[elbrodeur]

I'm not going to say anything about how dubious your sources are, but I will address a couple things:

1) Blogs are not inherently "news". Ergo, they should not always be put into a news feed.

2) The blogs in question were removed because of objectionable content. Which, after reading a couple of articles on one of the sites mentioned, seems totally reasonable. The reason it's OK to remove these from the Google News feed is because it's not news. It's a few paranoid people talking about how dangerous RADICAL ISLAM is.

This is not a "liberal bias". This is an attempt to have a news feed that contains news. Not libel. Not hate speech.

[rick888]

"1) Blogs are not inherently "news". Ergo, they should not always be put into a news feed."

Here is something I just found on the google news feed: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20012891-10391698.html

This isn't news either, yet it's still there

"The blogs in question were removed because of objectionable content. Which, after reading a couple of articles on one of the sites mentioned, seems totally reasonable. The reason it's OK to remove these from the Google News feed is because it's not news. It's a few paranoid people talking about how dangerous RADICAL ISLAM is."

I find this article filled with just as much propaganda as an article about radical Islam, yet Google news still displays it (it's interesting how left-leaning opinion pieces are fine):

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/08/05/opinion/doc4c5...

With everything that has happened in the world, I don't see how you can pass off "the dangers of radical islam" as something small in the minds of paranoid people.

"This is not a "liberal bias". This is an attempt to have a news feed that contains news. Not libel. Not hate speech."

What you call "hate speech" and "libel" are just opinions. I find that word thrown around with ease by the left to vilify and silence opposing opinions.

If the info in the above articles are all lies, why does it matter if people read them? Won't they eventually find out?

[elbrodeur]

You're seriously comparing a movie review and a well articulated op-ed piece about where our debt comes from to sites like this (the ones listed in the article about Google censoring 'conservative e-zines')?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/ "Jesse Norton aka Younes Abdullah, How Did Your Conference Go At RM? You Know, The One With Convicted Terrorist Omar The Goat Humping Bakri Muhammed?"

http://www.michnews.com/Alan_Caruba/ac080410.shtml "This is why a mosque within steps of Ground Zero is so inherently wrong. It says that the intended victims of Islamic domination are simply too blind to envision their fate, too fearful to confront evil, to ready to get on the next train to Auschwitz."

Seriously?

[rick888]

"well articulated op-ed piece about where our debt comes"

This was an okay article and an opinion on where our debt comes from. I was merely pointing out the blogs and opinion pieces do get into google news.

As for the links you just posted: I may not agree with any of the content, but they are also just opinions (and not much worse than the links I posted)

The reason you don't want them posted is because you don't agree with them politically, which goes against the freedom of speech.

[elbrodeur]

I have no opinion of whether or not they should be excluded. In fact, one of the sites listed as "banned" (I have no way to substantiate this) was actually a decent news source with little to no understandably objectionable content: http://www.newmediajournal.us/

EDIT: I should say that I am interested in this inasmuch as it relates to Google censoring news. Having not found any evidence of censorship and having found evidence of actively selecting only quality content, my opinion is that they were right to exclude the blogs listed and it has nothing to do with whatever political beliefs I might hold.

No, the reason I think they were excluded from Google was because of examples like I posted. "Goat humping" has no place in a news feed. Likewise, comparing Islam to Nazi germany is not only in bad taste, it makes almost no sense. Framing this as an ideological debate when it is one of quality of information is nonsensical.

As to your last point, I think it's extremely important that both sides of this ridiculous debate get to talk to one another. Hopefully, if everyone is willing, we'll be able to work together and build a nation together that is tolerant of informed opinion and intolerant of those whose only goal is to inflame, incite and misinform.