Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHow big do you have to be to earn the wrath of the United Nations and Internet giant Google?If you're journalist Matthew Lee, all it takes are some critical articles and a scrappy little Web site.
Lee is the editor-in-chief, Webmaster and pretty much the only reporter for Inner City Press, a pint-sized Internet news operation that's taken on Goliath-sized entities like Citigroup since 1987.
Click here to view the Inner City Press Web site.
Since 2005, he's been focusing almost entirely on stories that deal with internal corruption inside the U.N., posting several stores online almost daily.
He's been especially interested in the inner workings of what could be called the practical-applications arm of the international organization, the United Nations Development Programme.
Many of Lee's stories were featured prominently whenever Web users looked for news about the U.N. using the powerful Google News search engine, a vital way for media outlets both large and small to get their articles read.
But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.
"I think they said, 'If we can't get this guy out of the U.N., let's disappear him from the Internet,'" Lee said.
It began with an innocuous-sounding yet chilling form letter from Google to Lee, e-mailed on Feb. 8:
"We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users," it said. "When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News."
As soon as he read it, Lee immediately suspected one thing: That someone at the UNDP had pressured Google into "de-listing" him from Google News - essentially preventing Inner City Press from being classified on Google News as a legitimate news source and from having its stories pop up when someone conducts a Google News search.
Over the last couple of years, Lee has proved to be a constant - and controversial - thorn in the U.N.'s side.
Though his writing is clunky, his methods unorthodox (and often highly annoying) and his news judgment sometimes more than a little off the mark, Lee has hit his share of bull's-eyes and became an outlet for whistleblowers inside the U.N.
In 2006, for example, he drew attention to human-rights abuses by the Ugandan People's Defense Force during a U.N. disarmament program, including incidents in which four people were killed and over 100 homes destroyed.
In November 2007, during a press conference in which Google announced its partnership with the UNDP to achieve anti-poverty goals, Lee earned a less-than-friendly response when he asked why the Internet company hadn't signed a global human-rights and anti-censorship compact -elements in the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals.
[Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker told FOXNews.com that "Google generally does not sign petitions or join coalitions but prefers to support public-engagement and advocacy efforts through the work of Google.org and by leveraging our products, such as Google Earth."]
It was this incident, Lee said, that put him in the crosshairs. Lee said he felt certain that the Internet company and the international agency had now joined forces to make his work less accessible to the public.
"I've been covering almost U.N. stories, three to four a day, for two years, and for the last two years there's been no problem at all," Lee said. "Then that Friday, I received the e-mail. There's something a little skeezy here. I think that Google got involved with the U.N. on these Millennium goals and thought, this is the United Nations, if they tell you some small Web site is a thorn in their side and there's a credible reason you could remove them from your news service, you do it."
According to Stricker, on Feb. 1 someone e-mailed Google a complaint about Lee's Web site, alleging that Inner City Press was a one-man operation, thus violating the Google News ground rule that news organizations it lists must have two or more employees.
Lee is vague about how many people work for the Inner City Press, but said there's at least one woman who works for the organization full-time, as well as "about half a dozen" volunteers.
"If people work for us as volunteers, why does it not count?" he said. "Is it their business?"
Stricker said it is the only complaint that Google has ever received about Inner City Press and doesn't publish the qualifications it requires for being included, to thwart those who want to abuse the system.
But on Feb. 8 Google notified Lee about his new "de-listing" status.
When Lee received the e-mail from Google, he responded immediately, noting that Inner City Press had been accredited by the U.N. and was mentioned frequently in other media as an important U.N. watchdog.
A Google representative answered that Inner City Press would be restored to the Google News service as usual, but that the process might take "a couple weeks," according to Lee. Still, from Feb. 13 on, Inner City Press stories stopped showing up on Google News, something Google attributes to a technical error.
"We acknowledged our misunderstanding ... but it takes time for the restoration to occur," Stricker said. "The glitch will be resolved as soon as possible. We're working on it."
The reaction to the de-listing, however temporary, has been furious. The non-profit Government Accountability Project lambasted the company, calling Inner City Press "the most effective and important media organization for UN whistleblowers."
"We're alarmed," said Bea Edwards, GAP's international-program director. "The question is, is what user sent the complaint? And it's probably not too hard to guess. We would guess the complaints came from the UNDP."
Tuyet Nguyen, president of the U.N. Correspondents Association, said he was fully behind Lee, who was elected first vice president of the association in December 2006.
