ABOVE: James Sharples’s 1790s portrait
of Noel Sheppard
Pity poor Noel Sheppard. Forced to scour the liberal media daily for socialist perfidy and Marxist inclinations to expose over at News Blusters, he now can’t help but find liberal shenanigans everywhere. The cashier at Red Lobster who said “here’s your change, sir” was making a not-so-veiled reference to Obama’s campaign slogan. Everywhere he looks, there are no-right-turn-on-red signs. (Why not just no turns on red, huh?). Then there was that mysterious image of Che Guevara on his breakfast toast last week.
So, you’d think that when Noel somehow or other got a hold of a copy of last week’s New Yorker, he would have found plenty of things to push him into a slobbering apoplexy just in the index alone (not to mention the cartoons!) without having to find this sinister plot in an article on Google.
Former Vice President Al Gore a few years ago advised Internet behemoth Google about “aspects of search quality.”
Such was reported by the New Yorker in its October 12 issue (subscription required).
By themselves, the following paragraphs from this 6500-word piece don’t mean much.
In other words: “Nothing in the article actually supports the liberal machinations I am about to reveal but that’s never stopped me before.”
However, given the ongoing concerns about Google’s political leanings and how its search algorithms might be manipulated to favor liberal news outlets over conservative points of view, the very idea that Gore might have had any input to this process is worrisome to say the least.
Those liberal search al-gore-ithms probably explain why the first site that comes up in a Google search on “Obama” and “Kenya” is a Wing Nut Daily article with the Kenyan birth certificate touted by Orly Taitz, D.D.S, CIPS®, J.D.
So, a few years ago, Gore raised some concerns about “search quality,” and then sat in Google’s office for three hours watching ten “search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business” work on solving problems he shared with the company’s owners.
What were these concerns? Were they personally or politically motivated?
The article didn’t say
Does Noel Sheppard piddle in his pants? His blog post didn’t say. But, of course, we can only assume that he does. But, in fact, the article does say what Gore’s concerns were, but Sheppard, oh-so-conveniently omits that from his post. Gore is on Apple’s Board of Directors with a fiduciary obligation to the company’s shareholders, an obligation not to insist that the first result of every Google search returns the Wikipedia pages on Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Life isn’t a South Park episode where celebrities and political figures just randomly show up and say stupid things.
Honestly, I’m beginning to feel sorry for Sheppard. He’s really just on the verge of posting on his discovery that cereal names are another attempt to indoctrinate the nation’s youth with liberal ideas. You know, it’s just one small step from Fruit Loops to gay marriage. And don’t even get him started on Cocoa Puffs.
UPDATE: Well, it appears that Noel Sheppard took time off from seeing what socialist propaganda was spelled out by the letters in his morning bowl of Alpha-Bits to come over here and register a protest:
Tintin,
You stated in your piece, “But, in fact, the article does say what Gore’s concerns were, but Sheppard, oh-so-conveniently omits that from his post.”
Could you please specifically cite from the article in question exactly what Gore’s concerns were and then demonstrate that quote was not in the three paragraphs I included in my piece that came directly from the New Yorker story?
If not, would you please correct what appears to be a misstatement on your part?
Thank you.
Noel Sheppard
Dear, dear, this guy is a dimwit with serious reading problems. Noel, you didn’t mention that Gore was a director of Apple. That, as I say in the post, gives him a fiduciary concern. In case the term “fiduciary” is unfamiliar to you, and it may be unfamiliar to you as a guy who earns a living collecting wingnut welfare, it refers to Gore’s obligations to pursue the interest of Apple’s shareholders and not any personal interests. So, his concern was not “personally or politically motivated” as you naively wonder. His concern would have been fiduciarily motivated.
Here’s the reference to Gore as a director of Apple in the article which you didn’t mention. You just tried to make it look like he randomly showed up at Google headquarters ranting about the ManBearPig:

I think, Noel, that you now owe it to your readers to correct your error and to tell your readers that Gore is a director of Apple and not just some meddling liberal who showed up one day to fiddle with the Google’s search engine for his own personal reasons. Then you can go back to your bowl of Alpha-Bits.