no --they are "not balance" at all if they are removing certain "news" items. I want read the other stuff too, may it be pro or anti – right or left!!

Its like Google removing images for the "abu ghraib" images results at the heat of the issue.

Google should not engage in such activities. Just let the information flow, let the consumer make thier own decesions. Its a flat world out here and we know what can be deemed as purposfully harmfull or harmless..

In short – dont police the news!!

Previous cases of hate content removal in Google News was the National Vanguard white pride site:
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2005-03-23-n82.html
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2005-03-24-n47.html

>>if they are removing certain "news" items.
If I understand this correctly, they do not remove specific news articles, but rather entire sources, which would mean that they make the judgement based on their overall content before a specific article is published

Yes, Like Jeff sez "Jeff Jarvis says “it’s high time we get transparency from GoogleNews,” urging Google to release a complete list of their news sources,"

this bring me back to Jeff posting here on one sided conversations!!

http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/04/04/the-one-sided-conversation/

I believe that Google are completely correct in removing the sites. We need to realise that freedom of speech does not mean that newspapers or editorial websites provide us with all views however outrageous. It means that we are able to express our opinion whatever it may be provided we are not slandering, making unfounded allegations or generally inciting racial/religious hatred.

If a site has demonstrated a consistent disregard for other people's values and religious beliefs then it is incontrovertible that such a site should be removed. Whether that site is promoting Neo-nazism, Islamic Extremism, anti-islamic sentiments or any other hatred towards a religious or social group. We need debate in this day and age which is measured and backed up not with emotional rants but a clear factual trail.

The question is wheter or not the sites removed were actually providing any "news". As far as I can tell, they're opinion pieces and and weren't really reporting any events.

I think google should remove hate speech accross the spectrum IF it provides no actual news reporting.

I think thats the wrong strategy Util: The very reason that such "outrageous" views mitigates itself into an organic syndrome of "Neo-nazism, Islamic Extremism, anti-islamic sentiments or any other hatred towards a religious or social group." – is for the reason that everyone dubunks them, the very first instance they open their mouths. Its like crying wolf, when it all actuality--, they just want to be heard – thats all.

Now, if the article/news makes sense , then I will listen--else they would be on my black list forever... But why would I want to google to make that decsions or for that matter of fact you ??

I want to make that deceions for myself – in the context of what you write, speak and converse -dont you think thats only fair to oneself ??

Sorry--maybe I did not articlate myself well enough!1

The issue here is not "I am right and they are wrong" – rather its "what is right and what is wrong"!!

Unless, I have content -can I know and be aware and be carefull!!

correct ??

I take your point Peter, but as I mentioned, a measured and well articulated argument based on facts and not an emotional rant is something that I would read. Often these views repesent not just the minority but a view that is often seen as quite inflammatory and more often than not does more harm than good.

Let me give you an example. In the UK there are various extremist elements of groups that are against animal testing. Recently one of the groups dug up the grave of the deceased mother of a scientist working at a laboratory that the activists were against. Generally when something as outrageous as this happens it often leads to the discussion of the fundemental issue that has caused such behaviour.

However, in this case the real discussion was sidelined since anyone against animal testing with a good clear argument was not heard due to the amount of attention given to the actions of the extremists. We all need to be given a platform but once we abuse that platform by speaking in tones that is against free speech that platform should be removed from under our feet.

Google gave these sites their airtime (webtime) and they spoke out of turn. So good riddance to them and their baseless views. Now let the real sites condemning Islamic extremism come out and speak without spreading hatred and making sweeping statements about Muslims or Arabs or whatnot.

==>> "but once we abuse that platform by speaking in tones that is against free speech that platform should be removed from under our feet. "

I totally agree... thats why Jeff sez "urging Google to release a complete list of their news sources," :)-

Perhaps a solution is to let the user choose their own set of news sources; beyond that it's ridiculous to get angry at google for removing this source. Does google news include the KKK's news source? Or this blog's entries? If they hadn't included this source to begin with, no one would have noticed its absence. And if CNN got sold and started making blog-like posts about stuff they thought was cool on the internet, Google would be completely justified in removing them. It is a nice service they provide, but it's not only too much to expect, it's also impossible for them to make it completely objective. If fault must be found, I do think they should make their documentation a bit clearer about what's going on, but it's really no big deal.

