@@johnpalmer5131. Yeah, but he had blinders on for big government, or was complicit. He said such things as, “There’s no money in homelessness.” In CA a single publicly built homeless domicile, for a single family, is $1 million a piece. Big $$$ in homelessness.
I stopped using google years ago because it was so obvious the bias they had. It was plain as day, and I don’t understand how anyone doesn’t see it and isn’t immensely frustrated with it.
I learn how to bypass their bias by simply skipping the first several pages sometime up to 50 pages. I have drug damage by a FDA approved drug. To find published studies I had to use the chemical letters and bypass anything relating to the word Lyrica . I found a lot of studies stating exactly what I was dealing with.
They are primarily funded by the Government. Literally the definition of state sponsored media. That relationship alone makes it impossible for PBS to remain neutral or unbiased regarding any content they air. They are by nature a partisan political organization since only one side of the aisle supports their funding and that leverage over the content they produce is obvious. They should be defunded as they only serve the left which is unconstitutional by definition.
Yes‼️ And if people trust an algorithm as if it's possessed of some "wisdom" then it's clear that so many people have been dumbed down beyond any human redemption.
NPR is less than perfect, has been better and we need it to thrive. Just as much we need the currently lame republican party to survive. I'm off to re-read Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address and you are welcome to join me...
I’ve listened to NPR for most of my life … on and off … and nearly daily for the last 20 years. I have loved the wide range of reporting they do and, while I found myself more and more frequently disagreeing with their positions, I still tended to see them as professional news “reporters” who tried to present both sides of any issue factually without bias. Even when they leaned left I listened with attention because I like to hear all sides to make sure I understand the issues. I’m not sure exactly when they began to change but gradually I found myself more and more discontent and disagreeing with them more and more adamantly. I’ve come to see them as activists representing only the far left and woke causes. I get the sense that more and more of their journalists are actually drawn from far left minority groups and woke communities. They have little if any main stream American representation. They are openly disparaging of the center and center right. Forget any even handed, non-disparaging reporting of anything coming from the right. Their bias has become so obvious I often have to turn off the radio because I simply can’t listen anymore. They have written off over 50% of the population as unworthy of their consideration. Their arrogance is infuriating. Are there ANY journalistic organizations out there with enough integrity and confidence in the American people to provide the unbiased facts and data we need to MAKE DECISIONS FOR OURSELVES!!! I have little respect for NPR now. I listen to them to understand how the enemy thinks. They are worse than FOX and just as obviously biased. FOX more closely represents my views but I have to listen very closely and I can take NOTHING they say at face value. What this man has to say doesn’t surprise me at all. No wonder our society is at each other’s throats! No wonder there is so much hate, discontent and division. There is no one to trust and you can’t have any confidence in the information you’re getting.
Yep I have to agree. I’ve been tempted to sign up for “Ground News” but I just don’t want to spend on it. It’s supposed to show who is covering the various subjects and other journalist stuff.
There was a time when "All Things Considered" had some really interesting and balanced discussions, but it has degraded to "Some Things Considered" and woefully one sided to match their political messaging.
It's largely private public funded . The government contributes something like 15% of their budget . People need to awaken & using Google is counterproductive .
@@blackrock1961 NPR receives 320 million dollars annually from our Federal Government. Their total operating budget annually is around 500 million dollars. We fund about 73% of NPR. They lie about that figure intentionally so taxpayers don't realize how much state funded propaganda is costing us. So no, they wouldn't "find another way". Defund PBS and they disappear overnight as they should.
So does the CBC in Canada.They are bought and paid for by the federal government,they spew his thoughts on how Canada needs to be.The propaganda machine of Pm Justin Trudeau.
Not sure when he did the study, but I noticed search engine bias years ago. Then again, in grad school we were taught that every source has a bias, and it's up to you to determine what it is and how it's trying to sway you. Bias doesn't have to be intentional to exist.
Agreed. I think they were using not very smart people as subjects in their studies. And I do think that simply being willing to participate in studies is a sign of weak personality and lower intelligence.
