Speaker 1: There is shocking new evidence that Google has interfered with
Speaker 1: our elections, in fact, at least forty one times over
Speaker 1: the last sixteen years. That's what the Media Research Center
Speaker 1: is now saying in a new report that totally exposes
Speaker 1: the bias and influence that Google has over our elections,
Speaker 1: with new accusations that they actually could be changing the
Speaker 1: number of votes by millions, tilting the scales for the
Speaker 1: candidates that they choose. Now, we've known for a long
Speaker 1: time that Google has been biased, we had no idea
Speaker 1: just how bias it was until we found out that
Speaker 1: Google picked winners and losers with major elections in the
Speaker 1: United States of America forty one times over the last
Speaker 1: sixteen years. No organization has more control over information than Google.
Speaker 1: That is a fact Google. We now are there being
Speaker 1: accused of interfering with major elections in the US over
Speaker 1: forty one times. The MRC research found forty one times
Speaker 1: quote where Google interfer in elections over the last sixteen years,
Speaker 1: and its impact has surged dramatically maken even more harmful
Speaker 1: to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates, regardless
Speaker 1: of party, who threatened its left wing candidate of choice.
Speaker 1: That is what the MRC Free Speech America Vice President
Speaker 1: dam Schneider and editor wrote in a summary of their findings,
Speaker 1: quote from the mauls of Google executives, the tech giant
Speaker 1: let slip what was never meant to be made public.
Speaker 1: That Google uses its great strength and resources and reach
Speaker 1: to advance its leftist values. Google outsized influence on information
Speaker 1: technology the body of the politics and the American election
Speaker 1: became evident in two thousand and eight, after failing to
Speaker 1: prevent ken for President Donald Trump from being inaugurated. Following
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election, Google has sense made it clear
Speaker 1: to any discerning observer that it has been and will
Speaker 1: continue to interfere in America's elections. Google pushing back this morning,
Speaker 1: insisting that it has a clear business incentive to keep
Speaker 1: both sides happy and that safeguards ensure non biased and
Speaker 1: accurate research results well. MRC Free Speech America division of
Speaker 1: the Conservative Media Research Center believes the most recent example
Speaker 1: was recorded after Google's artificial intelligence Jemini, refused to answer
Speaker 1: questions damaging to President Joe Biden. The group's research found
Speaker 1: that from two thousand and eight through February of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, Google has utilized its power to help push
Speaker 1: for electoral victory the most liberal candidates, regardless of party,
Speaker 1: while targeting their opponents for censorship. Examples, which is what
Speaker 1: matters to all of us the most include appearing to
Speaker 1: favor Barack Obama over John McKennon in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: favoring Obama over Mit Romney in twenty twelve, refusing to
Speaker 1: correct a Google bomb that smeared then leading GOP primary
Speaker 1: candidate for president Rix Antorum, using its algorithm to exclude
Speaker 1: auto fill results that were potentially damaging to Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, not doing the same for then candidate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, and working with partners to
Speaker 1: help likely pro Clinton Latino voters go to the polls
Speaker 1: the same year. This according to the New Bombshell Research.
Speaker 1: Other examples cited include disabling Tulsi Gabbard's ad account just
Speaker 1: a just as she became the most searched candidate following
Speaker 1: the first Democratic primary debate in twenty twenty, suppressing new
Speaker 1: news critical of Joe Biden, for example, and concealing most
Speaker 1: Republican campaign websites for the twelve competitive Senate races in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. Let me say that again. They suppressed
Speaker 1: news this is Google news that was critical of Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: At the same time they were concealing most Republican campaign
Speaker 1: websites for the twelve most competitive Senate races in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. Okay, that's very significant, and aiding Biden in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. They're now accusing them of by burying
Speaker 1: in its search results the campaign websites of every one
Speaker 1: of his significant opponents. And that's what's happening right now
Speaker 1: in real time the case study. He cites several other
Speaker 1: examples as well of where Google is tipping the scales,
Speaker 1: saying quote, utilizing the many tools in its arsenal, Google
Speaker 1: aided those who most closely aligned with its leftist values
Speaker 1: from election cycle to election cycle sentence as far back
Speaker 1: as the two thousand and eight presidential election. Meanwhile, it
Speaker 1: targeted for censorship those candidates who posed the most serious
Speaker 1: threat to Google. While its interference was first evident in
Speaker 1: twenty two thousand and eight, its meddling is turned into
Speaker 1: an organizational mission to ensure that it's candidates win on
Speaker 1: election day. Many studies reveal the results of the tech giants' commitment.