"Or this blog's entries?"

Actually it does :)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=New+Cases+of+Google+News+Source+Exclusion&btnG=Search+News

Philipp is an important man in the Googlosphere.

I',m not worried too much about the ones that ger removed. I am concerned with the worthless India News sites that have crap for content yet at the top of all my news searches.

I don't see much wrong with those articles, since they are on the mark.

I support the idea of allowing users to choose to remove the news source...

If Google can do it with their search results (remove result), why not with news sources?

But I do see Google's point...

The problem with the medias today that people actually take them seriously on their words. I have seen so many people that actually believed every word the news said because they believed the news can not lie or only can give facts (no opinions). So when those people come across those... (ahem)... "news"... sites filled with hate speech and hate opinions, the people will most likely believe in them because the site claimed to be "news".

The word "news" became (or is becoming) synonym as "impartial" or "facts" to most people today. So when the people faced a "news" site that said hateful things, how we can be sure that people will keep in mind that these are just opinions, not facts?

It is a very tough issue to crack.

It's Google right as a company to decide who they wish to include or exclude from their news index. But being legal does not make it right! What's clearly disturbing is not the fact that they decided to exclude some opinion sites. It's the fact that they have systematically refused to remove much more aggressive sites like al-Manar which is classified as a terrorist news organization.

It seems that Google's definition of hate only applies to a segment of the population. Go check http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/04/fpm_googles_ter.html for the full story of Google editorial slant...

What about a news site that contained "hate speech" about Neonazis or pedophiles? I'm guessing that would be OK. So, it's not really the hate speech that Google has a problem with but, rather, the entity that is being attacked. So, what Google is really doing is determining what things are good and may not be criticised in an extreme manner and what things are bad and may be criticised. That practice is evil. The marketplace should make these determinations.

What if there were a popular religion that was evil...not that Islam is, of course...just what if? Though worthy of extreme attack by definition, Google News would sensor the attacks if they were consistent. Such a non-neutral policy would result in protecting an evil (which is evil) or being inconsistent and committing arbitrary censorship (which is evil).What about a news site that contained "hate speech" about Neonazis or pedophiles? I'm guessing that would be OK. So, it's not really the hate speech that Google has a problem with but, rather, the entity that is being attacked. So, what Google is really doing is determining what things are good and may not be criticised in an extreme manner and what things are bad and may be criticised. That practice is evil. The marketplace should make these determinations.

What if there were a popular religion that was evil...not that Islam is, of course...just what if? Though worthy of extreme attack by definition, Google News would sensor the attacks if they were consistent. Such a non-neutral policy would result in protecting an evil (which is evil) or being inconsistent and committing arbitrary censorship (which is evil).

And, no Google is not balanced in removeing hate speech. Conservative sites have attempted, with little or no success, to get Muslim "new sources" removed that contained nearly identical hate speech about Jews. Though such hate speech about Islam will get a site removed from Google News, there is a double-standard when the source is a Muslim site talking about Jews or Americans. Google is doing a poor job of being a neutral arbitrator.

I think google did right in excluding this sources.

pd's point of view(Every source should be available to the user) is OK for people who have learned to have their own thoughts and don't take everything which is in the news for sure.

Bit the majority of the people doesn't has enough education and there are a lot of "gregarious animals"(I don't know if I can use this expression in english, in german it describes people without an own opinion who follow just their leader) out there and they shouldn't read such hate speech.

Maybe google could exlcude this sources from the front page and main search but make it available for the interested reader trough a "hidden" link or something?

Stephan – a Google News "hate speech" category. That would actually be a helpful, though politically incorrect tool for research (what do extremists have to write about this or that news? what points does an extremist consider important in this discussion? how do extremist arguments evolve in this discussion?).

I think thats a good idea.. a seperate Category ..pretty much like "adult Content" witihin the parameters of the .ccTLD would be good.

but Phillipp, it could just be right for research based on politcal viewpoints and content.

