|
|
|
|
|
|
by nmrm
4359 days ago
|
|
|
Did you read the articles on the site (tone o fcuriosity, not indignation)? * The Daniels-Dwyer article serves no obvious public good. * The post-it thing is a huge wtf. No idea why anyone would even care. * The train thing is embarrassing; again, reporting on this amounts to gossip mongering for cash and serves no public good. * The Osborne thing seems like a politically-motivated intrusion into the private life of a politician's brother. Again, trash reporting. So unless you disagree that these all amount to unhelpful gossip mongering (well, except to the wallet of a lazy reporter/news agency), a little less than half of the unbalanced results demonstrate no harm to the public good. edit: tone clarification. Also, I agree with your last paragraph. |
|
|
The first link currently on the site is about the BBC Merril Lynch article. While the site says the censored name is unknown it links to an article that {edit} starts off {/edit} clearly says that O'Neal is being protected. Yet the article is searchable using O'Neal as a search term. The actual censored name is one of the people who left a comment. The only way you don't find the article using Google is if you include that person's name in your search terms.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-merrill-lynch-and-the-...