Speaker 1: They also cited doctor Robert Epstein, who performed additional research
Speaker 1: and found that Google's search algorithms likely shifted at least
Speaker 1: two point six million votes to Hillary Clinton twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: and that Google's results and get out the Vote reminders
Speaker 1: favored Democrats in targeting of them and shifted the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election results by at least six million votes. They believe.
Speaker 1: So it's not just that they're stifling information that's positive
Speaker 1: for conservative candidates and harmful maybe to Democrats. It's the
Speaker 1: fact that when they're out there in their algorithm, they
Speaker 1: look at who they're marketing to to get out the vote.
Speaker 1: So Google is reminding liberal voters those that are more
Speaker 1: likely to vote for Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: or Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get out the vote. Hey,
Speaker 1: reminding you got to vote, reminding you to register to vote,
Speaker 1: reminding you to register to vote and get out to vote,
Speaker 1: and remind you to election tomorrow. They were reminding Democrats,
Speaker 1: not Republicans, on purpose. They believe the power because almost
Speaker 1: every American that's on the Internet uses Google. I use
Speaker 1: it every day. I think you probably most of you
Speaker 1: listening right now. I use it every day. They would
Speaker 1: have the ability to then remind those voters who are Democrats.
Speaker 1: They have all your data, They know who you are,
Speaker 1: they know who you voted for, they know if you
Speaker 1: vote in the last elections, and they know if you're
Speaker 1: registered to vote. They would then market to you and
Speaker 1: remind you to go vote, knowing that you're going to
Speaker 1: vote Democrat over Republicans. This new research says that they
Speaker 1: shifted the twenty twenty election results by at least six
Speaker 1: million votes. Google is coming out this morning and Google
Speaker 1: spokesman is denying quote any wrongdoing, which is exactly what
Speaker 1: you would expect from them. By the way, quote, there
Speaker 1: is absolutely nothing new here. Google says a new statement
Speaker 1: just to recycle list of baseless, inaccurate compt complaints that
Speaker 1: have been debunked by third parties and many that failed
Speaker 1: in the courts. Politicians on the left have a long
Speaker 1: history of making similar claims too. We have a clear
Speaker 1: business incentive to keep everyone using our products. By the way,
Speaker 1: that's not true. I'll explain that in a moment. Google
Speaker 1: goes on to say we have no desire to make
Speaker 1: them by or inaccurate and have safeguards in place to
Speaker 1: ensure this. Numerous conservatives have been particularly successful in using
Speaker 1: our platform to spread their message to a wide audience.
Speaker 1: Google has said it restricted the types of election related
Speaker 1: queries on Gemini out of an abundance of caution. That's
Speaker 1: their AI basically mothership, directing users to Google Search instead.
Speaker 1: As for Tulsea Gabbard's ads, Google's pointed to a federal
Speaker 1: judge just missing a lawsuit she filed against the company
Speaker 1: on the matter, saying see nothing to see here. The
Speaker 1: Conservative WATCHSDAW group deels that this is an important issue
Speaker 1: that actually should be going to Congress, saying that free
Speaker 1: speech Americans offered three recommendations of what should happen. They say,
Speaker 1: Number one, Speaker Mike Johnsons should direct relevant committees and
Speaker 1: committee chairmen to investigate Google for basically attacking and abridging
Speaker 1: the people's constitutional rights in this country by coordinating with
Speaker 1: government to violate freedom of speech, as well as interfering
Speaker 1: in elections by making unreported in kind contributions to the
Speaker 1: Democratic candidates, and for defrauding its users by failing to
Speaker 1: meet its terms of service. The group also feels state
Speaker 1: legislators should legislatures should resolve any questions of whether Google
Speaker 1: is a common carrier and urge Americans to stop using
Speaker 1: Google products, particularly its search engine, saying this from our research,
Speaker 1: alternatives appear to be better to produce better, less bias results.
Speaker 1: This is significant, folks, and Google, of course coming out,
Speaker 1: we're going to deny it. Side note here if you
Speaker 1: try to Google the story, it comes down halfway through
Speaker 1: the page, not at the top. Just thought i'd throw
Speaker 1: that in there. Yeah, so you can decide for yourself
Speaker 1: if you think they're suppressing information. I think it's pretty
Speaker 1: clear that they are. Media Research Center has found forty
Speaker 1: one different They say we're Google directly interfered in elections
Speaker 1: and it had a major impact and surged dramatically of
Speaker 1: the side they wanted to win. In every case, Google
Speaker 1: harmed the candidates that they wanted to harm, regardless of party.
Speaker 1: Those who threatened it's left leaning and left wing candidates
Speaker 1: of choice. That is a new accusation by the Media
Speaker 1: Research Center. Free Speech America Vice President Dan Snyder is
Speaker 1: now going to join me to talk about this exact detail. Dan,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you coming on, and Google is something that
Speaker 1: we know is powerful for the left. We know that
Speaker 1: they have an ally, we know that they have suppressed
Speaker 1: just basic search engine issues, but this is the first
Speaker 1: time that we're actually seeing what Google is doing directly
Speaker 1: to interfere with our elections. Tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: more about the background in this and how you guys,
Speaker 1: we're able to find all this out.
Speaker 2: Well. Look, Google has been actively involved in elections for
Speaker 2: a long time, and on a legal basis, their president, CEO,
Speaker 2: Chamber of the Board endorsed Democrats for office all the time.
Speaker 2: Its employees have largely given exclusively to the left ninety
Speaker 2: plus percent of the time. Under federal election campaign disclosure requirements,
Speaker 2: you can see Google statements have been all left wing.
Speaker 2: But what we have not been able to see is
Speaker 2: what they're doing with their one point seven trillion dollar
Speaker 2: corporation behind the scenes. You can't look into their little
Speaker 2: black box of algorithms and see exactly how they're working.
Speaker 2: But we've been able to piece together lots of different
Speaker 2: things and see the consequences of their work, and time
Speaker 2: and time again, the evidence shows that if you are
Speaker 2: an opponent of their candidate of choice, Google's going to
Speaker 2: bury you.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about how they pick winners and losers here.
Speaker 1: And when you say they're going to bury us, give
Speaker 1: us examples of what that actually looks like. You're running
Speaker 1: for office, Google doesn't like you, You're not their candidate
Speaker 1: of choice. How much impact can they actually have over
Speaker 1: your campaign?
Speaker 2: Well, look, in the twenty twenty two Senate races, there
Speaker 2: were about a dozen Senate races that were being hotly contested,
Speaker 2: and we did a study, and we did this repeatedly.
Speaker 2: We would search for, you know, the campaign websites. We
Speaker 2: would simply search for, you know, like Adam Laxalt, you know,
Speaker 2: Senate campaign in Nevada, and Google would not give you
Speaker 2: his campaign website. But Google would certainly, you know, turn
Speaker 2: over the website of his opponent when you did the
Speaker 2: same search for her, and over and over again, ten
Speaker 2: out of the twelve Republican Senate campaign websites would be
Speaker 2: buried by Google, either not showing up at all all,
Speaker 2: were showing up way low in search results. But a
Speaker 2: majority of the time, literally Google would not produce the
Speaker 2: campaign website for the Republican seeking the Senate seat in
Speaker 2: that in that race. More recently, before each of the
Speaker 2: four Republican presidential campaign debates, We did two searches. We
Speaker 2: searched for Democrat presidential campaign websites and we then searched
Speaker 2: for Republican presidential campaign websites. And look, we expected to
Speaker 2: see Joe Biden at the top of the list when
Speaker 2: we search for Democrat presidential campaign websites, and he was
Speaker 2: every single time, Joe Biden was at the top. But
Speaker 2: guess what, our FK Junior didn't show up at all.
Speaker 2: Google buried RFK Junior's campaign website, the single greatest threat
Speaker 2: that Joe Biden winning the nomination. They buried a site.
Speaker 1: But here I want to be clear, though, it's not
Speaker 1: what you're saying. Is it's not that Google is just
Speaker 1: out to get conservatives or Republican candidates that they don't like.
Speaker 1: It is if you're not the candidate they choose, even
Speaker 1: in the Democratic primary, if they decide, hey, we like
Speaker 1: this person more because they're going to be better for us.
Speaker 1: We're going to help you win even in the Democratic
Speaker 1: races over other Democrats.
Speaker 2: That's right, Tulca Gabbard RFK Junior most recently, but even
Speaker 2: going back to two thousand and eight, when the young
Speaker 2: Senator Barack Obama was challenging Hillary Clinton. Google was bearing
Speaker 2: pro Clinton blogs and highlighting pro Obama blogs. Wow, but here,
Speaker 2: let me get to this. But here's the most shocking
Speaker 2: example here. When we search for Republican presidential campaign websites, well,
Speaker 2: just like we saw Joe Biden at the top of
Speaker 2: the heap, we would have expected to see Donald Trump
Speaker 2: at the top of the heap. But not only was
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's campaign websit not produced at all by Google.
Speaker 2: It only produced two campaign webs And this is every
Speaker 2: single time we did this study. The first one was
Speaker 2: Mary Ann Williamson, a Democrat, again searching for Republican presidential
Speaker 2: campaign websites. One of the only two campaign websites that
Speaker 2: Google would give us Marian Williamson's campaign website, and the
Speaker 2: other was Will Hurd, who was scoring zero in the
Speaker 2: nationwide polling. But Google would not give us Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: the ak Ramaswami, Ron De Santis, Nikki Haley, anybody else,
Speaker 2: any Republican, just one Democrat and one Republicans pulling at
Speaker 2: zero percent.
Speaker 1: You and I both know that in politics, and my
Speaker 1: guests from me is Dan Schneider Media Research Center. They
Speaker 1: do an amazing work to expose what we're talking about
Speaker 1: right now, you should check them out, help them, support them,
Speaker 1: because they're doing amazing work and without you, guys, they
Speaker 1: cannot get it done. So I want to make that
Speaker 1: very clear. But you talk about these moments in politics
Speaker 1: where I can, it would surge.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Toulsi Gabbard is a great example. In the Democratic primary
Speaker 1: when she was running for president, she had a moment.
Speaker 1: And what happens after a candidate has a moment is
Speaker 1: people immediately go to Google to find out more about
Speaker 1: the person or to even you know, get involved in
Speaker 1: their campaign. Talk a little bit about what they did
Speaker 1: to influence and suppress her. For example, when she was
Speaker 1: running as a Democrat.
Speaker 2: Right, so, she did an amazing job in a debate,
Speaker 2: and the whole world suddenly was looking at Tulsi Gabbard
Speaker 2: as an alternative to Joe Biden, and right as she
Speaker 2: was searching, right as everybody was interested in her, Google burieder.
Speaker 2: They eliminated her ads. Right when you would need to
Speaker 2: be able to you know, when her campaign needed to
Speaker 2: tell everybody who she is and also to raise money,
Speaker 2: Google eliminated her from search results.
Speaker 1: What was the reasoning behind that that Google gave for
Speaker 1: shutting down her ad accounts, so she could not advertise
Speaker 1: when she had that moment to people that maybe were
Speaker 1: searching for her.
Speaker 2: You know, Google seems always to have these glitches, and
Speaker 2: Google say, well, there was just a glitch. There was
Speaker 2: a glitch when Hillary Clinton's in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 2: when Hillary Clinton's you know blogs pro Clinton blogs were
Speaker 2: suddenly buried, and there was just some kind of a
Speaker 2: glitch with Tulsi Gabbard, And there's just there's always a glitch.
Speaker 2: And sometimes they don't have any responses at all. By
Speaker 2: the way, in this most recent study of ours, Google
Speaker 2: has said that every one of our forty one examples
Speaker 2: has been refuted. That is just a lie. You know.
Speaker 2: For example, the the I just told you about the
Speaker 2: presidential campaign searches that we did where Donald Trump is
Speaker 2: completely buried over and over and over. Google has never
Speaker 2: refuted that. Nobody has ever suggested what we reported was wrong.
Speaker 2: So Google just makes up stuff? Response, was it all? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Google pushback saying, quote, we have a a clear quote
Speaker 1: business incentive to keep both sides happy, and that safeguards
Speaker 1: ensure non bias and accurate search results. That's a great
Speaker 1: line written by a PR person at Google, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't back up with the facts. Is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: Those are words. Those are mere words. I can say
Speaker 2: the sky is green. It doesn't make it so Google
Speaker 2: can say anything at once. It didn't point to any evidence,
Speaker 2: you know, to support the words that it spewed out
Speaker 2: of its mouth.
Speaker 1: Establishment Republicans have also not fared well when they are
Speaker 1: the nominee. An example of this is it was obvious
Speaker 1: that Google was favoring Barack Obama over John McCain in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, more the establishment candidate. It even
Speaker 1: screwed with Mitt Romney in twenty twelve, refusing to correct
Speaker 1: a Google bomb that smeared the then leading GOP primary
Speaker 1: candidate for president, for example, Rick Santorum, with using its
Speaker 1: algorithm to exclude auto results that were potentially damaging to
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Explain that as well, these auto field results
Speaker 1: and the other things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so let me just remind everybody Rix Santorum was
Speaker 2: actually leading among all Republicans in that in that primary,
Speaker 2: and just as he was surging, there was a thing,
Speaker 2: you know, it is a popular thing back then, these
Speaker 2: Google bombs where people would kind of create false websites
Speaker 2: and and redefine a person or an issue, and these
Speaker 2: Google bombs were created that said the most heinous, abhorrent
Speaker 2: things about Rix Sntorum. Now, Google had a policy anytime
Speaker 2: that some organization or some person got bombed, Google would
Speaker 2: take down those sites, you know, because it was it
Speaker 2: was misinformation, it was false, it was they were lies.
Speaker 2: When it came to Rick Santorum, Google refused to take
Speaker 2: down those Google bombs. So if you tried to google
Speaker 2: Rix Sntorum and find anything out about him, you were
Speaker 2: directed to these false, inflammatory, libel campaign sites that were
Speaker 2: attacking him. Saying, again, you can't even say these things,
Speaker 2: you know, without being too embarrassed, because they're just the
Speaker 2: most vile, disgusting things that people were being told about.
Speaker 2: Falsehood's about rix Andorum. I mean, just outright, you know,
Speaker 2: fabricated stuff.
Speaker 1: Dan, let me ask you another question about Google, and
Speaker 1: this goes back to Mitt Romney John McCain that I mentioned.
Speaker 1: What we're seeing with Google is they're not saying they
Speaker 1: hate Donald Trump and MAGA. They're saying we hate anyone
Speaker 1: that's not our guy, and every year that guy can change.
Speaker 1: So we'll treat Donald Trump the same way we treated
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum or John McCain if the
Speaker 1: person we want to win is on the other side.
