In the argument section of FP magazine, there is a rather dubious and predictable piece warning of the dangers foreign government sponsored propaganda infiltrating Google News.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/19/the_autocrat_s_algorithm?page=0,0
Joshua Keating is very worried about Americans being exposed to propaganda. He's worried because Google News doesn't sort out propaganda, quoting a professor in an obvious expert capacity as saying 'is Google News doing the right thing for us by prioritizing that state broadcaster?' Oooh, scary, google is providing search results that prioritize original reporting, local content, and frequently read sources. (Naturally these tend in some cases to lean to the advantage of state run media who are the sole news providers in some locales and some populations.)
What's the problem here? People won't know propaganda when they see it? It's Google's job to prevent us from reading what Keating believes is propaganda? We're all just little sheep waiting to be warped by whatever perspective is the top result on Google's search?
Is it possible to give people any less responsibility for their own ideas? JK implicitly contends that individuals are incapable of recognizing bias when they see it. While stupidity is a reality for many people, at least Google news gives many different biases (giving us the best chance to be aware of the bias of any given perspective.)
Keating regales us with stories of unfair reporting in Russia, which mysteriously (and he seems to imply suspiciously) show up in the Google News rankings. In the news about the Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout recently extradited from Thailand to the US, JK gives two examples of headlines: (Typical U.S. headline: "Alleged 'Merchant of Death' Pleads Not Guilty." Typical Russian headline: "Bout was psychologically pressured during flight to U.S.")
Alleged Merchant of Death v. Psychologically Pressured During Flight. Which of these has a strong bias?
If your answer was both, then you're catching on. The truth is American media is also biased, in a predictably pro-American government fashion. Of course the American media will use the phrase 'Merchant of Death', while the Russian media will use a personalizing name and sympathetic concepts like psychological pressure. I am by no means implying that the respective biases are morally equivalent, since I believe protecting a crony of the Putin regime who sells illegal weapons to pariah states is deserving of very little sympathy. I am implying that both sides have an entrenched bias. The only way to bring the world closer, is to expose the bias of all sides, even the American side. JK and the vast majority of American media believe that they are above any bias...a contention that is so absurd it makes me grimace. The American media certainly has more diverse perspectives than most state-run medias, but even the most opposed perspectives carry common threads of bias that someone who has never consumed foreign media might not recognize.
Therefor, let me be the first to thank Google for the service of providing every perspective, without using some high-minded know-it-all to rank what is biased and what isn't. The only way to make progress toward truth is to be exposed to opposing points of view. Google (and many others) are doing a great service for mankind. My only complaint is the difficulty of being considered amongst Google's news sources. The requirements for number of viewers and repeat viewers is problematic for small, but genuinely independent sources of news and opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment