What right wing bias? I think you would be really surprised at my political beliefs which are far from right-wing. And you’re welcome on my insight. However, I would like to clear up several points. I did not characterize it as a “hotbed”. That is a purposeful mis-characterization that is meant to insert hyperbole into my comment where there is none. Taking another’s comments while in a debate and exaggerating them in order to bring them to ridicule or imply prejudice is a common tactic. It is however cheap and dishonest. If you read and understood what I said, I did so without any judgement of what I have observed. I have spent several decades in the Bay Area, home of Google, in the programming field working at too many companies to recall. It is my observation that majority by far of the people in the field are left of center in their political beliefs. I don’t know how they are in Boston, Bangalore or Moscow since I haven’t worked in those places. Is that too difficult to understand? I did not indicate that Google news CAN’T possibly be biased to the right. I was pointing out how improbable it is. Do you understand the concept of probability? Just how likely (probable) do you think that intentional programming was done that biases the results to the right and was approved by how many layers of review that was needed at Google. You do realize that this kind of stuff isn’t just one lone programmer calling all the shots don’t you? Regarding the conspiracy theory, I was not the originator. Mike himself indicated that he thought, “I think people are attributing much more to malice than is true.” Or in plainer words conspiracy. I did mistake Mike’s reply to the first “anon” post with a reply to Cyke. Meaning that my reply to Cyke included the conspiracy comment in reference to Mike’s comment. That was technically an error in attribution, however it does not immediately invalidate the concept. Since it would most likely require the collusion of a number of people at Google to introduce the bias. And that is exactly what conspiracy is. I didn’t mention any tinfoil hats since that immediately characterizes those that believe in conspiracies as less than sane. I however feel that some people who are otherwise sane and intelligent are too eager to attribute what they perceive as a wrongdoing as the purposeful malice of a group of others. It’s the exciting, easy way to explain things. It is also the intellectually lazy way. Is there an alternate explanation that might account for what is being observed that doesn’t require malicious acts? I hate to see those with whom I might agree with on principles cry wolf when there probably isn’t a wolf. It diminishes the principles. Please read the dissertation. The results show that while Google returns more articles that have bias, the bias shown by those articles falls equally on the left as the right. And lastly, while I have read a significant number of articles that assert a right biased Google, I can’t say that they hold up to scrutiny. Hardly “ample proof”. Like Mike pointed out, too many people confuse news (facts) and opinions.