Posted by
Icarus on Saturday, October 04, 2008 3:08:23 PM
America's Domestic Terrorists must love Google and the New York Times
Democrat Times of New York is finally covering Sen. Obama's relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. I hope your news spread with a healthy dose of whitewash and cover-up.
National Review's Stanley Kurtz comments on the Times' coverage. I was interested in this bit:
As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. ... The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night
was, "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close." That was quickly
changed to, "Obama and the ‘60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." (emphasis added)
The first thing I did was
Google the article's original title. The results were exactly two hits; one was the Kurtz write up at NRO, the other was a 'daily digest' that referenced the Kurtz article. A
search through Google News offers up no hits whatsoever. But what about those "catched" web pages? The one's that go missing that we're able to see thanks to this great new technology? How come the original webpage that had the original story didn't show up as a "catched" page?
So what does Google mean by "catched"? According to the well known internet search engine:
Google takes a snapshot of each page examined as it crawls the web and caches these as a back-up
in case the original page is unavailable. If you click on the "Cached" link, you will see the web page as it looked
when we indexed it. The cached content is the content Google uses to judge whether this page is a relevant match
for your query.
This explanation, however, seems to be inaccurate. Google does not take a snapshot of "each page ... as it crawls the web". It appears as if it takes a snapshot of only some pages. A search for the exact phrase "Obama had met Ayers" comes up with
only six results;
15 if you include those Google hides because they are deamed "similar" to those already shown. It should be noted that the Kurtz's piece at NRO is one of the items hidden from view in the original search. Note that not all the pages found by Google have been "catched". Those not "catched" include
FreeRepublic.com,
BlogsForJohnMcCain.com and Corner.NationalReview.com. The DemocraticUnderground.com and the website for left-wing talk radio host Taylor Marsh, titled, cleverly enough, TaylorMarsh.com.
This brings up a lot of questions. How do some pages get catched and some do not? Could that original article title have been catched? If so and it was not, why not?
Google is a well known
supporter of the Obama campaign. It is one thing for the Main Stream Media to not report a story. Alternatives on the internet stand a good chance of picking it up. The Dan Rather, forged documents incident is a perfect example of this. It is something else entirely if a well known internet search engine were working hand in hand with a biased news source to actively remove stories from the internet.
The explanation could be entirely innocuous. On the on the hand, someone's ideology may be playing a role as well. If it is the latter then this gives the phrase "down the memory hole" a whole new, 21st Century meaning.