No offense intended, but did you investigate the reports of what has supposedly taken place? You seem to have overlooked the whole point. While it is accurate to state that Google can take whatever position they choose, I won't use them now because they did not and do not state up front what they are doing. They built their reputation as an inclusive search engine but now are hoodwinking those who use the service - willingly or not, duped is duped.
And I must take great exception to "The media censors nothing" - are you serious??? What a hot button for me, LoL! I neutrally deal with print and broadcast media on a regular basis and I assure you that you are mistaken. Television is by far the worst culprit on a day-in-day-out basis, especially the formats that only air news reports 2-3 times a day. Like most things, the practice is not universal and occasionally is even well-intentioned, but it is pervasive. There are notable differences from one reporter to another; one news director or editor to another; one affiliate or another. The media in all venues often both panders to the masses (economic survival, I suppose, but where are personal values and integrity in that?) AND MANIPULATES the masses. And the manipulation is always according to ONE PERSON's point of view or agenda - a modest amount of investigation into the real-life personalities of your local news media will quickly prove the latter to you if you disbelieve my assertion that humans behave like humans...
First interviews with me take a bit of extra time because I tell it like it is to the news crew - screw with the truth and I'll pay you back, because you're not the only news crew around. Fail to be accountable for the consequences of your reporting and I'll hold you accountable in the public eye, because you have rivals. Be truthful and accountable and I'll give you newsworthy stories voluntarily. So far, I've kept my word on that. Some crews never return; the honest ones do.
Even so, my singular point of view should be suspect as only a portion of the truth, so I try to make sure that they have at least one other source and put them in contact with other sources when I can. I have met some decent newspaper and (fewer) TV journalists at local, regional, and occasionally national level... radio is an enigma to me these days, although reaching back, I recall some decent coverage of events. I have had too few encounters with periodicals to have an informed viewpoint, although I could hazard some guesses if pressed.
I'm not a famous or important person in the scheme of things, yet those things have become evident to me; it's not hard to observe what goes on.
Have you ever heard "Never get into an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel."? Why do you suppose that 19th century observation continues to be repeated? Because it's still true! However, the newspaper at that time was the "news equivalent" of TV today - read some older newspapers - especially competing ones - from late 19th-early 20th century and you'll see what I mean - it's laughable now. Now overlay TV - substitute "video tape by the pallet" for "ink by the barrel".
And now - for some folks - the WWW adds another "information dimension".
I do not envy the job of a journalist (regardless of media). A principled and intelligent journalist (and they exist - I know some) must struggle constantly within themselves to be like Jack Friday - "Just the facts, ma'am". The most despicable practice that I encounter is what I call "selective reporting" - bluntly, lying by using a portion of the truth; presenting only a singular selective view (even editied in a fashion to further twist matters). It is usually not out of laziness or ineptness that that is done - I have witnessed the practice many times - a TV station or newspaper will have multiple sources; multiple points of view, and choose to use only that which supports the predelictions of the editor/news director/reporter/etc.
Google is selectively censoring without informing their users that they are doing that. It's the "not informing the user" part of the practice that I find offensive.
As I stated in a previous post, I had recently begun to wonder what was "wrong" with Google's search engine because it was occasionally coming up with inexplicable "holes" in the results. I used to be a very satisfied user and I might still be IF I knew what exactly they were hiding and why - perhaps I might even "approve" of their policies.
Censorship per se isn't "bad" if one agrees with the aims and methods of the censor... good parents must be censors for many years, for example. Or so I believe.
My 2 cents on the topic, and as I stated up front, no offense intended.
Regards,
Tom
PS - a local radio affiliate has the publically and widely advertised slogan "We tell you everything you need to know." It may be the national slogan of their parent; not sure. That sends chills up my spine... especially because I know for certain that they do NOT - I listen to them to hear other points of view on contentious matters - they are very heavy-handed in most things. Kind of blatant, don't you think? I know the gentleman who has directed that affiliate for decades; have known him since I was a child. Mostly, he is a very decent person. And he has a decided political tilt - he's nearly horizontal, in fact. And he is stupendously ignorant of a number of factual areas, which he demostrates regularly. Doesn't make him stupid (he's not), but how ARROGANT of him to pontificate on things he is ignorant of! (The most likely alternative is that he's not arrogant, but evil-minded, which I do not believe) I'm glad he's retiring from that... I note that the newspapers run his stuff on the editorial pages rather than in the news, which is appropriate. I enjoy his other work...
Previous Topic
Index
