Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Anyone know what's up with Google's algorithms?
Ever looked for news on Google's news search page and click to find little news-- just mostly satires? Well that is what I am finding, and it is beginning to really chap my ass.
San Francisco
January 28, 2008
When it comes to finding information fast and conveniently Google rules the internet.
With it, we can find almost anything out-- whatever our interest may be. But something is wrong with it. Let me explain.
For myself-- I am most interested in helping get justice for all of us who have suffered for the lies which our government has been feeding us by way of corporate and controlled media.
As a San Franciscan who has joined others demanding that our congresswoman Nancy Pelosi put impeachment "on the table" (and been repeatedly rebuffed by her), I now fully endorse antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan's maverick and principled campaign against Pelosi in this year's elections.
Since announcing her frustration with a spineless Democratic Party and her decision to run for congress as an independent, Cindy Sheehan has worked harder than she ever has to draw attention to the failings of both parties in our government to uphold the Constitution and their need to reform or get out of the way. Her schedule is so intensive and demanding, that I can hardly keep up with all the speeches she makes and the events she attends.
Many important stories about Sheehan are routinely ignored by the mainstream media-- but not by independent media created by citizen journalists.
One way I try to keep up with news about Cindy Sheehan is to do what most of us do-- search for news using the Google search engine. Doing that is hardly enough, however, because one finds a plethora of links to items that have very little to do with current events.
The next obvious step is to use Google's News Search page. One gets there by clicking on the link that says "News" at the top of the Google main page portal.
Oftentimes-- one can find numerous links on topical subjects very fast here, with very useful indicators as to how recent news is by citations next to items showing when Google recognized a news story. One can also search news by relevance or date, and with duplicate stories included.
But try searching for news on Cindy Sheehan-- something I do almost once everyday.
The results one gets has a very peculiar flavor. Very often unlike searches for other influential politicians, Cindy Sheehan searches turn up lead stories which are not news at all: they are satires created by comedians who mimic news stories for cheap laughs.
To its credit, Google indicates in parentheses that the stories are satires-- which makes me ask the question:
If Google's algorithms can recognize a satire from real news-- why don't they present only news on their news page?
(Why don't they have a Humor option where their vast audience can go to find laughs? That millions of people have perished and suffered for lies is no laughing matter to me-- but I can usually share an honest and healthy laugh as well as anyone in the right context. Without humor, our lives are duller, we become poor thinkers and better victims.)
I am certain that Google would insist that it's web searches are completely robotized-- but why do their robots recognize and present humor on a news page?
What's up with Google's algorithm's? Why so sloppy?
I hope somebody smarter than myself can tell me why.
How about Project Censored which had an emergency conference in Santa Cruz this past weekend?
Have fun looking for news about it!
January 28, 2008
When it comes to finding information fast and conveniently Google rules the internet.
With it, we can find almost anything out-- whatever our interest may be. But something is wrong with it. Let me explain.
For myself-- I am most interested in helping get justice for all of us who have suffered for the lies which our government has been feeding us by way of corporate and controlled media.
As a San Franciscan who has joined others demanding that our congresswoman Nancy Pelosi put impeachment "on the table" (and been repeatedly rebuffed by her), I now fully endorse antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan's maverick and principled campaign against Pelosi in this year's elections.
Since announcing her frustration with a spineless Democratic Party and her decision to run for congress as an independent, Cindy Sheehan has worked harder than she ever has to draw attention to the failings of both parties in our government to uphold the Constitution and their need to reform or get out of the way. Her schedule is so intensive and demanding, that I can hardly keep up with all the speeches she makes and the events she attends.
Many important stories about Sheehan are routinely ignored by the mainstream media-- but not by independent media created by citizen journalists.
One way I try to keep up with news about Cindy Sheehan is to do what most of us do-- search for news using the Google search engine. Doing that is hardly enough, however, because one finds a plethora of links to items that have very little to do with current events.
The next obvious step is to use Google's News Search page. One gets there by clicking on the link that says "News" at the top of the Google main page portal.
Oftentimes-- one can find numerous links on topical subjects very fast here, with very useful indicators as to how recent news is by citations next to items showing when Google recognized a news story. One can also search news by relevance or date, and with duplicate stories included.
But try searching for news on Cindy Sheehan-- something I do almost once everyday.
The results one gets has a very peculiar flavor. Very often unlike searches for other influential politicians, Cindy Sheehan searches turn up lead stories which are not news at all: they are satires created by comedians who mimic news stories for cheap laughs.