I'm not surprised. I live in CA. I know liberals who have seen what dems have done to our state and still support the dems and their failed policies. They complain about high taxes, mismanagement of every government program, high prices and hig crime rates, homelessness and housing. But come November they vote Democrat. Again. They don't like the results they get but yet they refuse to vote any other way. This isn't just a handful of people either. It's so many people it's mind boggling. It's almost as though they can't see the correlation between their vote and the people their vote puts in office. I just don't get it.
The recommendation for contractor work is to get 3-to-5 bids. Depending on the search I will use 3-to-5 different search engines. Over the last few years, I have seen similar results from all other search engines, but the Google search results are always radically different, and not in a good way.
I was stupid growing up! BUT, my parents taught me my moral compass and stressed the importance of the truth of the Bible. In 1984, I read Orwell. It gave me enough knowledge and paranoia to keep that moral compass sturdily in my hand.
My dad is Buddhist, my mom was a Scientologist, my best friends were Hindu. But when I was 29, I heard the voice of God call me by name, not once, but twice, and before I could figure out what was going on, my lips spoke without me..."Lord" The God of the Bible, Himself, began reeducating me in accordance with His truth, the only truth that matters. I began to see that everything I was sure of, was opposite what was written in the bible. When I learned what perversion was, I realized you can not get any further from God, than to go in the complete opposite direction. That is why this world hates God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. This world rejects God and embraces satan whole heartedly.
“It is extremely hard to publish in peer reviewed journals” he says, as I recall Lindsay, Boghossian and Pluckrose’s publishing of 7 insane fake papers in peer reviewed journals.
It's only hard to get published in peer reviewed journals if your findings go against the political orthodoxy of your "peers". If it supports Globalist government narratives then it isn't hard at all. In fact plagiarism are overlooked as long as your findings prop up policy.
I have purposely asked AI questions on tribal topics I know... they often get things wrong. I even found an AI that thinks a TV show existed in the 1980 that never existed. It told me who was in it, names of episode, airdates, etc. All fabricated from its nonsense.
@@backyardrebel2149 AI doesn't need to be right. It only needs to promote the correct political/social views. You don't need a brain to be a liberal; in fact, it only gets in the way.
It actually makes perfect sense when you see the way that Overton's window has been absolutely racing to the left since the rise of google in the 2000s.
As a person who knows a lot of a few obscure topics, I know the Internet gives me bad information on those topics. Why would it be more correct on topics I don't know? For instance I collect obscure 1970s toys. I can find outright fabrications on this topic in most Google searches and Wikipedia immediately. Some are seeing accidents. Others are lies or jokes made by other people knowledgeable on the topic.
I'd also suggest that not a few of those stories are probably 'written' by AI. I downloaded an app called "Newsbreak" to my phone a while back and one thing I've noticed is that quite a few of the stories have a jarring syntax. Odd word choices, unclear references and irrelevant points abound. And then there are outright errors, errors that, if you're anything more than slightly informed on the topic, are obvious. Often, if you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see a blurb along the lines of "This story written with the assistance of AI."
I used to think human imperfection was the ability to do what's wrong, despite knowing that it's wrong for some form thrill/excitement/adrenaline rush or whatever; But now I think it's the ability to be manipulated into doing what's wrong. The form of government you have is irrelevant as long as you have the smart people around to manipulate the masses. The founders of the united states that they discovered a manner in which solve this dilemma, And it worked for a while because the original inhabitants of the united states were the strongest to reject; But now the United States has been flooded with people who have lived under Some very strong tyrannical governments.
Bernard Goldberg, the author of the seminal work on this subject "Bias", said that media displays its ideological bias in two ways. It can cover a story from a particular ideological viewpoint, which he referred to as "bias of commission". This is the far more prevalent variety. But they can also display their bias in determining which stories get covered and which do not, which he refers to as "bias of omission". To me, "bias of omission" is far more insidious. If they report on a story, you can read the report and determine for yourself whether or not bias appears and to what extent. But if they refuse to cover a story entirely, you have no way of judging their fairness. Thankfully, this has become somewhat less of a problem because the Progressive media no longer has a monopoly on reporting. There are far more outlets for news available today, and some of them try to be as bias-free as humans can possibly be.
