Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously

from the this-is-not-the-bias-you-are-looking-for dept

In an article picked up by Drudge Report and then tweeted by President Donald Trump himself, PJ Media editor Paula Bolyard makes the shocking claim that Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President.

In supporting this allegation, she goes to Google and looks through the first hundred listings on the search engine results page. Therein, she finds that 96 percent of results for "Trump" are from liberal media outlets. Bolyard remarks:

I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets. Looking at the first page of search results, I discovered that CNN was the big winner, scoring two of the first ten results. Other left-leaning sites that appeared on the first page were CBS, The Atlantic, CNBC, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today

She adds that other than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, traditional right-leaning outlets didn't make the cut:

PJ Media did not appear in the first 100 results, nor did National Review, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Hot Air, Townhall, Red State, or any other conservative-leaning sites except the two listed above.

Aha! A big tech company caught red handed pushing its progressive agenda. Well...not so fast. Rather than uncovering compelling evidence of bias, this article's author and its promoters merely reveal their ignorance of how search engines work.

First, the author seems to conflate Google Search and Google News, two products which use different algorithms and serve different functions. Google News is a searchable news aggregator and app (with some overt editorial functions), whereas Google Search tries to give users the most useful and relevant information in response to a query.

In order to determine what constitutes a relevant and useful result, search engines use complex algorithms to rank the quality of different pages based on a variety of signals such as keywords, authoritativeness, freshness or site architecture. A big part of this quality determination is based on outside links to a site – an idea going back to Larry Page and Sergey Brin's work at Stanford in the late 1990s that culminated in the creation of the PageRank algorithm.

Page and Brin realized that incoming links to a site served as a proxy for quality markers like authoritativeness, trustworthiness and popularity. Today, Google Search is much more complex, utilizing complex machine-learning functions like RankBrain and an evolving set of algorithms with names like Hummingbird, Panda, Penguin and Pigeon. However, incoming links are still a key factor. Additionally, while Google uses manual quality raters to test new algorithm changes, they do not use them on live search results.

Google News' approach to ranking results is also driven by algorithms that use a number of the same signals (you can get an idea from their patent), with a couple exceptions where manual input is used for editorial features, major events, and cross-over results from Google Search for particular topics.

With this in mind, it should be no great surprise that outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post trounce outlets like PJ Media, National Review, and the Weekly Standard in organic search. The sites in the latter group don't have metrics that support them rising to the top of the search algorithm. Of course, PJ Media found Fox and WSJ weren't affected by this "bias" because their numbers are actually comparable to the former group of "left-wing" outlets (see below).

(Data from

This approach to ranking quality isn't just a Google thing. If you look at competitors like DuckDuckGo or Bing (which PJ Media didn't seem to bother doing), you're going to see pretty similar results. Maybe this says something about the media landscape. But it's not a good reason to storm Mountain View with pitchforks.

PJ Media's conspiracy-mongering is based on an avoidable misunderstanding that could throw gasoline on the techlash and lead to policies that chill American innovation (although at least for now, conservatives still think a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet is a dumb idea).

It's worth saying that libertarians and conservatives aren't totally unreasonable in wanting to investigate whether they're getting fair treatment by tech companies. After all, Silicon Valley is a very liberal place that doesn't always reflect their norms or values (I also say this as someone with generally right-leaning views who has worked for organizations like the Cato Institute and R Street). That being said, if you're going to make an allegation that there's a big conspiracy, you should do your due diligence. This means taking time to understand the underlying technology before jumping to conclusions.

On Google's part, given all of the tensions around bias lately, they would probably be wise to be more transparent about how their news algorithm works and do more proactive outreach to avoid future misunderstandings.

Zach Graves is Head of Policy for Lincoln Network

Filed Under: algorithms, bias, content moderation, donald trump, free speech, google news, journalism, news, search
Companies: google

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    NoahVail (profile), 28 Aug 2018 @ 1:20pm

    My conservative perspective

    Twenty years ago, my complaints about left-leaning media bias were pretty similar to today's vocal Right. However 20 years is a lot of think-time and my position has moderated.

    There's lots of reasons why. Seeing compulsive Bush hatred adopted by conservatives and reworked into compulsive Obama hatred is one. RW media is another. From my perspective, that was just an arms-race response to LW bias. It expanded & amplified what was wrong with media in the first place. I struggle to find value in it.

    I still think there's widespread bias and I still think it trends left. However, I see where media outlets are a lot more self aware about bias than they used to be. There's also been a lot of attempts to by MSM to counter bias in it's ranks. Sometimes been really good (NPR coverage of 2008 elections), sometimes it's poorly thought-out and just reorders existing crappiness.

    In the end, I'm no longer clear that bias is a problem in and of itself. At a minimum, it's not a top priority. What I am clear about is that attacking bias ignores the media's overpowering problem - which is systemic incompetence and skewed priorities.

    I fully believe bad behavior within the Trump administration should be fully investigated & reported. Revealing it is the whole point of why extra-constitutional protections are afforded to the press.

    However, I also strongly believe the same vigor that is being used to seek out and expose wrong doing in this administration was largely abdicated during the last administration.

    That doesn't mean Obama was as morally bankrupt as Trump. The point is it doesn't matter how morally bankrupt Obama was. The press had a clear duty to it's constitutional protections to be an adversary to government and aggressively seek out & report bad government behavior. Too often, damning stories are handed to news outlets and they still have to be bullied into being interested (ie: Snowden revelations).

    Fast forward to today. Have I seen clear indicators that Google news is trending left-leaning stories & downplaying right? Sure. I think that aligns with the number and tone of stories that are published. For the record, I've seen right-leaning stories also trend on Google news, admittedly not as often.

    But the problem there isn't a bias problem, it's a lazy journalism problem. It's a problem that the vast majority of US news outlets all lead with the same 7 stories, often just copying and pasting each other content. It's a problem when news orgs only bring a tiny fraction of new stories to the table that they could be. It's a problems that fluff stories about sports and celebrities is believed to be of equal valuable to the public as is exposing malfeasance by the powerful.

    It's a problem that the press doesn't weigh each story against it's duty to honor it's extra constitutional protections.

    You want less bias? I do and I believe when press is doing their actual damn job (w/o taking 8 year hiatuses) they'd be a lot less likely to let natural human biases continually tilt their content.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.