Google Censorship?
February 19th, 2008 at 02:23am Mark Noonan
Interesting, and a bit scary:
NEW YORK — How big do you have to be to earn the wrath of the United Nations and Internet giant Google?
If you’re journalist Matthew Lee, all it takes are some critical articles and a scrappy little Web site.
Lee is the editor-in-chief, Webmaster and pretty much the only reporter for Inner City Press, a pint-sized Internet news operation that’s taken on Goliath-sized entities like Citigroup since 1987.
Since 2005, he’s been focusing almost entirely on stories that deal with internal corruption inside the U.N., posting several stores online almost daily.
He’s been especially interested in the inner workings of what could be called the practical-applications arm of the international organization, the United Nations Development Programme.
Many of Lee’s stories were featured prominently whenever Web users looked for news about the U.N. using the powerful Google News search engine, a vital way for media outlets both large and small to get their articles read.
But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.
“I think they said, ‘If we can’t get this guy out of the U.N., let’s disappear him from the Internet,’” Lee said.
It began with an innocuous-sounding yet chilling form letter from Google to Lee, e-mailed on Feb. 8:
“We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users,” it said. “When we reviewed your site we’ve found that we can no longer include it in Google News.”
Lee believes - with justification - that the UN has pressured Google (or, perhaps, found a friendly ear in Google’s leadership) to remove a thorn from the UN’s side. This is not the way the internet is supposed to work - its supposed to be, in large measure, a free-for-all of information with little or no filters. If you don’t like what someone is saying, fire back with your own words, and let the internet community decide who makes the better case. Its disturbing that a corrupt and moribund organization appears to have enough pull to de-facto censor and independent voice.
I believe this calls for a Congressional investigation - we need to find out if the UN is acting improperly against its critics, and whether or not Google is playing fair with news sources.
Entry Filed under: Corruption, Foreign Affairs, Media, United Nations
19 Comments
1. brett michaels | February 19th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Wow…I am in a state of disbelief.
Mark Noonan is calling for Big Government to save the day. You are starting to sound like a Democrat.
Google has absolutely no obligation to include certain websites.
If Google decided tomorrow to return search hit on only 10 sites and no others…they have a right to do that. It would put them out of business, but its still their right.
If Google does not return good search results, consumers will go elsewhere. Its called free enterprise.
Now if Google were an ISP and they shut his site down…thats Censorship.
What are you going to propose next? That the government install monitors at google to make sure they ‘do the right thing”?
Mark Noonan…the Socialist
2. bongoman | February 19th, 2008 at 3:30 am
How is this censorship?
It is an editorial decision by google to decide what they include on theGoogle News page.
The site still exists - anyone can read who so chooses.
3. Censorship Articles &raqu&hellip | February 19th, 2008 at 4:05 am
[...] Original post by Mark Noonan [...]
4. winnowhead | February 19th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Article number MCXX in “What conservative media bias”?
That article had absolutely nothing but innuendo.
Companies like Google have policies for how they handle thing like Google News content. I know: I’ve had sites of mine unexpectedly removed without notice, taking weeks to get relisted.
Not everything is a conspiracy. And those things that are require a bit of evidence.
5. Rana Quijotesca | February 19th, 2008 at 8:05 am
As the Hitchens quote goes:
6. Rana Quijotesca | February 19th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Something just came to mind… Wasn’t it Republicans, lead by the notoriously eloquent (HA!) Ted Stevens, who wanted to destroy net neutrality and let ISPs give different sites better service depending on payment or whim? Wouldn’t that be the opposite of the internet you describe? Honestly, you have got to speak out against this horrible Republican attack on Freedom of Speech! (you probably won’t, but I tried)
7. SEW | February 19th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Mark, Google is simply going by “news” guidelines set by COLUMBIA university, fake Indian U [ Colorado Boulder] and UC Berkeley. Free speech, as long as it is 100% liberal biased, otherwise hit the road. Yet on Mark’s conservative site 1-6 above, we have 100% libturds posting.
8. Some Assembly Required | February 19th, 2008 at 9:51 am
“If you don’t like what someone is saying, fire back with your own words, and let the internet community decide who makes the better case. Its disturbing that a corrupt and moribund organization appears to have enough pull to de-facto censor and independent voice.”
