When Good Googles Go Bad

29.04.09 / Uncategorized / Author:

When we talk about mainstream media bias, a discussion of Google must be included.  Although not a traditional media outlet, Google is every bit as much a controller and disseminator of information as all  three traditional networks combined.  It’s presumed to be a kindly information sorter, kind of an encyclopedia plus the Yellow Pages.  A dispassionate “spider” named Googlebot patrols the Internet and hands you results.  Right? Well, that bot is set up by human beings, human beings that for the most part are partisan Democrats.

From 2000-2004 Googlers’ contributions to the Democrats far outweighed the paltry sum given to the GOP.  From an old World-Net Daily article:

Of approximately 200 individual Google employee political contributions to political candidates in 2004, 2002 and 2000, all but six went to Democrats, Democratic Party organizations and Democrat-supporting organizations such as MoveOn.org. One $250 contribution went to Ralph Nader, one went to President Bush’s campaign and three went to Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch’s campaigns.

The Democrat heavy contribution trend has continued.  Last December, six Google employees gave $150,000 to help fund President Obama’s swearing-in party.  In 2007, fully 75% of Google employee contributions went to the Democrats.  Let’s not forget Google CEO Eric Schmidt hitting the campaign trail for Obama in the final weeks of the campaign, or his appearing in a video about Obama at the Democrat Convention last summer.  One may ask, how many conservative Google employees are in the closet in Mountain View?

Google, with its near domination of search engine queries, acts as the mapmaker of the Internet. They almost single-handedly decide which videos are shown on the Internet via its YouTube brand.  It can be said that Google is the Internet.  Like saying Kleenex for tissue, and Xerox for photocopy, Google is indelibly welded to information seeking.

Google’s “Do no evil” motto has been good for public relations.  Many think the motto is a joke, after the company caved to the Chinese Government over a censorship issue a few years back.  Google very much has the potential to serve as an Orwellian memory hole.  Google can omit information if it wants, which is much more dangerous than CNN, FOX or ABC slanting a story one way or the other.  If it’s not on Google or YouTube it didn’t happen right?  Will Google use its Internet traffic cop power to promote or manipulate web traffic for the Democrats much like CNN and MSNBC use their broadcasting powers to attempt to marginalize things like the Tea Parties and promote the Democrats at every turn?

Take the Google “bombing” issue. Google “bombing” is when a group of website owners and techies get together and attempt to link up a search term with a particular website at the top of Google’s rankings.  For four years, lefty techies amused themselves by making sure the search term “miserable failure” returned a link to GWB’s White House website.  The “glitch” allowing it to happen was fixed in 2007.  When Barack Obama came into office the results reverted back to the White House website and Obama’s own biography.  In fairness it isn’t clear whether some conservative-minded byte-warriors did it or Google made a mistake with their algorithm.  What is clear, is that this time Google stepped in within days and fixed the issue.  It took Google four years to link away from GWB’s biography on WhiteHouse.gov, but five days for Google’s preferred President?  Google denies that the quick response had anything to do with Obama.  Suspect.  Besides, Google removing the “bombing” in either case proves that politics and being favored by Google can influence search results.

Unfortunately, Google is reportedly in talks to partner or buy Twitter, the red hot company started by two ex-Googlers.  Twitter is still a baby, who knows what it can become?  For Google to get its hands on it this early in the game would be sad.  Okay, on the plus side, at least Google still buys its competitors, instead of relying on the government to hand them over.  Maybe Google can get Obama to hand Twitter over to them as a “public good”?  Kind of an Internet eminent domain argument.  I jest, of course.

Google reported a lackluster quarterly report in the growth department two weeks ago.  The opportunity for a Fox News portal to counter Google’s “CNN” may be ripe.   Are you listening Yahoo!?  Microsoft?  Facebook?  Dude or Dudette in your garage with a good idea?

In Hollywood, personal rivalries, hatreds and vendettas mean certain agents can’t sell a project at FOX, other writers can’t get a meeting at HBO, and so forth.  So they go pitch another purveyor.  Where is the other well-placed purveyor besides Google?  I’m off to Google the phrase “Google competitors” to find out.