You should have this guy on blast with his research findings all the time. I commend him for being honest about his findings rather than just covering them up.
Here is the Bible prophecy on how this corruption is resolved: Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. "The sound of harpists, musicians, flutists, and trumpeters shall not be heard in you anymore. No craftsman of any craft shall be found in you anymore, and the sound of a millstone shall not be heard in you anymore. “The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived. “And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.” After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! “For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her.” Again they said, “Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!”... Rev 18,19
Adam Carolla has a similar story about an interview with NPR. He was waiting for a predictable gotcha question and the interviewer looked deflated at his answer which dismissed the imagined issue. Interview never aired.
Who do you think is behind AI? Next time you are on any large language model AI tool (like ChatGPT) ask it if men can get pregnant. They all give the same "Well, you see, it's complicated..." answer.
@@larmondoflairallen4705 AI is like garbage in and garbage out. Right now, AI is learning a lot of bad stuff from the web. It only takes one brand to break the mold. Just like Elon with Twitter.
I knew the Bias was there when I put a web address into the search engine and Google would not take me there. but instead presented 1000 different options. none of which were the Web site I had typed in. That is when Google began to suck.
I have listened to NPR for 30 years. I listened to NPR about 3X more than Rush. I am a die-hard conservative or in his terms a "right-wing nut case", I can vouch for the left-wing mindset of NPR> I listened to one commentator in 2016 discussing the candidates. The commentator said "Trump is a wild card. Ted Cruz is a right-wing idealoge and Kasich is malleable." They lost their minds on Nov 7, 2016. I went to bed knowing Trump lost at 11pm. I left for work at 5:15am and reluctantly turned on NPR. Remember, I thought Hillary was going to be President and I was ready to change the station when the commentator was interviewing a distraught, angry, emotional woman from Miami. She was going nuts. Because Trump won. Since that morning, NPR has gone farther and farther to the left.
I miss the days when Google was new. You would receive 3,424,218 results and you could actually take days to peruse all those results. Until recently you would still see posted the total number of hits but were throttled to only about 7 pages of results. Part of that logic is horsepower and bandwidth. I get that. But it just makes you wonder how the algorithm is selecting which results to post. Like you, Mr. Knowles, I am very grateful to have some old and some ancient resource material from which to choose when a question comes up. Personally, I don't trust any documentation published after the 1960s. :)
Nobody is surprised they have liberal bais but people should surprised that the bais prevents them from serving the interests of the public, which public funding mandates them to do.
@@rider65 He's definitely an old-school liberal, but at least he has the integrity and courage to call out the this corruption and election interference, and for that I have respect.
This guy was on Crowder a while back, and he came off as more than a bit unhinged. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he's overly hyper-focused on what he wants to prove. Gerald a couple times brought up the Pennsylvania supreme court changing the voting rules, and he kept yelling at them how it didn't matter and they were missing the point. He may be doing some good work, but take whatever he says with a grain of salt. As he said himself, he is not a conservative, and by extension he is not on the side of conservatism.
Stopped listening to NPR over 15 years ago. The suffocating redundancies and tired tropes became unbearable. Plato's cave was becoming just a little too stuffy for me!
It may not be possible to know how badly we are being mislead. The whole world lies in the hand of the wicked one. How long, Jehovah? How long must we wait for you to intervene?
It's disturbing that NPR chooses to weigh the facts and evidence then selectively reports an interpretation for their audience as if we are unable to make determinations ourselves. They will alienate those of us who are objective, who view things as compared to a personal value system we have carefully assembled, in order to judge the actions and policy of others.
This is fairly common new room practice. All the new does this depending on topics, i.e racial violence. NPR has in the past taken it steps further by publishing obviously false information as if it had any kind of verification, usually hiding behind someone they're interviewing and then of course failing to represent any counter argument or the conflict of interest involved.
Google is also forcing me to celebrate holidays I don't want on my calendar. I only use it because I'm not really good at big tech schemes to monopolize the algorythems to change my sources of info.
