Nazis.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:...rt=30&sa=N
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
As for who breaks news, there are people who report the news, and then there are people who break the news, who are first with a story.
Google News happily shows opinion sites like Atrios and DailyKos that have broken no stories of their own, yet they deny space to littlegreenfootballs.com, who broke the Dan Rather-60minutes-fraudulent documents story. They have repeatedly denied such space, each time citing their own preference. When the news is picked from sites based on Google's preferences, it's broken. This is not the first time Google has broken.
See when they Blacklisted CNET journalists for using google to research.
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
You be careful who you choose to defend. NationalVanguard.org publishes many white supremacist articles, is racist against Blacks and Mexicans, but pays particular hatred to Jews, and in any article that brings up history, talks about how great the American Bund was, how wonderful Nazi Germany was, and how terrible Anti-Nazis were.
Any site that happily publishes such Nazi loving should be called for what they are: Neo-Nazis.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:...rt=30&sa=N
Did I defend them? No, I merely pointed out that you should be careful whom you call a neo-Nazi. You should be well aware why it is important not to dilute that term like so many other terms have been diluted.
I browsed through the first couple of stories and all I see is typical racist f*cks. Could you perhaps point me to an article where they state that they follow the neo-Nazi ideology? Because that is needed to be able to call a racist f*ck a neo-Nazi. Watering the term out will do no one any good.
|
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
As for who breaks news, there are people who report the news, and then there are people who break the news, who are first with a story.
Google News happily shows opinion sites like Atrios and DailyKos that have broken no stories of their own, yet they deny space to littlegreenfootballs.com, who broke the Dan Rather-60minutes-fraudulent documents story. They have repeatedly denied such space, each time citing their own preference. When the news is picked from sites based on Google's preferences, it's broken. This is not the first time Google has broken.
See when they Blacklisted CNET journalists for using google to research.
You didn't answer the question above. How do you know what sites are "news" sites, how do you classify what is "news", etc etc etc? Just because someone broke a story once doesn't mean that it deserves to be on Google News anymore than my own blog. Everyone can break news. So again, could you answer my questions above?
They didn't just use it for research. They published personal information about the head of the company. It might be legal but it's immoral. And there is nothing wrong with Google (the privately owned company) to choose who they talk to.
You seem pretty desperate in trying to show why Google is "Evil!". How about you just help them by using the feedback option? Because they are still in beta mode and probably like to get comments on how to improve the site.
|
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Did I defend them? No, I merely pointed out that you should be careful whom you call a neo-Nazi. You should be well aware why it is important not to dilute that term like so many other terms have been diluted.
I browsed through the first couple of stories and all I see is typical racist f*cks. Could you perhaps point me to an article where they state that they follow the neo-Nazi ideology? Because that is needed to be able to call a racist f*ck a neo-Nazi. Watering the term out will do no one any good.
Racists that have a particular love and affection for Hitler and all things Third Reich are what? Just run of the mill racists for you? Read deeper.
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
You didn't answer the question above. How do you know what sites are "news" sites, how do you classify what is "news", etc etc etc? Just because someone broke a story once doesn't mean that it deserves to be on Google News anymore than my own blog. Everyone can break news. So again, could you answer my questions above?
They didn't just use it for research. They published personal information about the head of the company. It might be legal but it's immoral. And there is nothing wrong with Google (the privately owned company) to choose who they talk to.
You seem pretty desperate in trying to show why Google is "Evil!". How about you just help them by using the feedback option? Because they are still in beta mode and probably like to get comments on how to improve the site.
Google is a publicly owned company, not private. They sell shares on the stock market. They can do whatever they want provided their shareholders don't band together and tell them to get a new board.
Google is not in beta, only the News portion is. Google is highly politicized, from the ads that they accept and reject, to their removal of sites from the indexing, to their news beta.
The news beta already lists blogs. This is fine, blogs have broken big stories. But because they have a bias, they choose to reject a blog that happens to have broken one of the biggest stories of 2004. A respected career news anchor reported a fraudulent story in order to change a presidential election. The blog revealed the fraud. If that doesn't rate them some credibility as a news provider, what would? Instead Google uses their own favorite blogs that haven't broken any news as their own sources. This has been reported to google many times as feedback and their response is essentially 'we'll use what we like.' Well, what they like is biased and hateful sites.
Can you explain their use of conspiracy news? Can you explain their modifying the India news headline to remove 'alleged' ?
Google and google news is a nice technology. It is broken by the biases of its own people.
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
Racists that have a particular love and affection for Hitler and all things Third Reich are what? Just run of the mill racists for you? Read deeper.
That's why I asked you to provide a link to anything showing that. Are you unable to do that or what's the problem?
|
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
Google is a publicly owned company, not private. They sell shares on the stock market. They can do whatever they want provided their shareholders don't band together and tell them to get a new board.
That's what I meant. Just didn't explain well enough what I meant. I was talking about the difference between a state/nation owned company and a privately owned company.
Google is not in beta, only the News portion is. Google is highly politicized, from the ads that they accept and reject, to their removal of sites from the indexing, to their news beta.
Now you have begun expanding on what you said in the beginning. Why is that? Google News is in Beta. I don't care about Google (the search engine).
The news beta already lists blogs. This is fine, blogs have broken big stories. But because they have a bias, they choose to reject a blog that happens to have broken one of the biggest stories of 2004. A respected career news anchor reported a fraudulent story in order to change a presidential election. The blog revealed the fraud. If that doesn't rate them some credibility as a news provider, what would? Instead Google uses their own favorite blogs that haven't broken any news as their own sources. This has been reported to google many times as feedback and their response is essentially 'we'll use what we like.' Well, what they like is biased and hateful sites.
Got any proof of that allegation? That they say "we'll use what we like"?
Can you explain their use of conspiracy news? Can you explain their modifying the India news headline to remove 'alleged' ?
Why should I? I don't own Google News. But from reading it it seems to be a typical political "news" site. The facts in the articles seem to be correct (one example is of the 4 star general that was fired) but the spin is political (the general could have been planning a coup). Silly, absolutely. News, unfortunately yes.
Are you sure they modified the headline? Not just a glitch in the system (since it's beta)? Did you point it out to them? And could you perhaps find me the link since I'm unable to find it myself.
Google and google news is a nice technology. It is broken by the biases of its own people.
No, it's "broken" because most media outlets are broken by bias. It's "broken" because we notice most the reports that we don't like. That's the only reason.
|
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
heh. you lost that debate way up ^ there.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
That's what I meant. Just didn't explain well enough what I meant. I was talking about the difference between a state/nation owned company and a privately owned company.
Now you have begun expanding on what you said in the beginning. Why is that? Google News is in Beta. I don't care about Google (the search engine).
Got any proof of that allegation? That they say "we'll use what we like"?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13004
Where Google News rejected LittleGreenFootballs.com for not having a staff, yet accepted Wonkette and others that have no staffs.
On the second application to Google News, they were rejected for having 'not broken any original stories' - which we know to be false.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14598
Yet Google News accepts plenty of sites that have never broken a story.
So basically, it comes down to Google News accepting sites from racists, sites from jihadists (yes, google news uses khilafa.com) sites, Google news changing headlines (removing 'alleged') and then making up excuses for not accepting sites they don't like. If that can't be summarized as 'we'll use what we like', I'm not sure what else would apply so succinctly.
Yep, broken.
|
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
