Bing-Google rigging black shooter search results: evidence

Emergency – tier 1 level – red alert.  You cannot trust the US-based internet search and news sources anymore than you can trust the Russian press, perhaps not as much.  I accidentally stumbled across this evidence and was shocked!  The following data were screen captured on November 1, 2016 using a browser I don’t normally use, so that it wouldn’t be influenced by my past searches or cookies.

I compared two search services, and two searches.  There are differences between Bing and Google, and the racial black-white searches are much more heavily rigged than the Muslim searches.  I compared both the search suggestions and the first page of results, vs. recent high profile news stories I know to exist which I could pull up by city name.  There is no telling how deep this goes.

This is very cleverly done.  The search services have conditioned you to think they don’t know the difference between “police shot by blacks” and “blacks shot by police.”  Both searches might well produce just a list of articles with the words in any order, and perhaps they do.  But it is well known that Google hand tweaks results as well.  It appears they are either doing this on a massive scale, which must be very expensive, or their algorithms are much smarter than they have let on.

Here are the Bing suggested searches, which indicate probably the number of people searching for something similar:

bing1suggestions

Here are the Bing results:

bing2blacks

100% of the first page results in Bing are of the opposite type – blacks shot by police.  There could be more than one explanation.  Let’s try Google.  Here are the suggestions:

google1suggestions

Far fewer suggestions on Google suggests that they don’t want you searching for this kind of stuff.  I certainly don’t believe Google users are less interested in violent news than Bing users, in fact I’d guess the other way around.  Bing is sort of erudite compared to Google.  OK, here are the results:

google2black

Again 100% backward on the first page.  I looked at many further pages, and actually it remained 100%.  I could not find ANY black shooter stories from a general query, and I tried many other ways to word the search.

Maybe no black shooter stories exist?  Hardly.  Some very recent very high profile stories should have been near the top of the results, such as this one from Baton Rouge:

bing4batonrouge

Pretty dramatic, huh?  It’s actually somewhat harder to find using Google.  I’ll leave you to explore that for yourself.

There is another way to establish that such stories probably are common, but being suppressed.  Search for black crime statistics:

google4crime

Take the statistics from the top story and divide 52/13 and you find the black homicide rate is 4 times higher.  Now even if they are only shooting other blacks (which may be mostly true if you believe Donald Trump), a lot of police officers are black and they should be standing in the way of the bullets of black shooters at a high rate even if the shootings are totally incidental to committing crimes and not involving any prejudice at all.  Some black officers have been shot, by people of various races including black.  So the job of a search engine, if I ask it, is to select the ones that meet my criteria.  They are not only not doing it, these results prove they are suppressing it.

The racial identity of the Baton Rouge shooter is much harder to find on Google by the way.  I don’t know if that is deliberate or incidental to their sparser use of photographs.

I asked the question whether this was being done for Muslim shooters.  Here are the Bing results:

bing3muslims

Well, they come right up with a nice mix of Muslims shooting and getting shot, just like you’d expect from a keyword search with no semantic understanding.  What about Google?

google3muslim

Google provides a slightly different mix of stories and no photos, but still believably a keyword search with no semantic understanding.

If we let news suppression get a foothold in this country (apparently it already has) then it’s all over.  News media are virtually the only source of information we have to decide on facts and policy far from our home communities.

I’d say write your Congressman but we already know from the recent campaign, they agree with all this political correctness brainwashing.  I’d say write the reporters but frankly I’ve tried that several times in the last year and it does nothing.  I’d say boycott Google and Bing but then what?  The Fox-CNN-etc. outlets basically admit that they are biased.  Even Fox (not my favorite, too repetitively biased) has gone PC with Megan Kelly.

I tried my search on the BBC.  Same results.  It’s possible the search engines could be innocent.  The media outlets might be suppressing the mention of the word “black” in stories about blacks shooting cops.  I actually used the photo to identify the race of the Baton Rouge shooter.  It was hard to find in the text of the first article I looked at.

But even this would not let the search engines off the hook, because there are lots of news outlets, some of them rabidly biased in all sorts of directions, and as they say on the X-Files, the truth is “out there.”

Who won at the end of that series anyway?  The truth remained buried, right?  If that is our unconscious expectation, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How much of this is not so much the political ideals of these business, but the necessity that they please advertisers?  Blacks are enjoying growing economic success, despite their whining, and most of the growth in consumer marketing targets blacks and Hispanics.  If blacks are boycotting a news source because it ran too many stories on black shooters, then they won’t be getting any ad revenue targeted at black audiences, because their ratings among this audience will go to zero.

We need to have news we pay for, I think.  The reverse of vast consumer choice in news outlets’ obverse is the effectiveness of consumer pressure, making all the choices the same.  That’s probably the reason for Megan Kelly.  She appeals to the women and liberals and minorities necessary to get Fox’s ratings up.  Again, I don’t like Fox, just pointing to a principle.  In some ways the BBC is less biased with regard to US News, but even there the black shooter suppression was evident.

What is the reason?

Why would the black shooter searches be censored and not the Muslim shooter searches?

This would need some research, but I have some guesses that might make good starting points.  There has been an attempt since the late 1960s to ERASE RACE from American demographics.  Nothing is supposed to depend on race, except in a perverted way (blacks are poor because someone discriminated against them, otherwise it would not be so – which may be true as far as I know, I’m just reporting the social logic of the time), so nothing should be reported by race.  Especially black race.  If there is a shooter, it’s racist to report that he is black.  So race doesn’t get reported.  “Black man shoots cop” headline would result in a boycott and loss of ad revenue.  I had trouble finding the word “black” in the Baton Rouge article, except with respect to the one black police officer killed, which was probably deliberately included to portray the crime as against police, not against whites.  Maybe so, I don’t know the shooter’s motive.  But failing to collect basic statistics is inexcusable.  And as I said, this doesn’t let the search engines off the hook, but merely suggests they favor the politically correct news sources.

My wife reads the Chinese and Russian news sites to learn what is going on in the US.  Maybe she is on to something?

2 thoughts on “Bing-Google rigging black shooter search results: evidence

  1. The night JFK was elected president I was at a party at the home of Peggy Leftowich, an official with the California Democrats. When Kennedy’s victory was announced on television, Leftowich said, “What Ike did for golf, Jack will do for fucking.” The political and media elites all knew that JFK was a womanizer and that the Secret Service often had to help him cheat on Jackie. But the public only learned about it long after his tragic death. And then there’s the fact that FDR didn’t just need leg braces. He was paralyzed and confined to a wheel chair. The news media have always suppressed the news to protect the politicians in power because the politicians could retaliate otherwise. See the TV movie “Truth” about how CBS threw their most popular anchor and his award-winning production team under the bus because George Bush was holding up the federal budget so Viacom (CBS’ parent) wouldn’t lose any money.

    Like

  2. Those were not so widely coordinated over so long a time with such a large effect on social policy. One could argue they were only politics at worst (Bush), and most of them private matters (FDR, Kennedy). This is not. And the apparent complicity of the search engines squares and exponentiates the offense.

    In other words, this is of a magnitude compared to the manipulation we complain of by foreign governments of their press. The older incidents aren’t even close.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s