To its credit, Google indicates in parentheses that the stories are satires-- which makes me ask the question:
If Google's algorithms can recognize a satire from real news-- why don't they present only news on their news page?
(Why don't they have a Humor option where their vast audience can go to find laughs? That millions of people have perished and suffered for lies is no laughing matter to me-- but I can usually share an honest and healthy laugh as well as anyone in the right context. Without humor, our lives are duller, we become poor thinkers and better victims.)
I am certain that Google would insist that it's web searches are completely robotized-- but why do their robots recognize and present humor on a news page?
What's up with Google's algorithm's? Why so sloppy?
I hope somebody smarter than myself can tell me why.
How about Project Censored which had an emergency conference in Santa Cruz this past weekend?
Have fun looking for news about it!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
I hope Google will look into the problem if they want to get more authoritative search results.
Otherwise people are apt to turn to competitors of Google who have engines that appear to better screen out "non-news".
Here is a screenshot of a "cindy sheehan" search at Yahoo's news search page which I made at about the same time as my story screenshots of Google news searches above:
Here is the link to that story: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/saying-goodbye-to-cindy-sheehan/
Cindy Sheehan is has NOT left politics and has not "thrown in the towel" as the website mis-named "Accuracy in Media" reports!
Far from it!
When the big corporations and their tools shovel us stuff like this (jokes and inaccuracies) we need to work harder at reading between the lines and finding new ways to share relevant information about what is happening in our world.
And thank you um for at least probing my questions.
... now if only an editor at indybay would lift this story up the page... maybe Google might actually find it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_satire
Now they do, and even allow readers to contact them about satires that pose as news.
http://www.google.com/support/news/bin/answer.py?answer=40264&topic=8867
I think they should take the extra step and eliminate satires completely from a news page.
(And perhaps start a humor search option. What is wrong with that?)
OK -- if you are elimianting all "op ed" from the news category, if you had a NON FREE "press" and so an official decision of what was "news" vs what as "opinion", maybe you could speak abouyt "news" as a strict category. But ain't so -- your "news" is already filtered by opinion/point of view. The problem is that once "point of view" is allowed then how do you separate SERIOUS satire from entertainment satire.
You need examples?
Ever hear about the 19th Century publication "Punch"?
Ever read Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?
Satire, in proper hands, is one of the pens often mightier than the sword.
As a matter of fact - I agree with you. (I would even take the history of satire back to Juvenal and Aristophenes.)
But I also see something terribly amiss when I look for news about Cindy Sheehan and find nothing but a page of satires and no news or old news or unfactual and distorted news.
I think it is an indication of something more nefarious: perhaps it is the inability of some people to DISCERN (what is honest and productive from what is dishonest and destructive).
Clearly, many people think Cindy Sheehan is an object that inspires amusement-- no doubt because she is woman virtually isolated in a fight against overwhelming powers that dictate to us lies such as "the surge is working", that "cooperation between Pelosi and Bush is good for the American people", indeed that "our representatives-- and the corporate candidates in this year's election are honest brokers".
I haven't read many of the satires, but my guess is that many are very funny and might actually often be sympathetic to Sheehan in a climate that disallows honest reportage and normal promotion of her campaign. When debate on a level playing field is disallowed, both Sheehan and humorists must rely on their wit and the righteousness of their passions as their only effective weapons.
But we should not be deluded into thinking that news and humor (or op/ed) are the same.
They are not.
When humor crosses the line into making news-- one would hope it would be reported on on.
Vice versa, when news becomes so lame that it becomes humor-- one would hope it would find its way into the historical annals of what makes us laugh.
The argument that a satire is a news source (made by Google) is a rationalization.
Humor and news can be complementary, but they are normally mutually exclusive.
Instead of news-- the "satires" we get on Google's news page becomes spam.
Some lines must be drawn, or we would accept that argument that advertising is news because it can sometimes be informative.
What is to stop Google from packing its news page with advertisements with the appropriate parenthesied citations? (Almost wish I hadn't asked that question!)
Yesterday I read that Google is searching for people who can "tell them what they think." I assume they will reward the best of those people handsomely.
Well I've given my two cents here, and I don't expect any monetary reward.
But I hope that someone down there in the Silicon Valley will read this and see the obvious: that their news page is full of spam and needs to be fixed!
Perhaps Google can create a search option for humor that might free the news option of the spam that is now encumbering it.
And here is a suggestion for you Mike, and anybody else who comes to read at indybay beacuse you care about the causes of peace and social justice:
Maybe it is time that the people create an open source search engine that is free of any corporate control.