"The sad story about Google is that they're shutting people up and not doing a good thing for society by only defending their business interests," he said. "They have a responsibility to society in letting people speak out. And I'm not surprised that those U.N. agencies are trying to hide."
But UNDP spokesman David Morrison called allegations of the agency's involvement preposterous.
"It wasn't us," he said. "We did not contact Google."
Google refuses to reveal who sent the complaint against Inner City Press, citing privacy concerns.
Lee, who hasn't stopped writing his U.N. exposes despite the temporary de-listing, said that he's taken aback by the lengths to which, according to him, an international organization ostensibly dedicated to world peace will go to silence a critic as obscure to the general public as himself.
"It's a little weird," he said. "I guess they're just so unused to being covered like a public organization."
© 2008 Fox News
27 Comments so far
Show AllUnfortunately, simply not using Google does not defend you from its invasions of your privacy. There should be a way to opt out of Google.
Keep in mind that Google's engine is a mere indexer. There are other search engines, and other ways to find URL's.
In any case, the average person today probably has access to more information via Google/etc. than intelligence agencies had 50-75 years ago. The chief difference is that Google and the other engines collect a tremendous amount of personal data (surfing and communications habits) -- information that you may not want to disclose. The trade-off is that you get indexed information (for the most part) that is willingly disclosed by people.
It's a fascist pact, with an opt-out clause. You give something up (unwillingly, your privacy), but you get something in return. Don't like the deal, then don't use it.
I'm not defending it, to be sure. But it's been essential to my work, my hobbies, amusement, learning, etc. There are ways to mask your tracks, set up proxies, use scroogle, various plugins, etc. But if you've got something you want to keep private, don't even turn your computer on.
Why does everyone keep forgetting that Google got its start with tons of help from the CIA and continues a policy of close cooperation with them? Google is not fighting for freedom of information. They are there to rake in megabucks and control access to information for the benefit of the corporate plutocracy. Anyone who relies on them for accurate or complete information is a fool.
Yes, Fox News did run this story, but why?
Because... Fox News, as documented by mediamatters.org (and many others), does not like the UN, and would like to see the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. To them, this story is just another nail they're saving up to drive into the coffin, once it's been built and the UN put inside. If Fox News wasn't so anti-UN (or if they were merely a neutral news source), they wouldn't have published this story. File it under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" category.
It's good that they did publish it, but please keep in mind their ulterior motives.
I agree that the UN is in need of serious reform. Just not the type the neo-cons and their buddies at Fox News have in mind. It needs to be a true democratic institution dedicated to ending war and poverty, and all the goes with war and poverty, in this world, i.e. ending exploitation of poor by the rich.
A few or more who posted above complain because the article's from FOX News, which is a news source that I never use; unless it'd be to verify when people report that FN's again speaking in despotic, fascist, corporatist, or other wicked ways, which is FN's usual way.
But if it hadn't been for this article, I wouldn't have learned of ICP, and NO, the UN is NOT innocent.
The UN "peacekeepers" are NOT really that; they're the additional soldiers soldiering around for the imperialist, ... elites. They committed cold-blooded murders in massacre style in Haiti since the coup against that govt in Feb. 2004, and while some UN officials wanted to act against this, others overrode the latter and maintained the hellishly criminal PK'ing in Haiti. And when they were not themselves committing the cold-blooded, horrific murders, as well as rapes, etc., then they were nonetheless fully complicit in this, for they were fully aware of it and stood by doing nothing.
That's just a sample in terms of Haiti and since Feb. 2004; there are plenty more examples, such as in African countries, Kosovo and area, and MORE.
The UNSC clearly decides based primarily on the veto emprivileged permanent members, which are a small minority of UNSC member states; and the UNSC is always clobbered by the USA, which has placed so many vetos that it's barely, if at all, worthwhile to mention that some of other permanent members have placed one or two or three vetos. The US vetos are constantly and hellbent criminal, it's "easier than making pie" to prove this, and the UNSC makes itself complicit in these crimes by supporting these criminal vetoes.
It's NOT for insignficiant or plain, ordinary reasons that two directors of the UN's Humanitarian or Human Rights ... agency, or council, or whatever it's called, resigned. They kept calling for humanitarian action that was urgently needed and were always blocked by the extremely and criminally corrupt UNSC.
So, NO WAY, the UN is FAR from innocent, and the above is just a sampling. The human rights or humanitarian agency's workers are not always innocent and goodwilled, either, f.e.
Anyone who is so little informed or so greatly in denial that they don't realise that this is FACT about the UN is tragically ignorant; or in denial. I don't understand how that could be justly excusable today; except for youngsters, and elderly and other people with no or little access to the Internet, also of course. No excuse for people with regular Internet access; imo.
"Paul Bramscher February 19th, 2008 1:33 pm
It's not "censorship" — Google is a corporation, and it may decide what to include and what to exclude. We call that freedom of the press (their publication/selection process), from their perspective."
THAT DEPENDS. F.e., if Google de-listed ICP because of a complaint from the UNDP, then we're speaking of [censorship]; imo.
Paul continued:
"Bottom line, don't expect Google to please all people all of the time."
TRUE but also about anything, really.
"It's not a common carrier or piece of digital public property. Our nation has not yet developed any digital national parks or civic space, as it were."
THE LATTER, public space, would probably be a good idea, I guess; but am not sure about the part on Google not being "a common carrier ...".
After all, Google is VERY COMMONly used and worldwide.
I don't know that the following excerpt is fitting with respect to Google, but Kucinich is quite irrefutably right with respect to NBC and maybe a valid interpretation can be justly made using the same sort of argument and with respect to Google; given we're speaking of Google [News].
"Breaking the Sound Barrier: Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him", Jan. 16 2008,
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democra...
QUOTE:
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Kucinich, in the court filings, NBC painted itself as the victim. It said, "Mr. Kucinich's claim is nothing more than an illegitimate private cause of action designed to impose an equal access requirement that entirely undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment."
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know, the double [inaudible] here is apparent. First of all, they're, you know, broadcast licensees. NBC operates its network under the FCC Act of 1934, supposedly to function in the public interest, convenience and necessity. They do not do that. And some of the law they were citing related more to newspapers, which have a broad First Amendment protection, and newspapers, of course, are not licensed. You know, broadcast licensees have an altogether different responsibility. But they were claiming that they were shielded from that by a congressional action which exempts cable companies from FCC purview. So, you know, this is one of those things that my attorneys are going to take up with the FCC, certainly, but you haven't heard the last of legal action on our behalf here with respect to NBC.
I think that what they're trying to do is stack a presidential election using their broadcast media power, and they're doing it to further the interests of their own parent corporation, General Electric. And this is something that I am not going to stop challenging, because this is really important to issues of democratic governance, what kind of country we're going to have, because the corporations are really in a position where they're using the broadcast media to rig presidential elections by determining who's viable based on who gets coverage; in the advent of an election, who goes on the news shows and who is getting their contributions from their executives. This is a real serious matter.
END QUOTE.
'double [inaudible]' sounds like 'double standard' is likely what he said.
His argument could not be directly used, I believe anyway; but wherein he says, f.e.,
"And this is something that I am not going to stop challenging, because this is really important to issues of democratic governance, what kind of country we're going to have, because the corporations are really in a position where they're using the broadcast media to rig presidential elections ...",
it seems to me that that part of the argument should pertain to sites like Google News.
If Google really de-listed ICP because of the sole complaint received, then we KNOW that this other party is not some ordinary citizen of planet Earth; it would need to be a considerably powerful entity, organisation, corporation, govt, whatever, but far more powerful than "ordinary" persons are when alone to protest or complain. And this, imo, would be censorship, in which case ...; as per above with regards to Kucinich's irrefutably just argument, vs NBC, hence GE's, very treasonous, etc., and false or falacious argument.
Further on, Kucinich adds the following.
QUOTE:
And furthermore, if, as MSNBC maintained in court, this is a private matter, here you have Democratic presidential candidates participating in a, quote, "private debate" where the public interest could be ransacked, because General Electric is involved in all kinds of interests that are quite diverse from the public interest.
So this then becomes a much larger question—much larger than, you know, my candidacy—about who's structuring these debates? In whose interests are they being conducted? What about the questions, the way they're framed? Why are they continuing to promote war? Why are these defense contractors involved, as in General Electric's case? And GE owns Raytheon, GE owns NBC. Defense contracting goes up as war continues.
END QUOTE.