Utils actaully nails it very well , now when I look back into this thought tapersty;

===>"it often leads to the discussion of the fundemental issue that has caused such behaviour"

I hope they now remove Wonkette after that corporate hate site made more racist and mysoginistic attacks this past week.

To a degree, hate speech is subjective. What I get offended by may not offend the next person at all. Who, then, is capable of making such calls? Still, it is Google's business, and for better or worse, the morals (or lack thereof) of the people behind a business will always affect the way it works. There's nothing wrong with that.

That said, the idea of more controversial areas being available is a good idea. Some of us, myself included, grow tired of circular debates, but there are some people who are gluttons for it, so I guess they should be able to get their rocks off to it. :p

[moved from "Google, information and censorship"]

Hi all,

Isn't there something called ethics in online information. Be it Google has removed the sources or not, it's here a different topic than just dealing with the folkonomy or "pronetariat" of ezine and blogging. These articles demonstrate how information being at the finger tips of anyone could be dangerous, and above all how journalists without experience can be dangerous to the eco-information of our world.

If un-censorship is unamerican, it does not apply to the whole world. Instead the drawing of the prophet shows, and other events which have shaped the public sphere since the Iraq war, that the world is still devided between a centre and a periphery despite the advents of internet. Those who are trying to make this world a better place by promoting values of respect are being immersed by some journalistics-amateur process of information.

I believe such e-zines do not have their place among trusted sources in Google, Yahoo and the others. We have been complaining about thepractice of some big medias in the past, and I believe the new media such as Google and Yahoo have learned something out of this.

And censhorship wouldn't have existed if these supposedly journalists have had some ethics of respect, and some notion of deontology of information

We can NOT live in anarchy under the pretext of free speech, instead ethics of respect and tolerance should be adopted and enforced by anyone.

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others."

   -Nelson Mandela

BTW, the first saying is mine, the second is Mandela's.

I can said "This group believe Islam is a bad religion!" and it still be fact because the group DID BELIEVE that Islam is a bad religion. I never said Islam is a bad religion.

Another example is scientific studies... I can said "A study group discovered that cancer is a hoax and never exist." and it still be a fact because I never said cancer is a hoax. I just said THAT GROUP discovered that cancer is a hoax.

THAT is a news reporting... reporting facts by stating that a group think this... a group found this... a group believe this... someone did this... someone said this...

They are reporting EVENTS that happening around them. That is the main purpose of the news. Just report what IS happening or what DID happened or what WILL happen.

A group making a conclusion is something that is happening. Thus, it is a event, not an opinion.

But it is a opinion when you said "Islam is a bad religion! Here is why..." They are not reporting events, they are just making their own conclusion rather than allowing someone else make the conclusion.

Those sites are not reporting events. Just making their own conclusion. That is not a news reporting; thus, they are not news site (per se).

If they are not news site (per se), then they shouldn't be on Google's NEWS Source. This demonstrates that Google should still have qualified human editors to control the flow of information from their editorial board.

I do not care if their is a site with the heading Opinions from the masses or whatever, but again what it's all about is what should be the structure of any NEWS Source!

google news seems to have had difficulty separating out opinions from news – so in effect, they are right to filter out the "hate speech" sites – because technically they arent news – they're just opinions.

> THAT is a news reporting... reporting facts by stating that
> a group think this... a group found this... a group believe
> this... someone did this... someone said this...

I'd argue that *which* news you decide to report is indeed based on opinion. No one is free of that, and also not news organizations. Even when you try to balance an article by quoting two opposing arguments, then the way you chose the limits of the two opposing sides is based on your personal judgement.

For example, I could report "certain groups attack Google's move into China, while others think it's the absolutely right thing to do". I could also report "certain groups think Google's move into China is completely evil, while others think it's only mildly evil".

Just take Noam Chomsky, the author of the article I just pointed to on the front-page. I'm sure some people think his arguments are on a far extreme side of the discussion, while others might think his arguments are actually very balanced and right in the middle (of the US view compared to other countries views). When a European watches CNN, they might think of CNN as middle-to-right – I've heard others from within the US argue CNN is middle-to-left. Or take Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel; it was attacked by the US gov't for being anti-American/ pro-Iraq during the Iraq war... and at the same time it was being attacked by middle-east gov'ts for being too critical of Saddam! Or take the example of Fox news channel; it happens that they invite a "mild" or almost Republican Democrat – or so I've heard, I'm no expert on US politics! – and then put him together with an "extreme" Republican. What is fair and balanced here is then subject to discussion.

