March 22, 2005

CALL TO ACTION! Jeff Jarvis Bans Gandhi

I have just been banned from posting at Jeff Jarvis's "Buzz Machine" blog. I was responding to the following post from Jarvis, a man who claims to be a Democrat but consistently (and very suspisciously) tows the Bush GOP line on everything that really matters.

Jarvis wrote:
March 21, 2005

Demand Google News transparency

: We're demanding transparency of mainstream news.

Well, it's high time we get transparency from GoogleNews.

Instapundit and LGF point to a nazi site -- complete with "love your race" graphics -- that is part of Google News, while mainstream sane blogs are not.

Enough.

Google: Release a complete list of your news sources now. And institute a means for questioning those choices and for suggesting other choices now.

Google: It's bad enough that you won't share information about ad revenue sharing. But not to share information about your means of selecting news sources is inexecusable... in this case, evil.
Here is my initial response (more or less, as it's now from memory), which was deleted by Jeff within minutes:
Google News asked a long, long time ago for volunteers to help screen their news items.

So who do YOU think responded?

Right-wing warbloggers looking to grow their portfolios, increase their sphere of influence and leverage the synergy of their network contacts over Power Breakfasts at Starbucks?

Or idealistic young left-wingers who just wanted the Truth to be told (however they viewed that Truth)???

(AND LETS NOT FORGET THAT JEFF JARVIS REALLY REALLY REALLY IS A LEFT-WINGER, RIGHT????)
I later added the following clarification, assuming it would be needed:
PS: yes I know that Google News now uses computer algorithms to determine which stories are displayed. But as the About section says:

This is very much in the tradition of Google web search, which relies heavily on the collective judgment of online publishers to determine which sites offer the most valuable and relevant information.

Who do you think those original volunteer publishers were?

What now? Mabye Karl Rove can approve a few million more US dollars (taxpayer-funded) so that countless more Jeff Gannon-Guckerts can swamp the Google News landscape? If so, those of us who are actually capable of selectively picking our news sources will just seek the real TRUTH somewhere else.

OK?
Jarvis deleted my original post with the following typically snide response:
i just put another troll on timeout. if he misses recess, maybe he'll behave better in class. if not, we'll send him home on the little bus.
Posted by Jeff Jarvis at March 22, 2005 06:33 AM
He then banned me and removed all the following comments from me, which were made in a deliberate effort to encourage civilized debate (as opposed to childish name-calling or outright cencorship):
not to share information about your means of selecting news sources is inexecusable... in this case, evil.

EVIL is such a strong word, Jeff.

It suggests a capacity for judgement on your part...

Do you share Dubya's capacity for personal conversations with Sweet Lord Jesus or are you just pissing in the wind as usual?

Remembering Jesus' admonition to check the great beam in your own eye before you fuss about the wee splinter in your neighbour's eye, perhaps you will share all YOUR news sources with us?

Perhaps you could start with your knowledge of Spirit of America, Cyber Century Forum and the other people behind your friends at Iraq The Model????

* * *

what you really hate about GOOGLE NEWS is that they give air-time to viewpoints which do not conincide with your own...

This is called INTOLERANCE.

The USA was SUPPOSEDLY founded on the concept of Freedom Of Speech. So what are you really afraid of?

That you could be horribly, terribly, embarrassingly WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING????

* * *

"another troll on timeout?"

you know yourself I am more than that, Jeff. Why not try to debate my conserns openly?

what do you have to lose????
Posted by gandhi at March 22, 2005 06:44 AM

* * *

WHY NOT ADMIT YOU GOT IT COMPLETELY WRONG WITH THIS POST?????

MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO START.............?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Posted by gandhi at March 22, 2005 06:46 AM

* * *

what you really hate about GOOGLE NEWS is that they give air-time to viewpoints which do not conincide with your own...

This is called INTOLERANCE.

The USA was SUPPOSEDLY founded on the concept of Freedom Of Speech. So what are you really afraid of?

That you could be horribly, terribly, embarrassingly WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING????
Posted by gandhi at March 22, 2005 06:49 AM

* * *

The real issue here - still, after all this time - is WMDs.

It is the single biggest lie ever told and it has led directly to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, the destruction of long-cherished alliances and conventions, and the basic faith in government of many, many people.

It has also led to the disintegration of a dream called "America" which once shined brightly in the imaginations of many oppressed people around the globe.