Mark,
I’m interested in how you view deleting posts on your website which are ‘off topic’ or ‘blah blah blah’. After all your site is on the internet which you speak off, and can be found with a simple google search.
9. Magnum Serpentine | February 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
And yet you call for censureship of Abortion sites, non-christian sites and Liberal sites. etc.
next.
10. Ricorun | February 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am
The White House recently removed the lefty site, TalkingPointsMemo.com off their daily email newsfeed list.
11. SEW | February 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Magnum, I see you have no need for censureship [sic] on your blog. Zero comments on your last full page of “opinion.” And who is this McClaim guy?
12. Ricorun | February 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Well I’ll be darned… it turns out that Talking Points Memo just won the George Polk award for excellence in journalism — the first set of bloggers ever to win. They won it for their work in exposing the USA scandal. I wonder if there’s a connection between that and getting dumped from the WH email list.
13. stef | February 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“If you don’t like what someone is saying, fire back with your own words, and let the internet community decide who makes the better case.”
Thats what google is doing, no? Its a member of the internet community and it is deciding how to run its website. And you want the government to investigate publication decisions? Like a Fairness Doctrine for search engines? could be interesting.
14. Anonymous Coward | February 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Lets talk about baseball.
15. Kahn | February 19th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Control of information.
All the TV networks, except one.
All the radio networks, though syndicated talk shows help counter it.
Most of the Newspapers.
The News services (AP, UPI, Reuters)
The most used Internet portals and search engines.
No one else is scared? I’ve mentioned before how hard it is to search for pro-conservative or anti-liberal information. That information appears to have a very short Internet shelf life. Stories I know were there disappear quickly from Google.
It seems OK to liberals now, because you agree with the message. But that monster could turn on you quickly.
16. phnx | February 19th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I knew there were many leftists on the site, but I had no idea that they oppose the unmasking of corruption in the UN, or is this just blind support for the leftists who run Google.
17. brett michaels | February 20th, 2008 at 1:43 am
phnx | February 19th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I knew there were many leftists on the site, but I had no idea that they oppose the unmasking of corruption in the UN,
Nice strawman Phnx.
You are obviously against free enterprise. I had no idea you were a socialist like Mark Noonan
Like I said before..Google is free to modify their search engine to filter any content they want.
If they want to modify their search engine so that every time you google “clinton sex scandal” and all it does is return 8000 links to two guys having sex…they are free to do it.
You dont believe in free markets…I do.
You want Big Government to place monitors within Google to make sure “they do the right thing”…I dont.
Either you believe in free enterprise or you dont.
In this case..Google is a search engine. They are not a publisher..they are not and ISP…they are not ICAAN, nor do they own the top level DNS servers.
They have done nothing to prevent anyone from going to a site.
I love how when you neocons feel slighted, the first thing you say: Help me Big Government. I need you to solve a problem…
Nice to know you guys are a bunch of closet socialists that want Big Government to micromanage our free market companies.
18. brett michaels | February 20th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Kahn,
When were you born? You guys are SO dependent on the internet for information it is unbelievable.
What the hell did you do before the internet and cable TV with 800 stations?
Why dont you get your information from talking to people..you know…interacting with real live people.
You live in Va for Christ sakes just like I do. If you cant get information about the world, politics, then you must be less connected than the local school janitor.
When was the last time you visited your US senator? State rep?..anyone? You want information about politics, voting records..go ask them. Dont rely on some spoon fed article from Fox/NBC/CBS/ETC
Have you guys seen that tax commercial…”Well I dont know…lets ask the box….oops the box is saying anything”
Maybe if you guys got out and lived a little…traveled over seas or *gasp* traveled to other states you wouldnt be so damn depended on spoon fed information.
On my tv it pretty much gets tuned to The Discovery Channels, DIY, ESPN, FoodNetwork, etc.
I think the last time I watched a newshow or a talk show was 3-4yrs ago.
If I need news on Iraq..I go down to the VFW/WR or go on base.
If I need political info: I call my local rep…hell I driven down to his law office when he is not in session.
Get out and live people.
19. Adrian | February 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Maybe it’s not censorship or conspiracy. Maybe. But Google rushed to fix it once they got caught. Not that they got caught because it wasn’t censorship after all, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331469,00.html