That strongly applies for argument with respect to Google News if ICP was de-listed due to the UNDP, imo. After all, while no corporate entity owns the UN, they definitely have strong influence with govts, extremely strong with the U.S. govt, and it's "easier than making pie" to prove that the U.S. govt hellbent corrupts the UNSC. The argumentation would be longer, for it's not as straightforward as the argument Kucinich needed against NBC and GE; because it'd be necessary to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, what I just said about corporations and their strong influence on govts and therefore indirectly on the UN. It's not the kind of battle to invite, even if definitely provable; it'd be a long-haul process. But I think that I'm right in terms of theory; just that I wouldn't want to undertake such a battle myself.
Life's too short and I'm the complete, polar opposite of rich.
I'd find Paul Bramscher's argument easier with regards to magazines, and websites focused on certain topic areas. F.e., wildlife, medical law, ..., accountancy, ..., dictionary, ... websites could not be required to do anything with respect to news; except, and at most, for important news in topic areas the websites cover.
Again, Google [News] is what's in question, even if owned by Google. The rest of Google could, I guess, not be reproached for not listing ICP, but Google [News] should be treated as a news provider. They don't do the reporting themselves, but provide a portal for [NEWS] and it therefore should be treated like other Internet news providers; perhaps not totally alike, but still enough.
After all, conscientious citizenry requires the same reasons Kucinich gave in terms of needing to FOCUS on [democracy], 'democratic governance', and 'what kind of country we're going to have', quoting again from Kucinich.
If Google's spokesman is truthful about the de-listing of ICP having happened due to some technical mishap, then it's no problem; the re-listing will be done asap, as he or she said. That's possible, I guess, but to what degree that it is, vs to what degree it's more likely that some major enough entity filed the [sole] complaint and this then caused the de-listing, then we're speaking [censorship], which should never be allowed.
And the Internet was paid for by taxpayers, for it's the govt that developed this communications tech.; therefore, it BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC. What corporations and individuals develop to run on top of the Internet is theirs, but all data transmitted passes over the PUBLIC'S INTERNET, so 'NO FUCKING TRESPASSING!' by corporate or simply for-profit entities that do NOT PAY FOR their for-profit use of the PUBLIC's technology. Either that, or they must [respect] that they are depending on the public's internet.
I'd have the country in tip-top shape if I got my way, but the real rulers of the govt sure wouldn't be permissive about this. In USN bootcamp we were taught a "slogan" or whatever it's called, 'SHAPE UP, OR SHIP OUT!'.
Google and others make huge profits using the public's internet, and don't pay a damn red penny to the public for use of their or our tech.
Arrogant sob's.
Bogus stuff, consider the source.
Maybe Fox News can turn on the black helicopter cam. We'll see diplomats clamoring for one world government, unlike the Bush neocons who want a one-government world.
I'm being ironic here. Inner City News should get a job!
I check this site to get away from the kind of "reports" that come from FOX News and their ilk.
I was obviously mistaken.
The whole "look Internets Person. U.N. Bad. U.N. be mean to Internets Person. YOU Internets Person. You think U.N. BAD now!" was about as subtle as a sledgehammer too.
somebody should explain this.
it'll be fun to watch.
meanwhile I'll enjoy the many good, and not FOX News sourced articles on CD.
-matti.
Though I believe Google spies on us much more than the government ever did, cloaked in the rationale of selling ad space, some of their applications (Google Earth) were admittedly built for the intelligence community, etc. I still think that Google's open-mindedness in its News page probably exceeds most other sources.
With this action, Google has seriously damaged its' brand as a supposed impartial news portal in a manner akin to Murdoch's censoring of the BBC off of Star TV at the request of the Chinese government. That Google did so at the behest of the UN (not exactly as strong as the Chinese government) elicits a strong one word response, "Lame!"
palmeres,
Of course freedom of the press is the issue. Are you complaining that we don't have Stormfront, Fox, Clear Channel, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan articles here?
The bottom line is that Google has THE RIGHT to exercise its own judgment over what to include and exclude. If we have a problem with that, we need to either recognize their RIGHT to make that decision, or to argue for a digital commons that mirrors bricks&mortar public space, a place where there may be no censorship. Forcing a private or publicly held company to adjust its content to meet our standards is reprehensible -- because it might come back the other way also.
As giant corporations increasingly dominate our civilization, humanity is fast reaching a point where a bill of rights under corporations will have to be formalized. At present, the administration has used corporations to do things which are unconstitutional like data mining by allowing private corporations to do it and then claiming corporations are not covered by the constitution or congressional oversight citing the trade secrets provision. The FBI creates Infraguard and cites the same trade secrets provision. Yet when it suits them corporations claim the rights of citizens.
