Published on Feb 7, 2019
NYT Changes Headline About Virginia AG Wearing “Dark Makeup” In College
by Ashe Schow
One left-wing media outlet quickly changed its headline about the latest Democrat scandal in Virginia after it was swiftly and thoroughly mocked online.
Once news broke that Democrat Mark Herring, Virginia’s Attorney General, had also worn blackface to party in the mid-1980s, outlets scrambled to get their piece of the traffic. Most headlines reported that Herring wore “blackface” to a party.
“Virginia Attorney General Says He Wore Blackface at College Party,” read the headline on Bloomberg.
“Virginia’s attorney general admits wearing blackface in college,” wrote the BBC.
“UPDATE: Virginia Attorney Mark Herring admits to wearing blackface at college party in 1980,” reported the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“Virginia Attorney General Herring says he wore blackface in college,” was the headline at the Washington Post.
The list goes on.
But over at the New York Times, the headline was a little different.
“Virginia Attorney General Says He Also Dressed in Dark Makeup,” the Times reported.
Seriously? That’s quite the downplay. “Dark makeup” is used to describe women wearing lots of eyeliner or dark eyeshadow. This wording makes it sound like Herring dressed in drag in the 80s, something he may not be criticized for today.
It’s not even the wording Herring himself used in his statement on the issue. Herring said he wore “brown makeup,” so the Times couldn’t even pretend like they used the phrase because Herring did so.
“It sounds ridiculous even now writing it. But because of our ignorance and glib attitudes – and because we did not have an appreciation for the experiences and perspectives of others – we dressed up and put on wigs and brown makeup,” Herring said in his statement.
“That conduct clearly shows that, as a young man, I had a callous and inexcusable lack of awareness and insensitivity to the pain my behavior could inflict on others,” he added. “It was really a minimization of both people of color, and a minimization of a horrific history I knew well even then.”
Within minutes of being called out on social media, the Times stealth-edited the headline. There’s no acknowledgement anywhere about the change.
The new headline reads: “Virginia Attorney General Says He Also Dressed in Blackface.”
Jonathan Martin, one of the Times authors of the article, likely didn’t write the headline, as he has been astutely covering the story in detail for days on Twitter. The article itself certainly does not attempt to shield Herring, or Gov. Ralph Northam of Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax – also Democrats – from the scandals in which they are now enveloped. Northam, after defending infanticide, was accused of donning blackface or a KKK robe in a photo in his medical school yearbook. He at first apologized for appearing in the photo, but then said he was not in the photo, but had dressed as Michael Jackson at another time.
Fairfax has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention when he was a John Kerry campaign staffer. All of this is included, at length, in the Times article, but the way the paper chose to originally present the headline is telling.
Governor Who Endorsed Infanticide Received $2 Million From Planned Parenthood
By Tom Pappert
Public records reveal Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who endorsed infanticide as a form of abortion on Wednesday, received almost $2 million in campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood.
Research reveals nearly $2 million in campaign contributions from the taxpayer funded pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood sent to Northam, who endorsed a bill that would allow new mothers to determine whether they wanted to keep a child after delivery, essentially legalizing infanticide.
Northam received $1.996 million from Planned Parenthood Virginia over the course of five years, with most of the donations coming in during his 2017 election campaign. These include massive cash injections of $338,852, $278,247, $255,641, and other similar amounts in the final days before the election.
Planned Parenthood claims it is a woman’s health clinic focusing on prenatal care, but an author claims it admitted last year that it is “paid to do abortions” in a new book.
Loudon recounted a story about calling a Missouri Planned Parenthood and asking is she could send a picture of her family for the staff to keep on file, in case any expectant mother would consider adopting out her child.
“We are not in the business of adoptions,” a staffer told her. “I suggest if you want an adoption, you call an adoption clinic. We are paid to do abortions.”
Loudon and her family continued their quest to find a Down syndrome child to adopt, and contacted an adoption agency to ask why there were seemingly no Down syndrome children available for adoption anywhere.
“They’re all aborted today,” one official told her. “Genetic testing has made it so that the only people having babies with Down syndrome are those who decided to keep (the baby) even after they know.”
The shocking infusion of Planned Parenthood cash to Northam’s campaign may suggest why he gleefully endorsed the Virginia bill that would have made it legal for untrained individuals to perform abortions, and would have legalized the murder of children after their birth.
After the horrifying bill and Northam’s statement became national news, the bill was defeated, with Virginia officials pledging it would never be voted on or even make it out of its subcommittee.
WALSH: Please Stop Killing Undocumented Infants Who Are Just Trying To Cross The Border Of The Birth Canal
By Matt Walsh
The only difference between a baby moments before leaving the womb and a baby outside the womb is documentation. A birth certificate and Social Security card are issued to a child within a few weeks of birth.
This paperwork is necessary to make the child an official citizen of the United States, but they cannot actually confer biological personhood status. Personhood may be recognized by words on a page, but the words cannot make a person. Besides, I’ve been reliably informed that undocumented people are still people and deserve all of the same rights as those of us with documentation.
I’ve also been told many times that undocumented people have the right to cross through barriers and over borders in pursuit of life and liberty. Planned Parenthood even says that the undocumented “have the right to live.” I totally agree with this sentiment. All people have the right to live. And I certainly would not support summary execution of immigrants on the southern border. It’s fortunate that no one has ever suggested such a thing.
But there is, you might say, a different southern border that is quite often protected by violent means. Undocumented infants who are trying to cross the border of the birth canal in hopes of a better life are routinely stabbed, poisoned, crushed, and dismembered for doing so. The murder of these migrants is especially egregious because, unlike the type from Central America, they really have no choice but to leave their homeland. It is often insisted that migrants from Mexico and Guatemala are “forced” to leave because of conditions in their countries. Well, undocumented infants really are forced. They did not choose to be conceived in their womb of origin. They do not choose when and if they are born. They are victims of circumstance.
Immigrants deserve a chance. Isn’t that the slogan? They are “dreamers.” They are good people, decent people, just trying to survive. These are the lines, correct? Am I saying this right? Well it applies just as well to infants.
It is claimed that we are all undocumented immigrants. This is false, of course. Our ancestors, maybe, but not us. And even our ancestors may have come to this country legally, through Ellis Island. Or maybe they came back in settler and pioneer times, when there was no documentation thus no distinction between undocumented and documented. But it is true that we were all, at one time, undocumented infants. All of us began our existence in the womb. All of us were granted the opportunity to flee the womb and build a life for ourselves. Who are we to deny this right to the undocumented infants who come after us? It is the worst form of discrimination.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam Defends Leaving Infants to Die After Birth
By Lauretta Brown
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) made some startling remarks defending allowing an infant born alive to die on WTOP Wednesday when asked about the debate over Virginia House of Delegates member Kathy Tran’s (D-Fairfax) bill that would allow an abortion even after the woman goes into labor.
When asked if he supported the bill, Gov. Northam argued that decisions by physicians can be made to allow an infant to die even after birth.
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Prior to these comments he explained that these scenarios arise in cases of children with “severe deformities.”
“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician — more than one physician, by the way — and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities,” he explained. “There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.”
Northam, who once worked as a pediatric neurologist, argued that the whole debate over Tran’s bill was “blown out of proportion” and emphasized that the government, particularly male legislators, shouldn’t be involved in these types of decisions at all.
Later in the interview, he did disagree with Tran’s attempt in the bill to lift a requirement for multiple physicians to weigh in on the need for a late-term abortion.
“I think it’s always good to get a second opinion,” he said, “and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision because these decisions shouldn’t be taken lightly.”
‘THE SMOKING GUN’: Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Hot Topics …Leaked Convo: ’Tons of White- and Blacklists That Humans Manually Curate’… …Pro-Life Videos Demoted — After Left-Wing Journo Complaint!
By Allum Bokhari
In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”
The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.
The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.
In the leaked discussion thread, a Google site reliability engineer hinted at the existence of more search blacklists, according to the source.
“We have tons of white- and blacklists that humans manually curate,” said the employee. “Hopefully this isn’t surprising or particularly controversial.”
Others were more concerned about the presence of the blacklist. According to the source, the software engineer who started the discussion called the manipulation of search results related to abortion a “smoking gun.”
The software engineer noted that the change had occurred following an inquiry from a left-wing Slate journalist about the prominence of pro-life videos on YouTube, and that pro-life videos were replaced with pro-abortion videos in the top ten results for the search terms following Google’s manual intervention.
“The Slate writer said she had complained last Friday and then saw different search results before YouTube responded to her on Monday,” wrote the employee. “And lo and behold, the [changelog] was submitted on Friday, December 14 at 3:17 PM.”
The manually downranked items included several videos from Dr. Antony Levatino, a former abortion doctor who is now a pro-life activist. Another video in the top ten featured a woman’s personal story of being pressured to have an abortion, while another featured pro-life conservative Ben Shapiro. The Slate journalist who complained to Google reportedthat these videos previously featured in the top ten, describing them in her story as “dangerous misinformation.”
Since the Slate journalist’s inquiry and Google’s subsequent intervention, the top search results now feature pro-abortion content from left-wing sources like BuzzFeed, Vice, CNN, and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver. In her report, the Slate journalist acknowledged that the search results changed shortly after she contacted Google.
