Google and British National Party news listings: ethical issues?
Google defends itself against accusations of unethical behavior after it emerged that news reports filed by the British National Party are being listed as sources on its Google News website, in one case as the first source, alongside stories from BBC and Reuters and other news organizations. This comes at the same times as the party's leader Nick Griffin is facing charges of "inciting racial hatred".
An article from The Times gives an example of a story covered by the BNP that was found on Google News.
The issue, as highlighted by Julia Day of the Guardian, is that "many Google users will be directed to the BNP's website by virtue of having clicked on the first headline that is listed."
Anti-facist groups have attacked Google for including the BNP as a news source, saying: "The BNP is an openly racist organisation. Through Google using the BNP as a supposedly legitimate news source it legitimises the party. It should not be treated as a legitimate organisation in this way."
A Google spokesperson commented that it is not the job of the internet giant "to act as a censor", adding that Google's "automated search services could not screen results." Google acknowledges that a search on its site could result in internet users being sent to sites they find "objectionable, inappropriate or offensive", but asserts that it cannot be held responsible for the content of websites appearing amongst Google search results.
Google also placed emphasis on the absence of human editing on the Google News site: "Google News has no human editors selecting stories or decidng which ones deserve top placement. Our headlines are selected by computer algorithms, based on factors including how often and on what sites a story appears online." The company has stated that if any illegal content was found to be linked to its index, such pages would be removed from Google's site, and that "we would remove anything that we were notified promoted hate or violence."
However, Rhys Blakely of The Times points out that in the past Google has acknowledged some human involvement in Google News article selection. Rhys refers to a Times Online interview with Google News product manager Nathan Stoll, where Stoll stated that "people do play a part in the process. Newssources are tagged - "by hand" - to avoid, for example, spoof articles on a satirical site such as The Onion appearing among a list of straight news stories."
A key issue in this row is obviously the functioning of the Google News index; what exactly are Google's sources, how and why are sources added and removed from its index. As Rhys Blakely highlights, this was a topic of disagreement at The World Editors' Forum in Seoul in 2005, a topic that in light of the recent row over BNP stories should be more thoroughly addressed.
Sources: Guardian Media, The Times
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Google and British National Party news listings: ethical issues?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/828
(The Grauniad story is pay-walled.) It makes a great deal of difference - to me, at least - whether this is on Google News - which makes an implicit promise that its sources are kosher - or Google Web, where you get what you get.
Is this old news?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/google_bnp_news/
Tide of migrant BNP PR menaces Google News
News picks a bit illiberal?
By John Lettice
Published Sunday 7th November 2004 11:36 GMT
New year, new job? Click here for thousands of tech vacancies.
Google News, which last year accepted that press releases counted as news, now apparently thinks press releases from the far-right British National Party count too.
The British National Party is a properly constituted political, democratic Party. . Love it or loathe it, that is the case. What is also true is that it is a thorn in the side of the British Establishment as it is not in the pockets of Big Business, the Unions or the Media so, like the Minutemen, it stands and fights on its own feet. Well done, GOOGLE, for not being intimidated by the Guardianistas!
Yet another case of arrogant individuals like Julia Day trying to stifle any debate about immigration and multiculturalism - such people always show their fascistic tendencies when they object to other people's views being expressed - if the BNP position on these matters is so wrong and so out of step with public opinion, then she need have no fear of them being expressed and publicised - or does she and all the other Guardian-reading hypocrites secretly acknowledge the wisdom of what the BNP has to say? Work it out for yourself.
OK, so it is Google News. And apparently the BNP faithful stalk the web for mentions, which is jolly.
Isn't the internet frustrating when you can't control the output or the political spin ?
It's laughable to see the guardian correspondents whining like spoilt children because they have no monopoly on what appears.
Love the BNP or hate them they are a legal political party so they should have a place, we should DEFEND FREEDOM OF SPEECH, right or wrong,
WENDY.S
Whatever happened to freedom of expression or does it not set well with the left leaning media? If the party is a registered legal entity I want to know what its saying. I probably also want to know what the mad lunatic fringe is doing.
It saddens me that the left leaning media is becoming increasingly incapable of recognising and accordig rights to conflicting or diverse opinons.
Whatever happened to freedom of expression or does it not sit well with the left leaning media? If the party is a registered legal entity I want to know what its saying. I probably also want to know what the mad lunatic fringe is doing.
It saddens me that the left leaning media is becoming increasingly incapable of recognising and accordig rights to conflicting or diverse opinons.