RightMarch.com Claims Liberal Bias in Google Ad Rejection

By Kate Kaye, 05/03/2005 - 3:53pm

Could Google's ad screeners be biased? The world of search engine marketing is fraught with stories of Google rejecting ads submitted to its system for all sorts of reasons, including trademark-infringement. Now RightMarch.com claims that the stringent Google censors were politically partisan in rejecting a text ad that featured the same exact copy as one placed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

According to Bill Greene, President of RightMarch.com, the conservative organization thought it would be funny to replace the name of Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay with that of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in a parody of a DCCC Google ad that read, "The Truth about Tom DeLay, Learn about DeLay's many scandals and help us clean up the House!"

As part of its ongoing nationwide pro-DeLay "Expose Democrats' Hypocrisy" print and broadcast campaign, RightMarch placed the anti-Pelosi text ad last week, according to Greene. Although the RightMarch ad did not appear in Google search results for “Tom Delay” today, the DCCC ad, as well as a host of anti-Delay ads from other left-leaning groups, were viewed by this reporter on the search site until early-afternoon today.

“I see this as intrinsic liberal bias at Google,” explains Greene, referring to USA Today findings that 98 percent of the $207,650 Google employees gave federal candidates in the 2004 elections went to Democrats. “They overlooked all of the anti-DeLay ads that violate their stated policies, but didn't overlook our anti-Pelosi ad.”

Google says that both ads were shown on the site once originally submitted by the advertisers, but were taken down following human review. “Both ads were taken down,” asserts Google spokesman Michael Mayzel. “Any assertion to the contrary is false.” Apparently the the fact that the RightMarch ad copy was nearly identical to that of the DCCC ad had nothing to do with the rejection of the RightMarch ad.

Google says it bans defamatory ads that paint a person or organization as corrupt or scandalous. However, a cornucopia of anti-Delay ads resulted from a "Tom Delay" search on Google earlier today, including an ad from the Public Campaign Action Fund that declared plainly, "Tom DeLay Should Resign." Google ads placed by groups advocating against John Bolton's UN nomination have also been prevalent in recent weeks. For instance, a search for “John Bolton” today on Google prompts an ad for Diplomats Against Bolton which states, “Diplomats Oppose Bolton.”

While Google refuses to comment about specific advertisements, Mayzel comments, “We welcome political ads and apply our policies equally regardless of the views of the advertiser.” As noted on the RightMarch site, Google says it pulled the RightMarch ad because its “policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group or organization."

As stated in Google’s AdWords Content policy, “Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party or public administration is generally permissible. This standard applies to everyone who wants to advertise on Google, whether we agree with their viewpoint or not.”

Google has removed...

...Public Campaign Action Fund's ad, too.

This is the second time Google has bounced one of our ads. The first is when we called Tom DeLay "the most corrupt politician in America." I guess the truth is too much for even Google to handle.

The worrisome thing is, if Google really doesn't want to stop political advertising, as they claim, I'm not sure how they can apply their own standard to ads about political candidates or elected officials. Looking at this Congress, its hard NOT to violate a policy that rejects any ad that "advocates against an individual, group or organization." Politicians are people, too, right?

I understand an ad policy that tries to differentiate between slanderous or defamatory content and legitimate political dialogue. But to engage in politics is to disagree from time to time with someone, and Google shouldn't be shutting down ways for their search engine users to connect with the organizations or parties working on the very issues the searchers are interested in.

I don't know about a liberal bias. We've been rejected twice.

Marketing Vox picked it up

http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2005/05/04/google_accused_of_leftwing_bias/

Either Way, Advertisers Wanna Know

David, when did they remove your Delay ad? This could help indicate whether Google dumped the ads based on RightMarch's outcry and subsequent Web blather (and possibly calls from media folks like me), or the ads simply had filtered through their system and finally seen by humans who tossed them.

Either way, advertisers will most likely view this as an arbitrary application of their rules, which are vague on this point anyway. All advertisers, political and otherwise will have to have a clearer sense of what is and isn't acceptable. I agree that if they are too restrictive, they could drive away any remotely controversial advertiser.

It's only the beginning...

Kate's story was picked up by Mediapost last week. This morning, Mediapost's Shankar Gupta takes a closer look at Google's approval policies and how political campaigns can use them to their advantage. [Full disclosure: I purchase Google AdWords on behalf of clients and I'm also quoted in the article.]

Heres the article: Search Experts: Google Slow To Police AdWords

In the piece, Gupta notes that:

...[T]he controversy highlights the myriad of ways in which creative marketers can use Google to press a point, notwithstanding the search giant's editorial policies.

The main reason that political groups--and others--can take out search ads that technically violate Google's standards appears to be that Google doesn't fully enforce its rules until after ads appear. A Google spokesman said that AdWords first are automatically screened using an algorithm, and after passing the initial screening, the ads go live.

If a handful of candidates and organizations are using Google to generate media attention now, it's only a matter of time before this technique of Google sabotage – Googletage? – goes mainstream in 2006. And because text links are cheap and easy to set up and don't require disclaimers, it's likely going to get even nastier.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Technology and the Internet are changing democracy in America. Personal Democracy Forum is a hub for the exciting conversation underway between political professionals, technologists, and anyone else invigorated by the remarkable potential of technology to engage citizens in the democratic process.



Navigation

© 2008 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |
The layout, use of images, color, and other qualities.
How well is does the site carry the message of the candidate?
How the site discusses the issues and how it uses language.
How easy is it to get involved in the campaign?
How well does the site utitlize blogs, video, podcasts, discussion boards, and other technologies?
The ease of navigation and the quality of interactivtity.