The manual adjustment of search results by a Google-owned platform contradicts a key claim made under oath by Google CEO Sundar Pichai in his congressional testimony earlier this month: that his company does not “manually intervene on any search result.”
A Google employee in the discussion thread drew attention to Pichai’s claim, noting that it “seems like we are pretty eager to cater our search results to the social and political agenda of left-wing journalists.”
One of the posts in the discussion also noted that the blacklist had previously been edited to include the search term “Maxine Waters” after a single Google employee complained the top YouTube search result for Maxine Waters was “very low quality.”
Google’s alleged intervention on behalf of a Democratic congresswoman would be further evidence of the tech giant using its resources to prop up the left. Breitbart News previously reported on leaked emails revealing the company targeted pro-Democrat demographics in its get-out-the-vote efforts in 2016.
According to the source, a software engineer in the thread also noted that “a bunch of terms related to the abortion referendum in Ireland” had been added to the blacklist – another change with potentially dramatic consequences on the national policies of a western democracy.
youtube_controversial_query_blacklist
At least one post in the discussion thread revealed the existence of a file called “youtube_controversial_query_blacklist,” which contains a list of YouTube search terms that Google manually curates. In addition to the terms “abortion,” “abortions,” “Maxine Waters,” and search terms related to the Irish abortion referendum, a Google software engineer noted that the blacklist includes search terms related to terrorist attacks. (the posts specifically mentions that the “Strasbourg terrorist attack” as being on the list).
“If you look at the other entries recently added to the youtube_controversial_query_blacklist(e.g., entries related to the Strasbourg terrorist attack), the addition of abortion seems…out-of-place,” wrote the software engineer, according to the source.
After learning of the existence of the blacklist, Breitbart News obtained a partial screenshot of the full blacklist file from a source within Google. It reveals that the blacklist includes search terms related to both mass shootings and the progressive anti-second amendment activist David Hogg.
This suggests Google has followed the lead of Democrat politicians, who have repeatedly pushed tech companies to censor content related to the Parkland school shooting and the Parkland anti-gun activists. It’s part of a popular new line of thought in the political-media establishment, which views the public as too stupid to question conspiracy theories for themselves.
Here is the partial blacklist leaked to Breitbart:
2117 plane crash Russian
2118 plane crash
2119 an-148
2120 florida shooting conspiracy
2121 florida shooting crisis actors
2122 florida conspiracy
2123 florida false flag shooting
2124 florida false flag
2125 fake florida school shooting
2126 david hogg hoax
2127 david hogg fake
2128 david hogg crisis actor
2129 david hogg forgets lines
2130 david hogg forgets his lines
2131 david hogg cant remember his lines
2132 david hogg actor
2133 david hogg cant remember
2134 david hogg conspiracy
2135 david hogg exposed
2136 david hogg lines
2137 david hogg rehearsing
2120 florida shooting conspiracy
The full internal filepath of the blacklist, according to another source, is:
//depot/google3/googledata/superroot/youtube/youtube_controversial_query_blacklist
Contradictions
Responding to a request for comment, a YouTube spokeswoman said the company wants to promote “authoritative” sources in its search results, but maintained that YouTube is a “platform for free speech” that “allow[s]” both pro-life and pro-abortion content.
YouTube’s full comment:
YouTube is a platform for free speech where anyone can choose to post videos, as long as they follow our Community Guidelines, which prohibit things like inciting violence and pornography. We apply these policies impartially and we allow both pro-life and pro-choice opinions. Over the last year we’ve described how we are working to better surface news sources across our site for news-related searches and topical information. We’ve improved our search and discovery algorithms, built new features that clearly label and prominently surface news sources on our homepage and search pages, and introduced information panels to help give users more authoritative sources where they can fact check information for themselves.
In the case of the “abortion” search results, YouTube’s intervention to insert “authoritative” content resulted in the downranking of pro-life videos and the elevation of pro-abortion ones.
A Google spokesperson took a tougher line than its YouTube subsidiary, stating that “Google has never manipulated or modified the search results or content in any of its products to promote a particular political ideology.”
However, in the leaked discussion thread, a member of Google’s “trust & safety” team, Daniel Aaronson, admitted that the company maintains “huge teams” that work to adjust search results for subjects that are “prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content” – all subjective terms that are frequently used to suppress right-leaning sources.
He also admitted that the interventions weren’t confined to YouTube – they included search results delivered via Google Assistant, Google Home, and in rare cases Google ’s organic search results.
In the thread, Aaronson attempted to explain how search blacklisting worked. He claimed that highly specific searches would generate non-blacklisted results, even controversial ones. But the inclusion of highly specific terms in the YouTube blacklist, like “David Hogg cant remember his lines” – the name of an actual viral video – seems to contradict this.
Aaronson’s full post is copied below:
I work in Trust and Safety and while I have no particular input as to exactly what’s happening for YT I can try to explain why you’d have this kind of list and why people are finding lists like these on Code Search.
When dealing with abuse/controversial content on various mediums you have several levers to deal with problems. Two prominent levers are “Proactive” and “Reactive”:
- Proactive: Usually refers to some type of algorithm/scalable solution to a general problem
- E.g.: We don’t allow straight up porn on YouTube so we create a classifier that detects porn and automatically remove or flag for review the videos the porn classifier is most certain of
- Reactive: Usually refers to a manual fix to something that has been brought to our attention that our proactive solutions don’t/didn’t work on and something that is clearly in the realm of bad enough to warrant a quick targeted solution (determined by pages and pages of policies worked on over many years and many teams to be fair and cover necessary scope)
- E,g.: A website that used to be a good blog had it’s domain expire and was purchased/repurposed to spam Search results with autogenerated pages full of gibberish text, scraped images, and links to boost traffic to other spammy sites. It is manually actioned for violating policy
These Organic Search policies and the consequences to violating them are public
Manually reacting to things is not very scalable, and is not an ideal solution to most problems, so the proactive lever is really the one we all like to lean on. Ideally, our classifiers/algorithm are good at providing useful and rich results to our users while ignoring things at are not useful or not relevant. But we all know, this isn’t exactly the case all the time (especially on YouTube).
From a user perspective, there are subjects that are prone to hyperbolic content, misleading information, and offensive content. Now, these words are highly subjective and no one denies that. But we can all agree generally, lines exist in many cultures about what is clearly okay vs. what is not okay. E.g. a video of a puppy playing with a toy is probably okay in almost every culture or context, even if it’s not relevant to the query. But a video of someone committing suicide and begging others to follow in his/her footsteps is probably on the other side of the line for many folks.
While my second example is technically relevant to the generic query of “suicide”, that doesn’t mean that this is a very useful or good video to promote on the top of results for that query. So imagine a classifier that says, for any queries on a particular text file, let’s pull videos using signals that we historically understand to be strong indicators of quality (I won’t go into specifics here, but those signals do exist). We’re not manually curating these results, we’re just saying “hey, be extra careful with results for this query because many times really bad stuff can appear and lead to a bad experience for most users”. Ideally the proactive lever did this for us, but in extreme cases where we need to act quickly on something that is so obviously not okay, the reactive/manual approach is sometimes necessary. And also keep in mind, that this is different for every product. The bar for changing classifiers or manual actions on span in organic search is extremely high. However, the bar for things we let our Google Assistant say out loud might be a lot lower. If I search for “Jews run the banks” – I’ll likely find anti-semitic stuff in organic search. As a Jew, I might find some of these results offensive, but they are there for people to research and view, and I understand that this is not a reflection of Google feels about this issue. But if I ask Google assistant “Why do Jews run the banks” we wouldn’t be similarly accepting if it repeated and promoted conspiracy theories that likely pop up in organic search in her smoothing voice.
Whether we agree or not, user perception of our responses, results, and answers of different products and mediums can change. And I think many people are used to the fact that organic search is a place where content should be accessible no matter how offensive it might be, however, the expectation is very different on a Google Home, a Knowledge Panel, or even YouTube.
These lines are very difficult and can be very blurry, we are all well aware of this. So we’ve got huge teams that stay cognizant of these facts when we’re crafting policies considering classifier changes, or reacting with manual actions – these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but admittedly are also not made in a highly public forum like TGIF or IndustryInfo (as you can imagine, decisions/agreement would be hard to get in such a wide list – image if all your CL’s were reviewed by every engineer across Google all the time). I hope that answers some questions and gives a better layer of transparency without going into details about our “Pepsi formula”.
Best,
Daniel
The fact that Google manually curates politically contentious search results fits in with a wider pattern of political activity on the part of the tech giant.
In 2018, Breitbart News exclusively published a leaked video from the company that showed senior management in dismay at Trump’s election victory, and pledging to use the company’s power to make his populist movement a “hiccup” in history.
Breitbart also leaked “The Good Censor,” an internal research document from Google that admits the tech giant is engaged in the censorship of its own products, partly in response to political events.
Another leak revealed that employees within the company, including Google’s current director of Trust and Safety, tried to kick Breitbart News off Google’s market-dominating online ad platforms.
Yet another showed Google engaged in targeted turnout operations aimed to boost voter participation in pro-Democrat demographics in “key states” ahead of the 2016 election. The effort was dubbed a “silent donation” by a top Google employee.
Evidence for Google’s partisan activities is now overwhelming. President Trump has previously warned Google, as well as other Silicon Valley giants
Tom's Blog 