Has Google been stacking its search engine deck against Donald Trump and in favor of Hillary Clinton? Is it front-loading its search results to emphasize negative stories on Trump, while at the same time burying negative stories on Clinton and boosting positive ones on her? That was the charge back in June, and now it’s resurfaced again.
Predictably, the same anti-Trump establishment media outlets that defended Google and poured scorn on the Trump charges in June have once again dismissed his more recent accusation as ludicrous. But is it ludicrous? As we will show below, a very simple test that anyone can replicate provides overwhelming evidence that Google is indeed cooking the data, its protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Moreover, the company's repeated denials of bias are clearly not true. Which is another way of saying they're lying. So much for Google's famous motto, "Don't Be Evil," and their claim of being a revolutionary new company that puts ethics above all else. The evidence also makes trash of the motto of Google's new parent company, Alphabet, Inc: "Do the right thing."
Following the first presidential debate, at a rally in Wisconsin on September 28, Trump told his supporters: "A new post-debate poll, the Google poll, has us leading Hillary Clinton by two points nationwide, and that's despite the fact that Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton. How about that?" In a June 22 article for The New American, “Google Manipulates Searches, Clinton Campaign Benefits,” C. Mitchell Shaw focused on the charges that Google’s autocomplete function was being manipulated so that when users typed in “Hillary Clinton” and began to type in another search term, Google’s autocomplete would jump the gun and fill in with what it assumed they were going to type — which, inexplicably, overwhelmingly would direct the searcher to a benign or favorable Hillary story. As that famous sailor Popeye would say, “What a coinkydink!” And a very serendipitous coinkydink for Clinton! Here’s an example from Mitchell Shaw’s story:
• When a user types “Hillary Clinton cri” into the Google search bar, the autocomplete fills in suggestions for “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” “Hillary Clinton crisis,” and “Hillary Clinton crime bill 1994.” There are no suggestions for “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” or “Hillary Clinton crimes,” which are the top searches on Yahoo! and Bing.
• When a user types “Hillary Clinton ind” into Google, the autocomplete offers “Hillary Clinton Indiana,” “Hillary Clinton India,” "Hillary Clinton independent voters,” and "Hillary Clinton Indiana campaign.” Again, both Yahoo! and Bing give the user the most sought returns (and — considering recent events — what the user was most likely searching for) in a list of terms related to Clinton’s possible indictment for sending and receiving classified information over her unsecured, private e-mail server.
The June controversy over Google was launched by a YouTube video produced by SourceFed entitled, “Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary?” Google/Clinton defenders came forth with techie arguments, claiming that the apparent bias is simply a figment of the wild imaginations of Trump troglodytes who have no grasp of the complexities of search engine algorithms. What’s more, said the Google/Clinton cheering section, Google would never stoop to such tawdry tactics that would destroy its credibility.
It’s the same this time around. Here’s Philip Bump at the Washington Post doing damage control for Google/Clinton: “Google's algorithm powering its autofill is sensitive to a lot of context, including the user and the time period and the emergence of new concepts.” Yep, it's all about "context" and "new concepts." What’s more, claims Bump, it “doesn't really make sense” that Google would game the election. “Stepping back from politics, it's not clear what Google's motive for suppressing autofill responses would be,” the Post critic says. “If you go to Google and search for ‘hillary clinton cri,’ what are you expecting to see? … What good does it do Google? Why damage the company's reputation solely to make it sort of harder to find negative things about Hillary Clinton? It doesn't really make sense.”
Hmmm. No “motive”? It “doesn’t really make sense” that Google would rig the game? Is Bump suggesting that Google is more honorable and high-minded than his own employer, the Post, which competes with the New York Times (and the rest of the globalist media cartel) for the most daily anti-Trump/pro-Clinton stories? Is Bump totally unaware of Google bigwig billionaire Eric Schmidt’s role in the Clinton campaign? Or Schmidt’s role in the Obama campaigns before that? Or Google Ideas/Jigsaw exec Jared Cohen’s role in the Obama-Clinton State Department Middle East fiascos? Or the millions of dollars showered on left-wing Democrat candidates by Google execs and employees? Or that 98 percent of political contributions by Google employees (in 2005) went to Democrats? Or the political correctness censorship enforced by Google’s search algorithms?
For more on these issues, see below, but first let’s look at the current controversy opened up by Donald Trump’s September 28 charge of Google bias. It’s not difficult to verify Trump’s accusation; in fact, it’s stupendously simple. No doubt tens of millions of Americans have already run this simple test, but perhaps without consciously taking note of the obvious. Here’s how to run the test: Simply type “Hillary Clinton” into your Google search window. Then open another tab in your browser and Google “Donald Trump.” That’s all; we won’t cloud the issue by adding “cri,” “ind,” “soc,” or any of the other search terms that the pro-Trump or pro-Clinton/pro-Google forces are arguing about. Just “Donald Trump” and “Hillary Clinton.”
We’ve done this several times a day over the past 10 days and the results have always been the same: outrageously lopsided in favor of Clinton, flattering Hillary stories and photos vs. scathing stories and decidedly unflattering images for Trump. Not only that, but the Clinton searches put various of Hillary’s many official websites at the top or near the top of the search chain vs. the Trump searches, which rarely put the Donald’s official sites at the top.
What follow are some typical examples. Here is what Google turned up for the top offerings for “Donald Trump” on October 3 at 12:58 P.M. PDT (See screengrab below):
“Donald Trump: Terroristic Man-Toddler” — New York Times
“Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, the Times Found” — New York Times
“How Donald Trump Turned the Tax Code Into a Giant Tax Shelter” — New York Times
“Trump” — www.trump.com
“Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)” — Twitter
At the same time, here’s what Google was dishing up for a “Hillary Clinton” search. (See screengrab below):
“Join the Official Campaign — We Are Stronger Together” — www.hillaryclinton.com/go
“Al Gore to hit the trail for Hillary Clinton” — CNN
“Parkinson’s? Hillary’s head shakes during Harrisburg press conference” — the American Mirror
“Hillary Clinton is WAY overcompensating for Tim Kaine’s poor debate performance” — the Washington Post
“Hillary Clinton 2016 Hillary for America” — www.hillaryclinton.com/go
On October 6, our “Hillary Clinton” Google search yielded these top results:
“Official Campaign Website — Join the Official Campaign” — www.hillaryclinton.com/go
“Latest Hilary Clinton News — Holding My Nose and Voting” — www.baptistnews.com
“Michael Reagan: Nancy Would Vote for Hillary Clinton” — CNN
“The Election’s Over — Hillary Clinton Won” MarketWatch
“Times Recommends: Hillary Clinton for President” — TampaBay.com
At the same time (October 6, 7:45 A.M. PDT), Google offered these top hits for “Donald Trump”:
“Donald Trump’s Slip in Polls Has G.O.P. Worried About Congress” — New York Times
“More than 30 former GOP members of Congress oppose Donald Trump, call his candidacy ‘disgraceful’” — Los Angeles Times
“Today in 2016: How Howard Stern Dominated Donald Trump” — Digg
“Congratulations Governor Pence” — Donald J. Trump for President
“Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)” — Twitter
Google’s Pictures Worth Millions of Words — for Hillary
The examples we cite above show only the top five entries on the search returns, but the obvious pro-Clinton/anti-Trump bias continues not only down the page but page after page after page. Try it yourself and see. You’ll get reams of stories on all things Trump — as long as they’re negative. On Hillary, well, Google will make you work to find stories on her many serious scandals: Benghazigate, emailgate, Fast&Furiousgate, Clinton Foundationgate, amnestygate, UraniumOnegate, WallStreetCashgate, GoldmanSachsgate, etc.
But here’s even more dramatic, easily accessible proof of how Google is rigging the game. When one does the basic “Hillary Clinton” and “Donald Trump” searches, one of the things that pops up on the top right-hand of the screen is a collection of several images. The Clinton collection has six photos, all of which would be considered, by most people, to be highly flattering. Trump, on the other hand, has five photos, only two of which might be considered flattering, and three that could be considered unflattering — 100-percent flattering vs. 40-percent flattering (and 60-percent unflattering) has to be considered blatantly biased, even under Common Core ObamaMath. (See also here.)
But that doesn’t begin to tell the real story; it gets far worse if you click on the “more images” link. For Hillary, that click opens up a whole page of glamorous pics displaying her in near-Hollywood glory. Take a look at the top 31 images of Clinton in that Google feature from our screengrab below, taken on October 7 at 7:55 A.M. PDT. All 31 photos (100 percent — surprise!) look like they could have been selected by the “Hillary for America” campaign. All are very flattering images of Hillary in various poses and moods: serious, pensive, smiling, laughing, speaking — looking, in a word, “presidential” (or mostly so). And if one scrolls down the next group of 30+ images, it’s more of the same. Ditto for the next group after that. One doesn’t find any of the well-known photos of Hillary looking haggard, peeved, manic, goofy, furious, vindictive, etc. In fact, one scrolls through hundreds of photos before finding any that would be considered negative, and only a very few that are obviously photo-shopped to pillory Hillary. But there’s still more: Atop all of those positive images, running across the top of the page, are six images with thumbnail photos that lead to other categories of Clinton pics: “Young Hillary & Bill,” “2016,” “Pantsuit,” “Young Hillary & Bill” again, “2015,” and “Logo.” And guess what? They’re all remarkably, overwhelmingly positive as well.
Now, what does one get when clicking on “more images” for Trump? About what one would expect, if familiar with Google’s political bias: 12-15 of the top 31(roughly half) images are unflattering/negative (see the October 7 screengrab below). And it goes rapidly south from there, as one goes down the page. What about the six thumbnail image categories running across the top of the page? For Donald those are: “Family,” “Hair,” “House,” “President,” “Younger Years,” “Cars.” It turns out the pictures chosen for those features are larded to the negative side as well. You can imagine (or, better yet, see for yourself) the negatives Google has produced with Trump and “hair.” There are oodles of real as well as photo-shopped spoofs making fun of Trump’s hairstyle. Now, you know without question that if Google had an image category for Hillary and “hair” (or any other physical attribute on which she is vulnerable to satire) that featured scornful images, we’d be hearing banshee screeches from the media PC police that this is viciously sexist and “anti-woman.”
Second "Debate" Charade: Pre-set Anti-Trump Saturation
In the 48 hours before the October 9 presidential debate, two major “leak” events occurred: the Trump sex-talk tape and the latest WikiLeaks batch of Clinton e-mails. The former featured lewd, crude, disgusting remarks by Trump from more than a decade ago. The latter featured remarks, speeches, and e-mails by Clinton confirming her dishonesty, duplicity, corruption, greed, hypocrisy, and her disregard of national security, particularly in her commitment to “open borders” and a European Union-style system of hemispheric governance. Of course, we know which leak the controlled media (including Google) obsessed over and which one they ignored for two days leading into the “debate.”
It has been more of the same following the debate; saturation of “Donald Trump” search returns with page after page of links to articles hyperventilating over his sex talk, but one has to drill down several pages on “Hillary Clinton” searches to get any returns about her extremely damaging WikiLeaks e-mails.
Google: “Don’t Be Evil”? “Do the Right Thing”?
But let’s return to motive, which seems to stump Bump of the Washington Post. It’s really not that difficult, Mr. Bump: The folks running the mega-corp known as Google want the same thing as your bosses at the Post; to continue the same path toward centralizing all power in an omnipotent federal government, as an essential step on the road to centralizing all power in an omnipotent world government. Google billionaire Eric Schmidt is a key official advisor to President Obama on economic, technological, and defense matters. Schmidt is not only a member of the world government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — which Hillary said, while secretary of state, told her what to think and what to do — but also a member of the ultra-secretive and conspiratorial Bilderberg Group. As we reported this past June, the 2016 Bilderberg Group meeting in Dresden, Germany, was clearly aimed at stopping Trump and electing Clinton. Schmidt was one of several key Clinton boosters among the would-be world rulers at that assembly. We noted of him:
Eric Schmidt — The former chairman of Google and current chairman of its new parent company, Alphabet, Inc., Schmidt (CFR) is ranked by Forbes as the 100th richest person in the world. However, far more important than his personal direct cash contrbutions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign are the assistance he has provided through his stealth organization, The Groundwork, and the pro-Hillary bias allegedly built into Google search operations for which he is now being roundly criticized.
Then, of course, there is Jared Cohen, who worked closely with Clinton at the State Department to destabilize Egypt, Libya, and the entire Middle East, before moving on to become a senior adjunct fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and CEO of Google Ideas/Jigsaw. However, even after leaving State for the private sector, Cohen has continued to advise Clinton and to assist her campaign, as WikiLeaks e-mails confirm. The leaked e-mails show Cohen coordinating pro-Clinton efforts with Lisa Shields, the head of communications at the CFR and the girlfriend of Google/Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt.
Google’s famous motto, “Don’t Be Evil,” has been reduced to shameless rubble by many of the company’s actions over the years, but the blatant pro-Clinton/anti-Trump bias in their search engine and their repeated denial of (lying about) what is patently obvious should qualify as evil in any reasonable, moral person’s book.
“Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains," Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page said in a letter to shareholders at their 2004 IPO. "Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating.… We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.”
Google’s new parent company, Alphabet, Inc., has a new motto: “Do the right thing.” Evidently, both mottos are purely for show.