It's hard to place enough importance on this research. Its frightening to think about how malleable our opinions are and how easily we can be swayed, EVEN when we are on the lookout for bias.
Thinking in terms of normal distribution, there are a small percentage of outliers who see the bias AND are not influenced by it. Growing up, I just assumed that I had learned to be a severe doubter who questioned everything, and I came up with alternate explanations for things that happened. For a certain period, I was considered a conspiracy theorist, but now that so many of my strange interpretations seem to be suddenly true, I’ve come to realize that my early experience trained me to perceive bias & turn away from it. At my age, it seems like just another of my habits.
It's easier to fool someone than convince someone they've been lied to. - paraphrased from a well known person who I can't recall at the moment. Mark Twain?
Just google it for crying out loud... Which is humorous. I did and it looks to be Mark Twain. It is easier to fool a person than to convince them that they've been fooled.
As a Republican , I periodically tune into NPR to make sure that I'm on the correct course based on their opinions of "My Kind of Voter" The more they rant/posture, the better I feel.........
This guy might be highly intelligent in the academic sense, but clearly has no clue as to anything in regards to politics and ideology. For instance, he acts like this bias is some kind of revelation. Wait until he learns about the long march through the institutions and what those people are doing to children in schools.
Well, most people don't have much analytical ability and make most of their decisions based on very flimsy 'advice' from others or they already have some notions and then go looking for bias confirmation. Finding out what's really going on can sometimes be quite difficult. As to NPR, they were once a great service but have simply sold out to the woke agenda. I was a supporting subscriber to my local NPR affiliate station for over thirty years but last year I quit and told them to take me off their mailing list. The few times when I still turn on the station more often than not the piece that's playing is about some woke idealism - e.g. gays or lesbians, bi children's needed "medical care", something about racism in the system, or something about how someone or some group is a victim of our system. it's not news; it's far-left editorial opinion.
It's actually really easy to see Google's, Wikipedia's, any pretty much any bias if you have some basic facts. Take Gamergate for instance. Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson failed to disclose their personal relationship prior to Nathan posting 3 positive articles about Zoe, the articles which are still available to read. The Wiki page however, which is so heavily weighted to the lies about Gamergate being a harassment campaign against women in gaming, it completely leaves out this fact, which is what started the feud, is the first search result on every search engine, and any attempt at editing the page results in your account being banned. Finding said facts can be a challenge with all of the bias permeating everything everywhere, but if you search long enough you can still find them eventually.
For some reason I can’t fathom, people think Google is an internet search company when in reality it is a sophisticated advertising company. It may have been an internet search company when it was first founded, but money changed things.
Well I agree with you to some degree. What I think happened, however, is that they realized it was more advantageous to data mine people to use that information for political purposes.
This is why people have to keep calling this stuff out, like the bias in Google's reminder to vote. People like Knowles and Russell Brand put spotlights on the massive bias in not just news media, but ALL media.
I'm not disagreeing with most of what he said, but I will point out that a lot of what appears on the actual search engine has nothing to do with anybody or any algorithm other than the one that is shown openly to everyone. As a digital advertiser, I make my living making sure that my clients advertisements show as highly as possible. The other side of the coin is the SEO side. We have partners to their entire living is based on making their clients show as highly in the organic results as possible. So yes there is bias. Most of it happens to be paid for by consumers. Also, he said it was hard to get published in peer-reviewed journals. Several comedians have proven that to be false
So, Google has a bias. What source, from any time period, has no bias? To make your own decision, you should include personal knowledge, suspicion, skepticism, individuals you trust, and a hundred other ingredients. After all that, do the best you can and be open to contrary information. That's what being a human being is.
Idk how long ago the first study was but you can see the bias all day long & fuck if it sways me towards what they are trying to push on me...the complete opposite.
Thank you Michael! You’re only the second source I’ve listened to speak with Robert Epstein and of course, as he talks about here, many may never find out anything about him. Are we easily being led along, to somewhere we normally would never want to be,…again?
