pure bs opinion piece. Not hard news!!

I made a semi-coherent rant about what I consider to be a flawed policy at Google News. My issue with Google is that somewhere in the chain of what constitutes news a human being is involved. Someone is deciding what consitutes news. This is a flawed process. Google homogenizes hard news, along with Op-Eds and other likely slanted articles from such sources as Rushlimbaugh.com, Weeklystandard.com, and Frontpagemagazine.com on the Right, and Commondreams.org, Indymedia.org and Americanprogress.org on the left making no distinction between any of these sources.

Here's the link to my view of the issue, and some easy ways to fix what truly is a substantive issue given Google's pre-eminent position as both a search engine, and source for real news.

Getting back on track, each of the sources listed above has an agenda. That's an entirely reasonable position.

What made me revisit this so soon, is that the following Op-Ed piece landing in a top position in the U.S. News section on the news main page, not the linked page.

It is as follows:

Could Bush Face a Republican Revolt in November?

Cinnamon Stillwell

In the wake of David Kay?s findings (or lack thereof) in Iraq, President Bush has been enduring withering criticism from Democrats, who are desperate to steer the controversy into the realm of conspiracy rather than intelligence failure. But it isn?t just from the left flank that Bush finds himself under attack. In fact, members of his own party are beginning to chime in, only their concerns are of an entirely different nature. Bush?s runaway spending, huge government entitlement programs, and ill-conceived guest worker proposal are all extremely unpopular with Republicans, and they are beginning to make their displeasure known.

Republicans are not stingy about funding national security and the visionary among their ranks also support expanding the space program. But the Republican Party is known for fiscal responsibility, and that?s something that has been in short supply lately in the Bush administration. And on first glance, the budget proposal for 2005 promises more of the same. At some point, the president has to just say no.

The Medicare bill, which wasn't easy for conservatives to swallow in the first place, now turns out to be even costlier than promised. Bush now has to justify the necessity for this giant entitlement program yet again, but this time to a roomful of hostile Republicans. And a recently proposed $18 million dollar budget increase for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), isn?t helping matters.

Bush?s guest worker proposal (which he stubbornly insists isn?t an amnesty, but everyone knows it is) is not only unpopular among Republicans, but Americans as a whole. In the last poll, over 70\% of Americans were in favor of limiting illegal and legal immigration, not increasing it. And that?s exactly what Bush?s plan will do. Since his speech announcing the proposal, the numbers of illegals crossing the border has increased exponentially. Then there?s the small matter of national security, which means nothing when our borders are sieves. Americans understand all this, so why doesn?t President Bush?

The most popular theory is that Bush?s chief strategist, Karl Rove, is trying to steal the Democrats? thunder. By taking away all their platforms--big government, social programs, increased immigration--Bush puts them in the unenviable position of arguing against their own constituency. But when does this trade-off become counterproductive? At a certain point, Republicans may start to feel that they are simply voting for what is essentially another Democrat.

But Republicans frustrated with Bush?s policies have virtually nowhere else to turn. They don?t want to run the risk of letting a Democrat win the presidential election in November, but on principle, they are ready to bolt. And a few have done just that. More than one Republican has switched their political affiliation to Independent, while others are focusing on rising stars within the Republican Party. A write-in option for Tom Tancredo, the staunchly anti-illegal-immigration Colorado Congressman, has been rumored, and some conservative Christians in the party say they would support Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore should he choose to run. Tancredo and Moore don?t have the mass support to win the presidency, but they could pull away a good chunk of Bush?s voters and do some real damage in the process.

The stakes are high in the next presidential election and the fact is many Republicans are terrified at the prospect of a Democrat inhabiting the White House at this time. It?s likely that the War on Terrorism and national security will take precedence and win Bush the day. But it?s also a possibility that if he doesn?t watch his step, alienated Republicans could pull the rug out from under him.

For all of our sakes, let?s hope President Bush starts getting back in touch with his base.

Link

This thing is filled with erroneous and mis-leading statements. It doesn't rise to the level of 'information.' The souce alone is tip off; 'Opinioneditorials.com.'

I'll tell you some verifiable information.

I thought this was left-leaning editorial until I read the bit about 'voting for what is essentially another Democrat.'

1) Today's 'conspiracy theory' becomes tomorrow's 'conventional wisdom.' See O'Neill's The Price of Loyalty for further confirmation. Re: Iraq war.

The Bush Administration's members own statements clearly show that some of them had a handle on the true nature of the WMD threat. Verifiable data.

2) Both parties like to spend money. After all, it isn't their money. Name the last president that actually cut spending. The Republicans like to spend your money on guns and stuff, and the Democrats on other forms of domestic stuff. The concept of 'small government conservatives' has always been more of a myth than anything. For verification see: U.S. Budget historical data.

3) An $18 million dollar increase in funding for the NEA. Yeah. How about a 7.1% percent increase in the defense budget that only equates to a total of $1.1 billion dollars per DAY. How do they make ends meet? I can see this in light of the huge military threat the U.S, is facing. Oh, wait. There is no military threat. Anywhere.

I'm going to stop there. I think my point has been made. I especially like this bit: "on first glance, the budget proposal for 2005 promises more of the same."

WTF? Hasn't this Cinnamon person crunched the numbers yet? That's simply irresponsible.

The GOP for Roy Moore? Mr. Ten Commandments? Back that statement up.

"For all of our sakes, let's hope President Bush starts getting back in touch with his base." I'd say that's a wrap.

I think Google should opt to change their policy as to what makes onto the news page. As it stands, any source, no matter how demonstrably biased, and or flat out wrong, gets equal standing with reputable hard news sources.

I have tried to keep this blog much as I lead my life. Skeptical. Not cynical. A lot of pure bs has passed my way, and I accept nothing without evidence.

I'll tell you if I'm stating an opinion. This entry is my opinion. I think it is also a good way for Google to differentiate between hard news, Op-Eds, and shrill hyperbole. I think that there is way too much non-newsworthy content on Google News.

It is difficult enough for people to determine what is good information without having to wade through a morass of unverifiable Op-Eds and other dubious sources. But then, what do I know?