BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Good Google news

15 comments on Good Google news

Good Google news

: GoogleNews has dropped the nazi site. Says InternetNews:

“Google News does not allow hate content,” said Google spokesman Steve Langdon. “If we are made aware of articles that contain hate content, we will remove them.”

Langdon said news media must apply to be included in Google News and that they are evaluated by editors before inclusion. He wouldn’t provide a list of news media that Google News indexes, nor would he give details of the evaluation process or criteria for inclusion.

I still want them to be transparent on that list and on their criteria. And note that some editor did decide to include the nazi site in the feed.

But it’s gone now. Good for Google.

See also GoogleBlogoscoped.

: MORE: This is great… John at Private Radio put up a script that is scraping GoogleNews to discover its news sources. Great work! List is here.

15 responses to “Good Google news”

  1. strange world Avatar
    strange world

    So what you are saying is that it only took a – presumably polite – request to Google and the Nazi site was dropped.
    No need for all this “troll”-bashing hullaballoo and hysterical demands to investigate Google’s methods and sources….
    As you say, hooray for Google.
    But Jeff Jarvis comes off looking pretty stupid, if not suspisciously anti-free speech.
    – g.

  2. Yehuda Cohn Avatar
    Yehuda Cohn

    I agree. One day someone may decide that what Jeff has to say constitutes “hate content.”
    Whatever happened to the old saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’d fight for your right to say it”? Another antiquated notion?
    Congratulations, Jeff, you quelled some speech. On to new dragons to slay.

  3. franky Avatar
    franky

    Yeah great – google now gets to decide what “hate content” constitutes (what beautiful use of the English language, by the way, “contain hate content” – another one of God’s little jokes that the inarticulate now review the writings of others).

  4. dfrisme Avatar
    dfrisme

    I say Nazis are scum. I don’t like them. I avoid Nazis whenever possible. But I think Nazis should be able to spread their filthy lies just like I can spread my well thought out and reasoned opinions. I don’t need someone deciding what I can and can’t read. If people consider what I write to be an abomination, they are welcome not to read it.
    Having said that, if Google doesn’t want to help the Nazis, that is there business. Google News is a type of super corporate blog. If I don’t like their editorial approach, then I will stop reading them.
    And having said that, the Nazis are out there whether we like it or not. Coverage is not the same as endorsement. Its helpful to know what they are up to and what their current activities are. If Google is going to restrict their coverage in certain areas, that will lesson their value as a news aggregator.
    As always with media, vote with your feet if nothing else…

  5. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    The nazi site is still on the internet. No one took it down.
    The issue here is that GoogleNews specifically included it in a news site.
    What they said is not news, not in any universe.

  6. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    I have to wonder who is the editor. I can’t accept that any sane person would call Jew Watch a news site–a fanatically anti-Semitic hate site that was ranked first by google in relevance of more than 1.72 million Web pages. Then they also called “Chester’s guide to molesting young girls” a news site.
    I don’t use google anymore so I don’t know if they still list Jew Watch or tell pedos how to abuse kiddies.
    But if Jeff helped in the removal of Nazi.org–I thank him and all bloggers involved.

  7. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    Google defined the content of this site as “hate content.” They then either created a policy or acted on an existig one that “Google News does not allow hate content.” Fine.
    Jeff says “What they said is not news, not in any universe.” Fine.
    Consider this thought experiment: An organization that identifies itself as “Nazi” writes articles about current events: the war in Iraq, the Schiavo case, the iPod. Whatever. These articles do not contain “hate speech” Should they be included?

  8. dfrisme Avatar
    dfrisme

    Jeff says: “What they said is not news, not in any universe.”
    What the Nazis had to say was very big news about 70 years ago… My father and several million of his friends were instrumental in helping them become un-newsworthy. We can only hope that they remain unnewsworthy. Ignoring them and pretending that they don’t exist isn’t the answer.
    The fact that the Nazi site exists _is_ news, if you are wanting to read about what they are up to. If I lived next to them, I would want to know so I could lock my doors if nothing else. If I type “Nazi” + “the name of my city” into Google News, I can then say, “My God! There’s a Nazi club near me. I’d better write a letter to my local newspaper editorial page.”
    Again, news coverage is not the same as endorsment. And again, this is an editorial decision of Google News. News organizations live and die by such decisions.

  9. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Being the subject of news and reporting news are two different things.

  10. dfrisme Avatar
    dfrisme

    Jeff wrote: “Being the subject of news and reporting news are two different things.”
    On the internet, they can be the same. This isn’t intended to be a flip comment. On the internet, everyone owns a press. Some bloggers are news and some news is by bloggers. Just because what someone says is evil, doesn’t make it not news. Its just news you don’t like. The idea of “people’s media” is that ones value is based on one’s logic and reputation (and writing ability), rather than one’s membership in the official “media club.”
    If Google doesn’t want to include Nazi sites in their news aggregator, thats their business. I would rather think that its an editorial decision than a legal or business decision.
    I would also be a happier Google customer if they include as much as possible and let me decide what is worth reading. I’m a grown up and I can handle it.
    Their search algorithms seem to get me the stuff I want better than their editorial board’s decisions. Which is one reason I find their News service of limited value.

  11. GoodBuzz Greyteeth Avatar
    GoodBuzz Greyteeth

    I was excoriated a day or so ago for posting the link to report problems with the quality of google news sources.
    I asked you then Jeff, if you had taken the three clicks necessary to report the link yourself.
    Anyway, should you wish to apologize on behalf of your commenters and answer my question, I would greatly appreciate that.
    Best wishes,
    I remain,
    GoodBuzz Greyteeth

  12. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    I’m confused Jeff.
    Tho I agree with you on the Google thing, hasn’t that issue become the Stern, and you the the FCC here?

  13. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Lynn…
    GoogleNews, like a newspaper or a blog, is a private venture; we all pick what to include and not include. I don’t include everything in my blog; that’s not censorship, that’s writing. Ditto the Times; that’s editing.
    The FCC is the goverment. When government decides what cannot be said with the force of law and punishment, that is censorship.

  14. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Dear Jeff
    Got it …thanks. :-)
    Optimally then, those who find Stern as troubling as the Nazi site need to move the battle to his sponsoring stations and their sponsors.

  15. marc Avatar
    marc

    Taking National Vanguard off of the Google News corpus is not censorship by any means. National Vanguard is still publishing (as it has a right to, however vile its content.) It can even still be found in Google’s searches.
    What is Google News? There are two ways of looking at it. First, it proports to be a news service, that is it claims that what it is reporting is news. Despite the use of an automated algorithm to pick the stories, human editors at Google have made decisions about what sources to provide. This is a news judgement, not different in kind than any other editorial decision. Google decides which sources to credit as news sources on its news service. It originally made the choice to credit National Vanguard alongside CNN, NYT, Reuters, Fox, etc. Doing so, and desplaying National Vanguard stories as news stories was giving them the same status as these other sources. This is very different from reporting on nazi activity (which I agree is important.)
    Another way to look at Google News is that it is a product, which Google is providing for free to get traffic (and presumably will soon have advertising.) This product is only valuable to Google if consumers find it useful. The idea of news aggregation is indeed, very useful. However, when I look at a news site, I have the expectation that what I am reading is reasonably reliable. If Google News is full of stories from sources which I do not consider even remotely creditable, then I can not use Google News in the same way. Even a few stories from sources such as Vanguard News make me sceptical about others. Yes, I could adopt a caveat lector approach and check the source of each story. However, this is alot of work, especially as Google News has hundreds of sources, most of whose names are not familiar to me. If Google leaves VN in, Google News becomes significantly less valuable to me and, I suspect, many others.