Some experts have questioned the value of the [Google News] service, arguing it fails to rank news reports on the basis of quality.Google News seems to be an overview of the daily news much like the Yahoo News, but it works totally different. Rather then a hand selected list of appropriate news stories, Google draws from a wide list of news sources(much wider then would normally be acceptable to a media company), and uses its indexing technologies to list both: the hottest, most relevant breaking news, and to find related background material, and opposing views.
This has the BBC notably alarmed. It could simply be that they don’t rank high enough in the results, but I think its more then that. This service breaks down the monopoly on view point. It allows a wide range of interested (like SF IMC) to have a voice, and by its very nature undermines the conscious and unconscious censorship which lies at the very heart of the media making, consensus manufacturing machine.
Amusingly, the BBC provides an example of exactly why we need this service, their article is full of innuendo, and unnamed experts, an attack piece masquerading as unbiased journalism.
“some experts have questioned…some critics have been less…senior journalists point out….”Odd how the only the Google spokesperson is named? Who are these critics?
“Furthermore, it ranks stories according to the most recent, rather than the best, report. ”Perhaps it would be better if Google allowed the BBC editorial staff to decide which stories to feature?