Posted on 11/13/2003 6:55:13 PM PST by chudogg
Recently I have been using Google alot as I add to this web log. Not for the sake of doing research, for I have already done the research and have based my opinions accordingly. Merely, some of the evidence I have presented in this blog is not exactly presented in mainstream media outlets and to clear any misconceptions, I would like to have it properly cited in advance. You would think that with the over abundance of information contained on the Internet this wouldn’t be a difficult task. However, seeing that the evidence I am searching for would present a pro-American, conservative viewpoint I have found that this evidence is often deeply buried. When doing research, I was amazed at the overall volume of leftwing propaganda that I had to sift through.
Typically, I would like to have all the information I have cited to be from primary resources and respected political outlets. However, you will notice that often I am forced to cite sources such as “Rushlimbaugh.com” and “enterstageright.com”. With the sources like these, it is hard to convince skeptical minds. Let me take this time to say that these are not the sources I used when doing research, I did the research long ago, and most of which was from books and videos not available on the Internet. Rather, I was forced to cite these sources because I had difficulty finding credible sources in the overwhelming leftward tilt of the search engines. And with my busy schedule, I have had difficulty allotting time for this website (sometime in the future I plan to go over my sources and update them). Ninety nine percent of the sites I found were blogs, which didn’t bother to cite anything.
Based on my recent experience, I came to conclusion that Internet search engines have an overwhelming leftward tilt. We know that there is an abundance of conservative opinion in cyberspace, for the website Free Republic will give any other political website, right or left, a run for its money. But finding this material can be a difficult task. I went out to find evidence for my conclusions.
Using the website Google Arming Iraq produced 57,000 hits.
Out of the first one hundred, almost all of the hits yielded were of the typical liberal mantra that the United States was responsible for Arming Iraq. Only 2 hits yielded showed the factual evidence, which vindicate the United States of this charge. JimGilliam and Ravnwood. Both are blogs showing the same graph that I Picked up from Admiral Quixote, with the data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The SIPRI study was nowhere found in the pages that I looked at, and there was nothing to indicate that within this search there was any distinguished website that actually showed the facts in Iraq’s Military imports.
More targeted searches yielding nothing. "U.S. did not arm Iraq" "America did not arm Iraq" america did not arm Iraq U.S. Iraq "not allies"(almost all saying Iraq and Al Qaida were not allies) U.S Iraq Weapon Sales America Iraq Weapons Sales (etc. etc. etc.) (I have 2 videos and many books that present the 1% figure that SIPRI concludes, it was nearly impossible for me to find that figure on the internet. Most leftwing propaganda sources just make the statement "WE ARMED IRAQ" and leave it that, without presenting any evidence to confirm their statement)
On the subject of Abortion, the first pro-life site is listed as number 17, the second one is number 49, virtually all others pro-abortion.
Gun control" was a little better but the Gun Control advocates heavily outnumbered those for Gun Rights, the NRA was nowhere found
When searching Bush, the first 3 hits are President Bush’s official sites.
After that it goes all down hill:
George W. Bush or Chimpanzee?
Bushwatch
Bushlies
GW Bush went awol
Dancing Bush (DANCING BUSH?!?)
What threat to Bush administration are you?(take the quiz!)
Skippy the bush kangaroo
Caught on Film, the Bush Credibility Gap
Bushspeaks
George W. Bush Scorecard of Evil
Bare your Bum at Bush
Whitehouse.org (parody of Whitehouse.gov)
Takebackthemedia
BushonCrack.com
Boycott Bush
George W. Bush is the Antichrist
Bush to world: Drop Dead
Its time to Recall Bush
Bush Lies
Bushkills.com
Sick of Bush
Bush-toons.com
Impeach Bush, Resist the Bushoccupation
For crying out loud, this is the President of the United States. You would think that at least the first page of hits would have more respectful websites, and the ones that dissent would at least do so in a less vitriolic manner.
For Comparison, see . All of the hits yielded were either erroneous or pro-Clinton websites. Only 2 pages, out of 50 and all the way at the bottom, were anti Clinton websites, “Newsmax”, and “President Bill Clinton – The Dark Side”.
For Google’s position on the Iraq War: out of the first 100 hits, 28 were neutral sites, 19 were erroneous, 51 were anti war, and only 2 were pro war!
And lets see which side gets painted more with labels, the left or the right:
"Right Wing Extremist"-16900 hits
"Left wing extremist" -2,640 hits
"Ultra Conservative" - 47,500 hits
"Ultra Liberal" -16,600 hits
Even the completely unsubstantiated bush draft dodger claim gets more hits than the confirmed clinton draft dodger.
Does Google have a leftwing bias? Yes. Does this mean that Google is actively selecting which websites get reported first based on their political stance? Probably not. I would bet that even if Google was concerned about these results, they would not want to let the natural selection of internet sites be interfered with.
The fact of the matter remains, the Left in this country are much better organized than the right. This is reflected on the internet. They have control of the mainstream media, the Universites, the NGO’s, and the big wig Non-Partisan thinktanks. The right-wing media, such as the Rush Limbaughs, have blown up in recent years. But when brought up as evidence, they are dismissed as being the the right wing media. Even Foxnews is often dismissed by the left. The left can easily cite sources from Universities, NGO’s, and Non-Partisan think tanks, even though they are just as biased, if not more than the Rush Limbaughs.
As the Internet, a new medium for information exposure grows to be more and more prevalent as the country’s prominent news source, we on the right have to get our act together.
NOTE: GOOGLE RESULTS CAME FROM 11/12 AND 11/13, RESULTS COULD HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN.
Liberal ideas presented in websites and blogs are typically just a cut-and-paste of the same DNC fax mantra that can be seen in the NYT. This causes a few key words to bring up many liberal points of view. But if you check the sites out you'll find out that they're essentially carbon copies of each other.
Purveyors of Conservative ideas, on the other hand, are not "triggered" to put out news based upon a single source. They also tend to have more variety in their writing style and choice of words.
That's my take at least.
I bet you were the lucky duck chosen to help break up jams in Saddam's people shredding machine. In this day and age there is quite a bit more blood on the hands of the "peace"-nics than on mine. Those who demand peace no matter how many have to die are just stooges for murders.
I would call that a bias.
Thats basically the conlusion i came to at the end of the post.
Google is one of the top websites in the world. He is an individual posting on a conservative forum. Who has more of a responsibility to be objective?
Every left-winger I've known was against the war in Iraq, every right-winger was all for it.
Then why the discrepancy in Google returns?
Hate-mongering? How can that term be applied to those who wish to avoid a war?
Something about leftwingers rejoicing at the sight of dead americans, and the many leftwing groups who have announced open support for Bathist opposition, conveys the image of Hate-mongering
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.