Google's motto is "don't be evil." Maybe we need and entity with the motto "Be good." (Good being: be transparent, be democratic, be independent; put people ahead of profit or things.)
We have seen how Google kowtows to China that targets its dissidents. And we know that Al Gore, who shrank from contesting the stolen 2000 election, is a senior advisor to Google.
We are now entering a period where warfare will be determined by "full spectrum dominance". Both parties, Republicans and Democrats, want global hegemony for elites, pre-emptive nuclear options open, and control of all information. Neither wants dissent-- or democratic pluralism.
Neither party wants to see Cindy Sheehan have a say in the future-- and neither do those who fecklessly place their faith with upstarts in either party who will be as sure enough hammered down by the time the electoral college casts its votes.
That is why, Mike, as wise as your comment is, I still believe it is a delusion with respect to thinking that Google's news page is honest.
But then, that is my opinion-- I would gladly like to be wrong--
-- to click on Google News one morning,
search for news about Cindy Sheehan....
... and find news!
and thanks also for pointing out that the spam seems to mostly be coming from the website "Unconfirmed Sources" (that should say something about the its "news" value).
Interestingly, I just made another discovery:
Just now I made a news search for "Dennis Kucinich" on Google's News search page and guess what?
No satires at all (I used my page search function-- typing in the word "satire").
I was interested in finding the source of the story about Kucinich postponing his promised impeachment effort (which I did at http://tinyurl.com/24glam).
Talk about someone that could a magnet for all sorts of satire, Mr. "Day Late and a Foot Short" had no satires listed at all. (I actually admire Kucinich-- but I am trying to think like a satirist.)
Which brings me to an inescapable deduction: that Cindy Sheehan's campaign is targeted and being harrassed and that newsworthy items about her campaign are possibly being sabotaged.
What do you think?
A news search for "Ralph Nader", the politician I happen to admire most (I cannot stand Democrats who targetted, ridiculed, and harrassed his campaign in 2004) had but one satire listing.
A news search for "Barack Obama", a minority with a funny name?-- had but one satire listing.
"Mike Huckabee", considered (wrongfully) a hick with another funny name?-- had no satires listed.
"Mitt Romney", the patently ridiculous Republican, only two.
"Hillary Clinton"-- my! how she is universally hated: she had only one.
And "CINDY SHEEHAN" - she has 31 satires... 30 of them all coming from unconfirmed sources!
Only "Ron Paul" came closest-- ten satires, mostly from "The Spoof".
(BTW - I tried to read some of their satires, but they were so poorly written taht I could not tell if they were funny or not.)
Clearly, the website "Unconfirmed Sources" is spamming news about Cindy Sheehan.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/22/18468434.php?show_comments=1#18468625
The SF Bay Guardian has had some coverage-- as has Luke Thomas's Fog City Journal.
But Cindy has been ignored elsewhere. Part of the reason is probably because of her breaking with the Democrats--they do not abide politicians that challenge their machine. Daily Kos led the way. Now, hopefully they are thawing-- but I am skeptical.
Chris Daly falls in line for Barack Obama-- as has Randy Shaw's Beyond Chron (which has deigned to mention Cindy Sheehan's existence only once since July of last year: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?query=cindy+sheehan&amount=0&blogid=1)
Democratic Party largesse is nothing to mess with if you have business or aspirations in San Francisco.
Even Greens-- fearful of associations that might hinder themselves with the machine manage to make themselves scarce when convenient.
Of course, few know these things because they are dumped down the memory hole.
As for indybay making a difference-- it won't so long as it's stories don't get scooped by the search engines or unless people find it by accident.
To further confound matters, San Francisco has two (2) independent media sites.
The San Francisco site http://sf.indymedia.org/ gets more visitor hits according to Alexa than this site.
But the San Francisco site (sf.indymedia) has been news-impoverished as far back as I can remember-- and now it has an undated and unsigned announcement with no contacts (except "ryan"-- whoever he is).
It gets more hits than the front page of this site because people are mostly looking for the San Francisco IMC, not the Bay IMC.
Democrats must be smiling.
I hope those in the alternative media who also chose not to cover the story will also contemplate why they did so.
Let's hope they will do their best as conscientious journalists and do their jobs better as Cindy's courageous congressional campaign evolves.
Here is the excerpt of Cindy Sheehan talking to Dennis Bernstein on January 22, 2008.
Listen for yourself, and ask yourself: is this news? I think so.
The excerpt comes via the A-Infos Radio project at: