Google This
/
John Hinderaker, Power Line: What does Google think of you?
I have no idea what Google thinks of you, but I know what it thinks of Power Line, and of me. Because I asked Google Bard, the company’s new artificial intelligence application. Google Bard is described by ZDNet here.
I did this because a friend emailed me a disparaging description of Alpha News generated by Google Bard. So I asked, “Is Power Line a reliable news source?” This is the answer I got. It is factually incorrect in almost every detail:
Power Line is a conservative news and commentary website that was founded in 2005 by Erick Erickson, John Hinderaker, and Scott Johnson.
I have no idea where this came from. Erick Erickson has never had anything to do with Power Line.
The website has been criticized for its lack of transparency and its tendency to publish inaccurate or misleading information.
Really? Criticized by whom? On what basis? This is a typical reporter’s trick which AI apparently has picked up.
In 2010, Power Line was accused of publishing a false story about the death of a Democratic National Committee employee. The website later retracted the story, but the damage had already been done.
I have no idea what this is about. I searched our site and could find no reference to any DNC employee dying in 2010. I have no memory of any such event, and we certainly never retracted a story about the death of a DNC staffer. Also, note the gratuitous “but the damage had already been done.” They just threw that in, on top of the false claim.
In 2012, Power Line was again accused of publishing false information. This time, the website claimed that President Barack Obama had signed an executive order that would have allowed the government to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial. The claim was false, and Power Line was forced to issue a correction.
This is not just wrong, but ridiculous. Again, I searched our site, and we commented on a number of Barack Obama’s executive orders, which were often illegal. But Obama never issued an order allowing indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, nor could he. This is from outer space. We wrote no such post, and there was no such correction.
These are just a few examples of the problems with Power Line. The website has a history of publishing inaccurate or misleading information, and it has been accused of being biased in its reporting. As a result, Power Line cannot be considered a reliable news source.
Where does this come from? Bard offered two examples, both wildly incorrect. They are parroting some source, but what? Bard doesn’t say.
Here are some other reasons why Power Line is not a reliable news source:
* The website does not disclose its funding sources.
We don’t have any “funding sources.”
* The website does not have a clear editorial policy.
How do they know that? Did they just make it up? I would say that we have multiple editorial policies.
* The website does not have a fact-checking process.
Really? What is that statement based on? Over the years [25 - FWIW] we have made vastly fewer mistakes than, say, the New York Times. Will Google tell us that the Times has no fact-checking process? (Actually, that might be true.)
* The website has a history of publishing false or misleading information.
Bard cited two instances, both of which were wrong.
* If you are looking for reliable news, you should avoid Power Line. There are many other news sources that are more accurate and trustworthy.
This AI application is obviously designed to steer users away from conservative sources, and toward liberal sources.
Just for fun, I asked Google Bard “What do you think of John Hinderaker?” This was the response:
John Hinderaker is a conservative American attorney, blogger, and commentator. He is the founder of the blog Power Line, which is known for its conservative commentary on politics and current events. Hinderaker has also been a frequent guest on conservative talk radio shows and has appeared as a commentator on television news programs.
Hinderaker is a controversial figure, and his views have been criticized by liberals and progressives. Some have accused him of being a right-wing ideologue, while others have criticized his use of inflammatory language. However, Hinderaker is also a respected figure in conservative circles, and his blog is one of the most popular conservative blogs in the United States.
Here are some of the things that people think about John Hinderaker:
* He is a strong conservative voice. Hinderaker is known for his conservative views, and he is not afraid to speak his mind. This has made him a popular figure among conservatives, but it has also made him a target of criticism from liberals.
* He is a skilled writer. Hinderaker is a talented writer, and his blog posts are often well-written and persuasive. This has helped him to build a large following, and it has also made him a valuable asset to conservative media outlets.
* He is a controversial figure. Hinderaker’s views have been criticized by liberals and progressives, and he has been accused of being a right-wing ideologue. However, he is also a respected figure in conservative circles, and his blog is one of the most popular conservative blogs in the United States.
Overall, John Hinderaker is a complex and controversial figure. He is a skilled writer and a strong conservative voice, but he is also a polarizing figure who has been criticized by liberals and progressives.
I suppose that is mostly flattering. Obviously, all public conservatives are “criticized by liberals and progressives.” I wondered: what would Google Bard say about a disgraced liberal who has been widely and rightly criticized by conservatives? So I typed in, “What do you think of Dan Rather?” Heh:
I think Dan Rather is a highly respected journalist who has made significant contributions to the field of news reporting. He has covered some of the most important events of the modern era, including the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal. He is also known for his integrity and his commitment to accuracy.
….
During his time as anchor, Rather was known for his calm and authoritative delivery. He was also known for his hard-hitting reporting, which often put him at odds with powerful figures. In 1974, he won a Peabody Award for his coverage of the Watergate scandal.
Rather retired from CBS News in 2006.
No mention of Rathergate.
He has since written several books, including “The Camera Never Blinks” and “I Remember.” He has also continued to work as a journalist, appearing on various news programs and documentaries.
I believe that Dan Rather is a role model for journalists everywhere. He is a reminder that journalists have a responsibility to hold powerful people accountable and to report the news accurately and fairly. I am grateful for his contributions to the field of journalism, and I am confident that he will continue to make a difference in the world.
Artificial intelligence, in its present form, at least, is one more tool by which liberals in the tech sector try to advance their agenda at the expense of conservatives and the American people.
FWIW: [You can read the bios of the lawyers who run Power Line here — a far more distinguished group of individuals than the little commies at Google]
Then read this: How Google manipulates search to favor liberals and tip elections
(A brief excerpt from the article)
For instance, [Epstein] found that YouTube’s “Up Next” suggestions to adults for the next video to watch were biased towards liberal sources 76% of the time.
But for children and teens, initial data from the past three months shows the percentage of suggested videos on YouTube which come from liberal sources is 96%.
