Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s team seems to be pressuring the media from the inside, as questions about both her health, and her relationship with the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State dog the campaign.
First, Dr. Drew Pinsky was given a suspiciously timed pink slip from HLN after discussing his concerns about Hillary’s overall health (though the network says his show was cancelled because of poor ratings), then Huffington Post terminated contributor David Seaman’s contract after he questioned Clinton’s health in a series of articles.
Now, it seems even Google is under Clinton’s spell. Eric Schmidt, the head of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has been involved with the campaign for a while, directing a startup that helps Clinton with data analytics. Julian Assange claims that Google itself has been working with Clinton’s campaign, and a few high-level Google employees appear in Wikileaks’ Clinton emails.
Now, when it comes to searches about the Clinton Foundation, especially, Google delivers markedly different search results from Bing.com and other search engines. For instance, look at the difference between the two search engines when you google “Media Coverage of the Clinton Foundation,” discovered by the Observer.
Searches for “Clinton Foundation” turn up the same sort of differences.
Google:
Note the attack on the Associated Press placed high up in Google’s search results; the Associated Press has done the lion’s share of research on Clinton’s bizarre relationship with her foundation’s donors, and the exchange of influence between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
Bing:
The Bing search is overwhelmingly negative for Clinton — and as for that AP story, the Google search couldn’t be worse for the Associated Press.
This isn’t the first time Clinton’s Google search results have been mysteriously curated. Back in June, SourceFed noticed that Google’s “auto-fill” function was making interesting choices for users who searched for “Hillary Clinton crimes.”
Vox claimed to refute SourceFed’s discovery, claiming that Google almost never selects the word “crimes” when searching for information about a public figure – even if that figure is best known for committing crimes. But concerns about Hillary’s relationship with Google, and how it was changing the information users could find on the search engine persisted.
Now, if you type in the beginnings of “Hillary Clinton health,” for example, you get this:
Type it in on Bing and you get this:
Yahoo delivers similar results to Bing.
The search engine disparities could be a function of each individual site’s search algorithm, but given that the apparent manipulation keeps happening, it’s harder and harder to explain the events away as coincidences.