And when it suits them ...these 'citizens'...say they are exempt from the constitution. How does that work.
Think about an international bill of rights which is specifically concerned with the relationship of these mega-corporations and human beings who are subject to such power over them. This educated man has the wherewithal to publicize and embarrass Google which ended well.
Then think about telecoms and immunity for doing what? Exerting astounding power over everyone ... and here they are just other 'citizens' like us... and when it suits them we are equal (yeah right) and when it suits them the rules that apply to citizens ...don't apply to them because they are just corporations.
I think pending clarification or evidence the United Nations agency should not be assumed to be the source of the complaint that caused this censorship. A complaint was filed by someone (google has confirmed that), but the United Nations agency has denied doing it, and there is no evidence that the United Nations agency did it. Motive is not enough to establish who did it.
Another possibility is a personal rival or enemy, or alternatively someone favoring the United Nations agency but acting on their own. A still further possibility (though I doubt it) is the complaint originated from within google, having nothing to do with the United Nations. I agree that the action itself is outrageous. But it does not follow that the the United Nations agency is the culprit.
A rough parallel with Amazon.com behavior may be instructive. All sorts of books get consumer book reviews, pro and con, on amazon.com's freewheeling site. From some personal experience I have figured out that there is complete freedom of speech on amazon except when someone complains. When there is a complaint amazon will default-assume the complaint is valid and delete a review that someone complained as offensive. That will be the resolution of the matter unless the person deleted protests. At that point a live person at amazon judges the merits of the opposing cases and decides--usually reinstating the review if it does not violate policy. I have the strong sense that it is very bureaucratic and has little or nothing to do with censoring ideology or attempting to censor views, with the exception of hate speech and other things in their stated policies. A fault of this system is that a determined internet stalker can damage innocent people simply by filing complaints.
Paul Bramschire wrote,
"It's not "censorship" — Google is a corporation, and it may decide what to include and what to exclude. We call that freedom of the press (their publication/selection process), from their perspective."
Is freedom of the press the issue?
Don't kid yourself, public News ,in a democrazy? what are you daft?,lets hid behind every legal name,corporate or otherwise to keep things hidden, why you idiots, the public can't handle the TRUTH, Top Secret, above your need to know,,,,such bullshit,,,unless we get everything above board, we will continue to have the boondoogle, war-profiteering, dictatorial mindless bullshit, that we have now, wake up you bunch of uneducated, 2d grade whinners,,,,do what your told, don't talk in class,,behave, stop that, stay in line, turn the lights out, "Their already gone"
Is there a news search engine out there that is as good as Google News?
Donster...thanks for the explanation. dlz
From the day the UN was founded in San Fran setting up the big five with a veto it was worth............nothing. Today it is still worth nothing except a tool of the US
This report is only stating that "Google NEWS" has removed ICP from the list of sources that it indexes - NOT the general "Google" search. Though Fox certainly could have explained the difference...
"Google NEWS" is a seperate Google service that ONLY lists stories from certain sources - (over 4500 English language sites, but that's including popular blogs, so they're obviously not scanning "everything".)
From the main Google page (http://google.com), click on "News" at the top of page to go to this service.
Google's info page for "Google News" is at:
http://news.google.com/intl/en_us/about_google_news.html
Well I'm not sure if this article had anything to do with it but using GOOGLE I typed in Inner City Press and went right to the website
Oh My God!!!!!!!
Tim Lahaye was right!!!!
the UN is the Devil!!!!
This is from FOX, damm those lefties!
I thought the MSM was supposed to be liberal. What ever happened to google?
I guess like google, the United Nations too is a business entity disguised as a non-profit NGO.
Keep up the fight INNER CITY PRESS. the truth shall prevail
It's not "censorship" -- Google is a corporation, and it may decide what to include and what to exclude. We call that freedom of the press (their publication/selection process), from their perspective.
Bottom line, don't expect Google to please all people all of the time. It's not a common carrier or piece of digital public property. Our nation has not yet developed any digital national parks or civic space, as it were.
This is VERY serious Keep fighting...for all of us.
The eye cannot see itself.
¿ Why be surprised that ,b>G (o) (o) g l e
^
''\=====/''
cannot see itself ?
Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker told FOXNews.com that google only makes fair and balanced decisions, and there's nothing to see here, please keep moving.