It's a complicated issue...

----------------------------------------------
I'd argue that *which* news you decide to report is indeed based on opinion. No one is free of that, and also not news organizations. Even when you try to balance an article by quoting two opposing arguments, then the way you chose the limits of the two opposing sides is based on your personal judgement.
----------------------------------------------

That is exactly why Google News is putting multiple news source covering the same subject together under "all related..." links.

It provided us multiple views on the subject because it is inevitable that a news reporter will report an event in his/her own view. So instead, Google News give us 10,000 news sources and millions of reporters. That way, we can read multiple views on the same subject. Thats the beauty of Google News.

The banned sites are not providing news reports. They are not providing a view on event(s). They are just providing arguments and conclusions, which are pure opinions in nature.

I agree on everything Philip. But opinions as such shoulnt be ranked as news. There are different types of journalistic writing.

Concerning Chomsky, we all know that he is the only american intellectual not to be quoted by mainstream newspaper, just as Edward Said was. That's a different topic. Because Chomsky is still widely referenced in the academia as well as he is invited in numerous political debates, more recently on BBC.

But a source which wants itself to be ranked as NEWS Source should be better written as those three articles. For example how do you treat this piece...
"
One of my favorite readers, an Australian, recently e-mailed me:

“Damn, I can’t believe I am writing .... "read this quote carefully!

"...But you get the idea. This, from a friend who is not Jewish...and certainly not an Israeli."

At the start its from a reader, then the author goes on to say that the quote comes from a friend who is not a Jew and so one.

Thats for me is purely crapy writing. They want to create opinion about this topic, get readers via other means than putting such writings on Google News. As Philip said, its quite a complicated issue (as it raises questions of polarity: Centre/Periphery, East/West from a racial point of view). And adventuring in such slippery ground can be dangerous.

And concerning Google, it might be that it's in a vicious circle with its own rules. Acting on a simple piece of technology to becoming a gateway to Internet is not really a solution. Once again, filtering of information as practised by many newspapers or TV stations is the solution.

Just to clarify: my arguments in my last comment were not specifically aimed against/ for the exclusion of the 3 sources. I just wanted to explain in reply to GamingFox that I believe mostly any news you will read contains an opinion, whether it's made visible as such or not, due to the news considered worthy to report, and the sources considered worthy to quote.

Also, I don't think Google News explicitly excludes opinion... do a Google News search for "commentary" and you will find lots of opinion pieces. Apparently, this is integral part of Google News. I believe what Google News is explicitly excluding is hate speech.

Thanks for that Philipp.

Opinion is a journalistic piece. No doubt about that. But again... a complicated matter about what makes a good opinion. For example, Thomas Friedman of the NYT has his opinion which has never been censored, you like it or not. Although Im not a big fan of him:).

There's a lengthy, and even-handed, discussion of this at

http://www.searchengineguide.com/laycock/007617.html

One point she makes is

'The conservative news site Newsbusters points out the political bias with the following:

"Yet, in the current instance, what is indeed odd is that some of the supposedly offensive content is still available at Google News even if some of the publishers aren't. Arlene Peck's "How Has Islam Enriched Your Life?" is still being promoted by Google News at InfoIsrael.net even though it is no longer linked by Google News to The New Media Journal.

"The same is true of Barbara Stock's "Islam is as Islam Does," which can still be found via Google News at Renew America. And, Amil Imani's "Islam: A False Religion" can still be found through Google News at Think and Ask."

[Snip]

I am a staff writer for www.aboutshanghai.com, a daily news and information publication out of Shanghai. We've been requesting for six months to be added as a news source. They won't accept us, they won't tell us why, but we believe it's because we're a China based publication and they're reallly really sensitive about what China things they'll publish.

Did you try to get into Google News USA or Google News China? If it was Google News USA, I'm pretty sure it's unrelated to Chinese gov't censorship.