With us or against us, Jeff?????
Posted by gandhi at March 22, 2005 06:53 AM
Jarvis is part of a concerted attempt by online right-wing warbloggers (most of who are presumably being paid with US taxpayer funds) to choke any real reporting of news stories that does not conform to the Karl Rove playbook. Jarvis has already taken on the New York Times about an article by Sarah Boxer challenging the authenticiy of the "Iraq The Model" blog, a project with which Jarvis himself was very closely connected.

Now Jarvis and his mates are going after Google News.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT???

Please email Jeff Jarvis at jeff@buzzmachine.com or - better yet - spam his Comments section out of existence.

4 comments:

Quilly_Mammoth said...

What a bum rap, Ghandi! No way are you a troll. A completely whacked out moonbat with a tenuous hold, at best, on reality...but definitely not a troll!

If Jarvis and those guys are getting paid by the US Government than I am really pissed. All I get is a stinking pittance from The Zio-Nazi Masters! (they are notoriously cheap). But ya know, I've always wondered about how some of those guys make it on the few shekels we're supposed to get. How does Glenn Reynolds get all that linking done and teach? Who funds the lifestyle Charles Johnson must have become accustomed to when he was a famous jazz Axman? Could Capt'n Ed really write all that he does and still manage a call center in Minnesota? And Lileks...how does a right winger like that write for the most Progressive Paper in the North?

Do you know any bank or law firm that would let their senior partners spend as much time blabbing away as the Powerline guys do? And what about Burge? How does that guy make a living?

It's all clear now...it's Rovian Economics.

Did you ever get any real information linking _Iraq the Model_ with the CIA...or is that still a Ghandi/Jaun Cole peyote dream?

Mostly Muppet said...

At the risk of getting my head lopped off, I'm gonna defend Jeff. Just so you know my indie/liberal cred is legit, I participated in Kos' "Stop Terror. Stop Torture. Stop Gonzales" campaign in February (http://www.mostlymuppet.com/archives/2005/02/01/stop-terror-stop-torture-stop-gonzales/). While I don't always agree with Jeff and I don't relish his association with Glenn Reynolds or LGF, I think he's trying to make a larger point about Google News' editorial power/choices and their disrespect for the blogosphere. Uber-blogger Dave Winer is making the same point (http://archive.scripting.com/2005/03/22#When:1:44:49PM & http://archive.scripting.com/2005/03/20#When:5:08:57PM) and he's about as far left as you can get.

And really Jeff is just making a point for all of us who blog that we need to be respected. Plus, in a world of transparency, Google is hiding behind it's Algorithms. Not the best choice.

Listen, I don't like Instapundit or LGF that much either, but I do read them occassionally. And I read Jeff regularly and, while I may not agree with everything he says, it does help me hone my own opinions. This whole online/blog experiment is all about the conversation, the cluetrain.

Hey, if you want to hate the man, that's fine, but I think you'll find that most people, myself included don't fit nicely into Red/Blue, Left/Right or any other binary market schemes. I'm an individual and so is Jeff. If he's a conspiracy, he's a conspiracy of one.

And I'll say this one last thing and then take my soapbox and go home: I like your site. I've added it to my Bloglines account. I'm sure I've been here before but not commented. Give other folks the same chance, even if it makes your skin crawl a little bit. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If some of the more conservative bloggers can admonish Congress for the recent Schiavo shenanigans, surely you can admit that Jeff's points about Google News aren't about letting one side in, but letting all sides in by opening up the protocols for membership and pulling back the Wizard's curtain.

Think about it. What could it hurt?

gandhi said...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

What a load of crap. A clock that doesn't work needs to either be fixed or tossed in the garbage.

Stop apologising for these warblogging fools and liars! People are DYING!!!!

p.lukasiak said...

Although I too disagree with your take on the whole "Google News" post, its pretty obvious that you are a 'troll' only in a universe where 'Free Republic' determines what is, and is not, acceptable opinion.

In other words, in the Jarvisverse, if you disagree with him, and especially if you point out HIS hypocrisy and HIS errors, you are labelled a 'troll'. Right wing idiots can post with complete abandon on his site, telling lies and attacking other posters at will, and as long as they don't criticize Jarvis, they are not considered trolls.

Jarvis defines calls himself an advocate of free speech, but he's just as adament about censoring indecency as the Parent's Television Council. The only difference is that Jarvis defines "indecency" as "pointing out that Jeff Jarvis uses his position as an 'expert' on blogging to constantly promote the specific 'new business model' for the media that is being sold by his employer, Advance Communications."

Pages

Blog Archive