MS admits Newsbot Biased Towards MSNBC

JasdonLe writes "According to this article at the Washington Post, Microsoft's recently unleashed news aggregator site, Newsbot will choose to display MSNBC articles over other articles on the same topic. "As Newsbot resides on MSNBC and is branded as such, MSNBC is considered a first among equals, meaning that if they and another top-tier source offer the same story, information, etc., MSNBC will be listed first, followed by other sources," says Elizabeth Herrera Smith, Microsoft spokeswoman."

This is a good example of MS.....

"not getting it". I know they have pie in the sky hopes to take on Google and bless their hearts they're gonna spend a lot of money but it's going to be largely futile. I like Google precisely because I don't get a bias. I also don't get bombarded by ad after ad after ad (or popup after popup after popup ala Hotmail).

In many regards comparing Google search to MSN search and Google news to MSs newsbot is apples and oranges. In order for MS to unseat Google they have to be (MS execs read this carefully) BETTER. Until then ... well... good luck

Re:This is a good example of MS.....

Not getting it?

I'd say they are very much getting it. They are using brand recognition in one area to expand in another. Many, many successful corporations do that. Google, for instance, exploits their superb brand recognition gained from a web search engine to branch out into news.

Anyway, it's their party and they'll invite who they want to. You don't have to go there if you don't like those terms.

Paul

Another example of MS being out of touch...

Microsoft: "Not getting it"

Microsoft managers have little ability to learn and appreciate how others see them. Preferring MSNBC over other news sources is seen by them as "branding". It's seen by others as conflict of interest.

Microsoft managers don't realize that we don't want to live in the little box that they construct for us.

As Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer become more and more bored with their business, and more and more tired with doing every day what they have done since they were teenagers, Microsoft is slipping more and more out of control. There are Microsoft people who aren't actually doing anything for anyone, but who have jobs there and want to keep them.

There are fewer and fewer top managers at Microsoft who both recognize that there needs to be vigorous re-organization, and have the power to accomplish it. In years past the company was as arrogant as it is today, but more alive.

Re:Another example of MS being out of touch...

Microsoft managers don't realize that we don't want to live in the little box that they construct for us.
What you don't realise is that most people don't care. Most people who use a new search engine want to find relevant news. If the news is relevant, few will care whether its source is MSNBC or CNN.

As Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer become more and more bored with their business, and more and more tired with doing every day what they have done since they were teenagers, Microsoft is slipping more and more out of control. There are Microsoft people who aren't actually doing anything for anyone, but who have jobs there and want to keep them.

Why do you think so? Microsoft is highly profitable. I'd say that a rather robust indicator they're doing something right.
From a business perspective their actions make total sense.

Do people care about themselves? Yes, they do.

"What you don't realise is that most people don't care."

Even people I meet who have no special interest in computers know that Google is the best search engine. They care, and they don't use the Microsoft product. They know that Microsoft will try to influence them in a hidden or not-so-hidden way.

There are fewer and fewer people who "don't care", and there is more and more competition for the attention of the shrinking pool of people who can be taken advantage of because of their lack of simple knowledge of the Internet.

"Microsoft is highly profitable."

Having a virtual monopoly should not be confused with being good at business management. If you had a monopoly on water, you would make Bill Gates look poor in a week, and all the business magazines would say what a great businessman you were.

Google's services...

Google also refuses to advertise for firearm sites. They still index them, but will refuse to advertise them. Try doing a google search for terms like pistol or rifle. Rifle turns up one link to a german artist who has nothing to do with firearms. You'd tend to think that the various firarm manufacturers would be happy to buy advertisements, right?

Re:Another example of MS being out of touch...

Most people who use a new search engine want to find relevant news. If the news is relevant, few will care whether its source is MSNBC or CNN.

Then you've proven the point of the parent that branding doesn't matter and you've discounted Microsoft's whole concept behind what they are doing. However you say Microsoft is doing something right. Really, which is it?

Re:Another example of MS being out of touch...

Most people who use a new search engine want to find relevant news. If the news is relevant, few will care whether its source is MSNBC or CNN.

News aggregator services are expressly intended for persons who do care. If persons simply wanted relevant news and did not care if it were from CNN or MSNBC, they would be reading CNN or MSNBC already. However by stepping into the news aggregator space MSN is indicating they are aiming for a slightly different group, one which explicitly cares about diversity in their media intake.

Perhaps people who already read MSN but would occasionally like a second perspective might be persuaded to stick with MSN; perhaps this feature might lure away CNN readers. However ostensibly this feature exists to compete with Google, not CNN. If MSN is trying to capture away Google News readers with their aggregator service, they are seriously sabotaging themselves with their editorial preference toward MSN since the entire purpose of a news aggregation site is as a central hub which collects items of importance but which itself tries not to impose editorial preferences.

Why do you think so? Microsoft is highly profitable. I'd say that a rather robust indicator they're doing something right.
From a business perspective their actions make total sense.

Every single division of Microsoft except for the Office and Windows divisions lose money. The one exception is one quarter last year when MSN briefly made a small profit. Since Microsoft's MSN division, in general, loses money, it is fair to assume they are doing something wrong.

Re:Another example of MS being out of touch...

But you know what? aside from this relatively small group of techno-elites, 99.999% of the general population isn't going to care. The only reason the WP ran the story was that they're going to be squeezed out on stories that come off the newswires.

There may be some room for the WP and other papers to claim monopolistic practices, however, since MSN is the default home page of the default browser of the operating system on 94% of desktops.

Re:This is a good example of MS.....

I'd say they are very much getting it. They are using brand recognition in one area to expand in another.

Well of course they are -- that's no major revelation here. What they "don't get" is that they are implicitly casting a vote of no confidence for their own news service to win on its own merits. Giving their brand a leg up when it otherwise doesn't deserve it isn't fostering innovation -- it is just using wedge tactics with one product to grab market share for another. This is something they have been criticized for before and this pattern of behavior is another of those thngs they "don't get."

Re:This is a good example of MS.....

That statement is a perfect example of "not getting it". When I use a search engine, I'm not searching for "branding", I'm searching for the best information. Microsoft returns "branding", rendering Newsbot another potentialy useful service crippled by buzzwording marketing drones.

"Anyway, it's their party and they'll invite who they want to. You don't have to go there if you don't like those terms."

Will Microsoft make it clear on the front page the search will be the equivalent of an Amway party?

Re:This is a good example of MS.....

Precisely. I love Google because they have no bias. I just checked Google News [google.com] and they have the following headline on one of their top Sci/Tech stories:

Microsoft Deploys Newsbot To Track Down Headlines

The Google newsbot put a front page link up about Microsoft's new newsbot.

Do you think that Microsoft's newsbot would do the same for Google's bot?

>

To be fair, tho'...

I don't know if you ever watch the BBC, but they claim to be impartial and advertising free - yet there's loads of advertising on their channels, for their own goods and services. Right now we're bombarded with lavishly produced ads trying to get us all to sign up to BBC3 and 4, channels that are only available to digital subscribers (tho' you pay for them whether or not you even view them). EVERYONE is biased towards their own corporate siblings. At least CNN always tacks on a disclaimer that they're related when they report on an(other) AOL/TW company.

Re:This is a good example of MS.....

If you've learned nothing else about Microsoft over the years, you should at least know that they haven't grown by being "better" at anything. They don't have to be better than Google; they just have to integrate their search engine in the desktop of Longhorn and its embedded web browser. Microsoft is all about removing choice and keeping its customers ignorant, so it's the logical next step.

Google is going to have a fight on its hands in a few years time, as it will be rendered invisible to people with new PCs, hidden behind MS' own search engine...

oh, they get it.

The use of the phrase, "a first among equals [britannica.com]" is about as cynical a reference to their goals opposed to the goals of those who founded the internet as one can find. Microsoft seeks to control public opinion and that is why they have MSNBC. The goal of that control is further control, and so on. Sites are either peers or they follow the master/slave model. Microsoft prefers slaves.

These goals make it impossible for M$ to ever be objective or as good or better than Google. When Slate publishes an article recommending another browser over IE, Slate is sold off. Guess where that Slate article shows up on a newsbot search for "IE Firefox." [msn.com] Somewhere way way after four or five blurbs about Firefox errors. A Google news search for the same thing [google.com] finds an article that references Slate at #10. Google's bias is to refelect the news not to make Firefox look bad like M$'s site is. The same pattern is demonstrated whenever anyone mentions a M$ search engine. The contents are filtered by meta rules that manipulate rather than inform the reader.

I can only hope that most people think like you that it's better to be informed than manipulated.

Hmm...

Think MSNBC (and Newsbot) will carry THIS story? :)

Try putting "Newsbot Biased" in their search

News Search Results

Find Your News: Newsbot Biased

No results

Yep, I think that says it all really.

Re:Try putting "Newsbot Biased" in their search

It just takes a little time. I just tried it and got this:

Results 1-1 of about 1 containing "Newsbot Biased"

1. MS admits Newsbot Biased Towards MSNBC
Slashdot - Aug. 01
JasdonLe writes 'According to this article at the Washington Post, Microsoft's recently unleashed news aggregator site, Newsbot will choose to display MSNBC articles over other articles on the same topic. '

• Not satisfied with your results? Help us improve.

Nearly identical to the same search on Google News. I despise MS, but fair is fair.

The point of this story is what exactly?

So the idea is that if you go to http://newsbot.msnbc.msn.com/ [msn.com], you get some MSNBC stories, possibly followed by related stories from other news organizations.

Perhaps I'm thick, but this kind of seems obvious to me. How else would anyone expect them to do it?

Re:The point of this story is what exactly?

I don't think you're thick, you're just not understanding what kind of service they claim to be providing, and what they're supposed to be competing with.

Google News is a news aggregator. It's essentially like having Superman as your paperboy. Go to one site, get news from everywhere. Google shows no bias, which is exactly why *I* started using it (and I know I'm not alone in this fact).

Look, here's the thing: Most news sources run stories from all over the place--affiliates, reuters, AP--but they're usually biased to some degree. With Google News you finally had a source that was robotic in it's ambivalence, something many people have been looking for for years. I would argue that the entire reason for Google News' success lies on it's unbiased nature.

So...If you wanted to compete with a product whose success rested on it's unbiased nature...Why would you introduce a biased product? That's the point, my friend. (Of course, the only way MS knows how to win is through tactics like these, but moves like this one still come as a shock.)

Euphamism of the Week

...first among equals.

Re:Euphamism of the Week

That euphemism's been around for a long, long time. It really dates back to at least Emperor Augustus 2000 years ago, calling himself "first citizen" and "first among equals".

Does it matter to the masses though?

Does anyone besides the /. reader base really care though? I mean first of all, most of them will never hear of this bias. Secondly, of those that do, will they really care? If they're using MyMSN or MSN.com as their homepage they'll most likely get this search engine as their default and never know the difference. Once webmasters realize this, they'll start finding ways to get their sites to be listed "2nd" on MS's engine listings.

There are a lot of Google users out there, but MS's name is even more widely known and I hear their advertising budget isn't too shabby. ;)

Yes: Anyone using web to work around bias.

Does anyone besides the /. reader base really care though?

Yes.

The main tool of propagandists is not the big lie, but bias:

- Distort qualitative opinions and cost-benefit analyses by giving rare occurrences of one sort lots of articles, common occurrences of the other little or none.

- Give one side front-page billing, hide the other on back pages.

- Give one side the first position in the article, the other one sentence near the end.

- Use loaded terms. (Example: If you live in a "home", on "grounds", in a "church camp", or even a "mansion" you're innocent, a "compound" and you're a demon.)

The establishment media have been doing this for years, and the cost of entry (and for some, government licensing requirements and regulations) have kept other voices from being heard. Their propaganda and viewpoints have converged into lockstep - by their herd-mentality following of the "Paper of Record"'s call on what events deserve coverage if nothing else.

The internet now makes it impossible for the establishment media to bury a story, and to keep other viewpoints marginalized by consistent biased characterization. Yet they still try. So when people discover that they can find more of what they're looking for on the net they switch their news sources. This has been a disaster for the establishment media.

A news search engine biases placement of their own content first (and possibly other like-minded content second, random content third, and different-minded last), rather than giving placement solely on the search match, enables them to pull the same class of stunt on their engine's users. To people who are searching the web to escape biased news coverage this matters very greatly. Once they understand MSNBC has done this (even at a subconscious level) they are likely to avoid it in favor of other resources.

But the presence of the biased engine means many people new to the web, who latch onto that engine first, will be long delayed in their appreciation of and access to unbiased search engines and unbiased or other-biased news sources.

War on news sources?

I checked the MSN newsbot and was suprised to find there (German) articles, that news.google.com didn't find. In the other way, MSN didn't know most sources of Google news.

What is the deal for content publishers to give MSN and Google access to their databases? If it is readers attention, this way is the wrong way.

Could MSN adopt paid content for their newsbot? This would be another business modell.

MS are incapable of seeing the world...

Outside Redmond.

They have such a tight knit community going on within MS that they think their way is the only one that works. While this is great for those people inside MS, and we have all read about how great they are to work for, it doesn't convince the rest of the world, and Court decisions prove this.

Why do they insist on being blinded by the branding? They could easily challenge Google if they did what Google does, but with a bigger brand, instead they choose to take away the very thing that Google is popular in with their own offering.

Google is NOT unbiased, Page Rankings count as a bias to me, but they are the very closest thing to it that we have.

Hey, Taco!! Come ON!! Give Me A Break!!

What's the problem? Don't like it? Then start your own friggin' news aggregator site!

Oh, wait...

never mind...

From the 'Duh' file...

I guess on slow news days the editors here pull out any kind of MS story they can find to try and stir up the zealots. C'mon guys, would you go into a Ford dealership and expect the salesman to try to sell you a Chevrolet?

Wheeeee

Oh no! Next they'll tell us that Slashdot editors like to link to Everything2 and Newsforge!

Good for Microsoft!

At least they have divulged thier corperate tie-ins, as opposed to 60 minutes (CBS, a VIACOM company) who did an expose on Richard Clarkes book, which is published by SIMON & SCHUSTER, also a VIACOM company, basically making the whole Bob Woodward interview an infomercial, and this isnt the first time they did that ("The Price of Loyalty" by former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill)

I would have done the same thing

First of all, MSNBC gets its news mostly from the wire services like most other news websites, so cool it with the unwarranted bias talk. This makes sense. The MS developers can talk directly with MSNBC folks and try to get more advanced crawling and indexing methods in place. This is why MS is involved in MSNBC in the first place - integration. Don't you think Yahoo gets the inside scoop on how Yahoo News articles are formatted directly from the developer? Or any other portal for that matter? Shock and amazement - employees talk to each other!

So what?

I don't see the big deal. It's an MSN service. This particular criticism of Microsoft is a huge stretch.

Google favors it's own wallet too. When you do a google search, the sponsored links are on the top of the search results.

Whatever. Next story.

newsbot is moreover.com rebranded

check out the links, every single one of them goes via moreover.com, if this was a MSN venture then why use moreover at all ?

eg:

http://g.msn.com/0PNENUS/1?http://c.moreover.com /c lick/here.pl

remember with MSN sites YOU are the product, the content is merely filler, all of their sites are just advertising and user tracking applications, not convinced ? then view source of their pages and see for yourself

nice tracking code such as
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/js/nmjs06.js
adding onmouseover/onmouseout handlers to the links so you dont spot the link tracking, if its no big deal why hide the tracking ?

if any network needs to be blocked as a security/privacy risk its MSN

In other news....

In other news:

Pope is Catholic

Bear Shits in Woods

Gee, never noticed this bias before.......

Riiiight. Ever watch MS-CNBC and notice how often they seem to be focusing on MSFT. I was watching their NASDAQ reporting one day where the female announcer was breathlessly blathering on about a 6 cent raise in MSFT. That same day RHAT was up about 2 bucks. It was never mentioned at all.
Monopolys are dangerous and self replicating especially when they begin to control the news media.

I assumed this from the beginning.

I'd say that this is hardly suprising. First time I looked at newsbot, I just assumed I'd see lots of MSNBC stories. Also, I'd imagine that many slashdotters will see this as more evil doings from Microsoft, but really there is nothing wrong with it. They have a news source, they list theirs first, it IS their site after all. Nobody faults google for placing "sponsored" ads at the top of the page, this is no different really. There WOULD be a problem if MS _removed_ news stories from the listing because it conflicted with MSNBC/MS/Windows/etc. Bottom line is: If you don't want to see MSNBC stories...MS Newsbot probably isn't the best place to look. Plus, there's always google or your own favorite news site.

Secret: Newsbot is just a CNAME to news.google.com

Microsoft, the world leader in innovation, has developed a new innovative URL for Google's news service, "news.google.com".

Microsoft has realized that most of their customers are unfamiliar with typing URLs. Therefore, Microsoft has invented "newsbot".

This patent-pending innovation will permit internet users (for example, MSN customers) to click on a web link to read news from various news sources. The newsbot link seemlessly directs users to a near-perfect replica of news.google.com, the premier news aggregation site on the internet.

Microsoft can also leverage this technology to manipulate news stories, promoting and demoting news stories based on a customer's interests, tax records, and party affiliation.

And now for a taste of reality...

Microsoft co-owns MSNBC with NBC-Universal. Presently, MSNBC's cable ratings are in the cellar, behind CNN and Fox"news." It really sux being in last place.

Microsoft, which is profit-minded, wishes to drive people to their product. In fact, they have taken specific steps to do that in other areas. Has anyone noticed that there is a free, installable copy of Microsoft Money given away with each copy of their operating system? (One wonders if it is ever actually installed...)

The issue here is, while there are better news sites out there, Microsoft wishes you to try theirs. If MSNBC winds up as bad as Microsoft Money as compared to Intuit's Quicken, people will start ignoring the existence of the link, unless the provenance of the link is hidden.

Frankly, I think both Microsoft and NBC Universal have a lot of work to do on MSNBC in making the content more compelling and more accurate. last I heard, MSNBC didn't work with Apple's browser and didn't work well with most of the alternatives to Internet Exploiter. Their content has gaps, many large. The NBC Network creates news stories that are run later (and in news time lots later on MSNBC -- in essence, the news is "repurposed" on MSNBC with the only actual news reported stuff that is freely available from the NBC affiliate stations (car chases and floods -- also re-purposed). Inviting Yet Another Talking Head to speak to your miniscule audience is not news.

I don't think Microsoft's spider will change the fact that there is nothing compelling on MSNBC. They're facing the same problem there that they have with their personal finance program.

In Other News...

...Slashdot discovers businesses prefer to sell their own products, not their competitors.

Horrors!

MSNBC Newsbot displays MSNBC stories first. Just like CNN or Fox or any other news outlet's search does... Wow. Gee. Imagine. The horror, the horror.

Alternative to Google News

I've found Topix.net [topix.net] to be more encompassing than either site. The site was created by former Netscape employees. It categorizes news into very specialized topics. The search functions better than Google News's, which seems to have a much small database for many subjects when compared with Topix.

All of the news aggregates seem inadequate. Google News [google.com] has a great interface, but often I don't find news articles on specific subjects when searching the site. Obviously, MSN Newsbot [msn.com] will be biased towards MSNBC. (BTW, the URL, newsbot.msnbc.com, is really redundant!) Even Topix, which I pimped up there, has some bad points too. Google remains the king for relevant and enticing advertisements, and the ads are sometimes annoying or irrelevant on Topix (tho not nearly as annoying as with most sites). And sometimes there are some repeats from other services; although, it is mostly OK. Are aggregates the "new" search engines?

(I know this is a little off-topic, so please excuse my tangent.)

Is this news ?

It would be news if the above qualified for the following:
- Newsbot publicly keeps up that it is an unbiased news-site
- Newsbot is not owned (in a way) by Microsoft
- Newsbot is refusing to show the news from other equal sources, while stating otherwise


I see none of that here, so erm: why is this news ?

It's M$'s right to chose their own news over other news. Heck, they can do whatever they want with it, even spreading FUD about Linux losing shares in server-land and Windows being the most stable and fast server platform ever.
This wouldn't be a surprise, it is M$-policy.
On the other hand, we have the right to not chose newsbot for our news, and happily stay with Google's version.

So again: is this news ?

What is the big deal?

All news organizations are owned my mega-large international corporations.

All news reflects the business interests of the parent companies.

For example, in the US, that is why the Bush vs. Kerry news coverages is so incredibly biased towards Bush. For people who own millions in stock equity, etc., and for multinational corporations, 4 nore years of Bush is a big deal, money-wise.

I am not surprised that MSN routes people to MSNBC. BTW, I think that MSNBC is actually more fair-minded than CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. This is just a casual observation, but MSNBC tends to cover topics like Israel's nuclear/chemical/biological weapons programs that other news media in the US stay away from (although the NY Times also has fairly broad news coverage).

I am no fan of Microsoft, but as a news service, MSNBC is pretty good.

-Mark

Pot meet the kettle, now hug and cry together

Slashdot, despite being owned by VA Software, does not have post this fact on the front page or in very many news stories about Microsoft or Linux or Apple. (I'd call MS and Apple competitors of VA, but VA looks like a joke when you compare the financials.) ALL of slashdot's articles are biased towards VA's product. MSN searching MSNBC is supposed to shock me? Hell at least its automatic. Slashdot is HANDPICKED bias, all day everyday.

MSNBC Newsbot Prefers MSNBC

Wow, that's surprising.

Maybe it's the fact that it says "MSNBC News" at the top of the screen, or the big MSNBC logo in the corner, but it is blatantly obvious that Newsbot is an MSNBC product.

http://newsbot.msn.com

Take a look - MSNBC logos all over. Why is it news at all that it prefers MSNBC stories?

Re:Can you say shoot yourself in the foot?

Of course, if you were paying attention you'd realize that Newsbot isn't displaying ONLY MSNBC articles, but MSNBC articles first (in addition to others) IF multiple news organizations are reporting the same story.

So... it's not like they're shutting out anybody. And Newsbot is part of MSNBC, so really, what would you expect, for Newsbot to ALWAYS prefer other news organization's stories over MSNBC? Is that "unbiased" enough for you?