About Me

Name: Icarus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

A Tale of Two Headlines

"His Serene Majesty President-designate Barack the Healer" campaigns in Montana and the Liberal-Left Media reports it as "Momentum May Bring Obama, Biden Back to Montana"

Senator John McCain campaigns in Pennsylvania and that same L-LM dubs it: "McCain Seeks Pa. Victory Despite Trailing in Polls"

It is wonder, these reporters must be thinking, that McCain bothers to campaign at all.

The McCain headline, by the way, comes from the so-called conservative Fox News.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Just how big is this conspiracy?


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.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Google - just another part of the Obama Propaganda Machine

There wasn't much sleep last night after getting some mixed news on the job front. I dragged myself out of bed at 6:30 this morning and spent a few moments listening to the YouTube clips of Ezra Levants interrogation by the Canadian Liberal Fascists Committee "Human Rights Commission". Recall how meticulously German National Socialists were in documenting and recording everything they did, in contrast to Soviet Communists. Films and records can be found for just about anything that occured in Germany during that little mustached fellow's rise  to and abuse of power. The Canadian government seems to be following the same track of meticulously recording every abuse of human rights it engages in. Case in point (an aside watch the female commissar's commissioner's reactions during Mr. Levant's opening statement - also be sure to watch the other clips from the interrogation, it is quite an educational experience):



The real purpose of this post is to point out what I saw on my iGoogle homepage this morning. Here is a screen shot:



After reading that justice has finally been done and OJ Simpson was finally found guilty (unfortunately it wasn't for the slaughtering his ex-wife and her friend and he may only serve as little as 7 years, less if they include time already served), I noticed a link to the New York Times, titled "The Joe Biden Show", in iGoogle "Top Stories" box in the lower left hand corner. Here's the detail:


I clicked it just to see what this "news story" was about. In point of fact, it isn't a new story at all. It is an Opinion piece by Charles M. Blow. Let's take a look at what someone at Google considers to be news:
"I expected Sarah Palin to perform well in Thursday’s debate, so I wanted to watch it with the most conservative crowd I could find. (In truth, after her horrendous performance with Katie Couric, anything short of her head spinning around and spewing vomit would have been considered an improvement.)"
I'm sure he "expected" her to perform well. The Exorcist reference makes his open-minded-ness on this debate perfectly clear. He goes on with:
"I went to the unlikely Jake’s Saloon in Chelsea in Manhattan where the New York Young Republican Club was gathering to watch (on Fox)."
"Unlikely"? Why? I know trying to find a conservative establishment in Manhattan is like to trying to find a free speech advocate on a Canadian Human Rights Commission, but what exactly made it "unlikely"? Was it the fact that it actually let Republicans in? Or was it that it had Fox News on its TVs? Come on, Mr. Blow. Inquiring minds want to know.
"Palin launched into her charm offensive — winking, smiling, dodging questions and speaking in her signature Sarah-phonics , a mash up of sentence fragments and colloquialisms glued together with misplaced also’s and there’s — gibberish really. Everyone in the bar lapped it up. It was The Sarah Palin Show."
Nice to see what, exactly, Mr. Blow was expecting when he entered Chelsea's: "gibberish really".
"As it became clear that she wasn’t going to implode, I started to see the debate instead as The Joe Biden Show. And, it was good.
Through the booing and hissing, I saw a strong, authoritative, confident and sensitive candidate emerge. On the whole, he came across as intelligent and relatable; a real person. That’s a quality that often eludes Barack Obama."
And who, again, is at the top of the Democrat ticket? Ah, yes, a guy who "often" is not "intelligent and relatable, a real person". Good to know that Democrats have their priorities straight.
"In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 32 percent of Democrats, 38 percent of independents and 41 percent of Republicans said they didn’t know or had no answer when asked to say what they most liked about Biden."
You don't suppose, Mr. Blow, that those numbers could result from the fact that there isn't much to like about Senator-for-life Biden? Naah.

The real purpose of this post is to show what some liberals at Google consider news. I wonder if I'll ever see this linked in the "Top Stories" section of my iGoogle home page: "A Conservative Revival?" Let's just say, I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE:
A few moments after I got the screenshot of the Democrat Times of New York Op-Ed appearing in Google's Top Stories section, someone at Google changed it. This is what it looked like not less the 30 minutes after I got the images above:


I didn't check the McCain - Obama story to see if it was legit news. The fact that's linked to the Democrat Times of Los Angeles tells me that even if it is not another Op-Ed, it will be just as biased against the Republican nominee.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Media Bias all present & accounted for


Perfect acronym for MSM's comprehension of all things military
I  am not surprised by the Main Scream Media's antipathy toward the American military. By in large, reporters are products of their environment; indoctrinated educated by anti-military instructors, from Grade School to Graduate School, they carry an anti-military bias into the working world. I'm not surprised, but I am greatly dismayed.

A perfect example of a reporters anti-military bias is a Fox News story that greeted me when I opened my  internet home page this morning. The headline screamed "Ex-Husband: Army Said Pregnant Soldier Found Dead in Hotel Was AWOL". The story concerns the tragic case of an Army Spc. Megan Lynn Touma, who was discovered dead in a hotel room. The story's second and third paragraphs are completely groundless charges by the Specialist's ex-husband implicating the US Army in the death and in some kind of cover-up.
"She was left in the room for two days, and the Army said she was AWOL. They didn't even bother to go check on her in the motel where she stayed. I mean the Army knows that she stayed in that hotel," El Sayed Touma [the ex-husband] said."
Other than inflaming anti-military (and anti-American) emotion, what is the purpose of this quote? It adds nothing to the story. Any soldier that does not report when so ordered is noted in personnel records as "Absent Without Leave", or AWOL. Including in this report a quote from an ex-husband that implies the Army "left" Spc. Touma for two days is a mendacious lie. Reporting the soldier AWOL is standard procedure; it'd 'dog bites man' portion of this story. Including the ex-husbands quote, however, puts a very different spin on the events.

I'm very sorry that Spc. Touma's family lost a loved one. I'm also very sorry that Fox News has decided to turn the tragedy into an attack against the America's military. This is utterly disgraceful.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »