Media Research Center Finds Google Engaged In Election Interference
By Neland Nobel
New research from the Media Research Center has found that tech giant Google is decidedly biased in its reporting and has engaged in election interference for years.
Election interference can occur directly or in this case indirectly, by denying or twisting information for voters thereby making it difficult to make an informed choice.
This has become all the more problematic in that tech giants receive huge contracts from the Federal Government. These companies become sensitive to the needs of clients, that is to say, the government. Crony capitalism has created almost an equivalent to state owned media. In a sense, it may be more sinister because the appearance is that of a free market.
They also benefit by regulatory and anti-trust treatment.
The mainstream media has engaged in biased selection of stories for years, and is now generally recognized as unreliable. Only about a third of Americans believe mainstream broadcast and print media can be trusted to provide objective information and balanced opinions. Mainstream media even ranks below Congress in terms of public esteem. It appears digital media giants may not be far behind in this decline in public confidence.
While such bias has long been suspected as it concerns digital media, this is one of the first full blown reports on the subject. Below is from the Executive Summary from Media Research Center.
MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates–regardless of party–who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice.
From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its “great strength and resources and reach” to advance its leftist values.
Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections. The most recent example was recorded after Google artificial intelligence Gemini (formerly Bard) refused to answer questions damaging to Biden.
MRC Free Speech America research shows that throughout a 16-year period (from 2008 through February 2024), carefully crafted studies and numerous reports have consistently demonstrated the tech behemoth’s election meddling.
Media Research also believes such meddling has tangibly shifted votes and therefore, affected election outcomes. The study found that they estimate the number of votes “shifted” from 2.6 million in 2016 to at least 6 million in 2020, an increase of 140 percent during just that four year period. If true, this easily made the difference in closely contested elections.
Readers are encouraged to read the full report and draw their own conclusions. Click here for access to the complete report.
Standard political theory sees a free press as a bulwark against governmental abuse. However, when the Fourth Estate gets huge revenue from government, and when the Fourth Estate hires scores of former police and intelligence officials as employees, the supposed benefit of a “free press” is substantially diminished.
When government contracts are a substantial source of profits, do the social media companies serve the truth and the interests of the public, are do they serve their paymasters?
Conservatives and Libertarian, who generally are all for free enterprise, and also generally against antitrust laws, are philosophically challenged by the union of private companies with the government in a “semi fascist corporate state”.
Free market advocates typically say that a true monopoly cannot exist without government support. We agree. What is the threshold in sources of profit to where “government support” of a tech company is achieved?
That said, the first step has been taken to establish the financial ties between social media companies and the government, and then active interference of these companies in our “democratic” process. Then Conservative and Libertarians have to grapple with Google, which clearly operates as a monopoly.
We at The Prickly Pear, have experienced first hand Google’s total capture of YouTube. If we select a video that they do not approve of, it can’t be run. Word Press, a universally used program for electronic publishing, only is compatible with YouTube. If there is no choice, and no alternative for the public user of dominant programs, is that not a working definition of monopoly power?
Not surprisingly, Democrats who benefit from this cozy relationship, are the first to declare any suggestion our electoral system is rigged is a “threat to democracy.” Their general contempt for large corporations suddenly disappears. For them it seems, it is best to destroy “democracy” in order to save it.
Meanwhile Conservatives and Libertarians tie themselves in knots over economic theory while the Left runs over everything they hold dear.
We are not suggesting this is an easy question to answer. These companies are nominally privately held and we don’t want to turn the government loose on every corporation with dominant market share. Government agencies engage in election interference and corporations beholding to the government do the same things. How does one draw distinctions and formulate laws and policies?. If Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech is a guiding constitutional principle, what do we do when the suppression of our rights is farmed out to a private company?
This article is courtesy of ThePricklyPear.org, an online voice for citizen journalists to express the principles of limited government and personal liberty to the public, to policy makers, and to political activists. Please visit ThePricklyPear.org for more great content.