Speaker 1: So if you think they're only being mean to like
Speaker 1: MAGA conservatives, you're wrong. They want these Democrat hardcore lefties
Speaker 1: to win every election no matter what.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. And as we discussed earlier, will include
Speaker 2: picking you know, a more liberal Democrat and suppressing a
Speaker 2: slightly more you know, or less liberal Democrat. And so
Speaker 2: they've got their candidate of choice, and you better not
Speaker 2: be the opponent otherwise you're gonna they're gonna be hell
Speaker 2: to pay.
Speaker 1: This isn't just on the national level of presidential campaigns,
Speaker 1: and that's where Google stops doing this. You guys also
Speaker 1: looked at some of the most competitive, the twelve most
Speaker 1: competitive Senate races in twenty twenty two. What did you
Speaker 1: find out when it came to Senate races?
Speaker 2: Right, So, the so Google buried you know, the Senate
Speaker 2: candidates in those twelve competitive races every time except for
Speaker 2: two for whatever reason. You know, in the Washington Prime.
Speaker 2: In the Washington race the state of Washington, Patty Murray
Speaker 2: actually fared worse than the Republicans. But in every other case,
Speaker 2: you know, the Republican was buried. Now here's where it
Speaker 2: gets really really interesting. It shows how clever Google really is.
Speaker 2: People will recall that there was a runoff in Georgia
Speaker 2: where herschel Walker and his Democrat opponent neither got fifty percent,
Speaker 2: when under Georgia law, they had to go to a runoff.
Speaker 2: So we went to Georgia and again these are using
Speaker 2: clean computers, no cookies, all that, and we went to
Speaker 2: the precinct level again looking for herschel Walker's campaign website
Speaker 2: and looking for his opponent's campaign website. And at the
Speaker 2: precinct level we discovered that those precincts that were heavily
Speaker 2: Democrat there was no bias, and those precincts that were
Speaker 2: heavily Republican no bias. But in the precincts that were
Speaker 2: going to toss up precincts where the Democrat needed votes
Speaker 2: to be able to win beat herschel Walker, that's where
Speaker 2: we saw the bias again. That's where herschel Walker's campaign
Speaker 2: website was buried, but the Democrats was elevated to the
Speaker 2: top of search results.
Speaker 1: It's incredible. Let's dive into how much of an influence
Speaker 1: this actually could have had. Because it's one thing to
Speaker 1: give the accusation and to show that proof, but then
Speaker 1: to talk about how much of an impact that could
Speaker 1: this have had on our elections. You guys worked with
Speaker 1: doctor Robert Epstein, who performed additional research and found that
Speaker 1: Google search algorithms likely shifted millions of votes just to
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen alone, for example, and then
Speaker 1: you found even after that, even more votes. We're talking
Speaker 1: about millions that would have favored Democrats in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Dive into that for us, right.
Speaker 2: So, doctor Epstein is a PhD statistician. He did all
Speaker 2: of his work at Harvard. He is a liberal himself.
Speaker 2: He is a self proclaimed Democrat. He admits he voted
Speaker 2: for Hillary Clinton. He is not a partisan. He is
Speaker 2: not doing this work to try to help Republicans. He's
Speaker 2: just very concerned about democracy. So he yea his research
Speaker 2: and is very sophisticated. It's seen how Google interacts with users,
Speaker 2: what kind of results are produced, and how that alters
Speaker 2: people's behavior. So he is estimated in the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: election alone, anywhere from six to eight million votes were
Speaker 2: swayed against Donald Trump in favor of Joe Biden nationwide
Speaker 2: six to eight million. Had it not been for Google,
Speaker 2: it would have been a landslide victory for Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: And let me just reiterate, Doctor Epstein is a liberal,
Speaker 2: and he's testified before Congress he has no interest in
Speaker 2: seeing Republicans win races. He only cares about the rights
Speaker 2: of the voter and to have that voter's votes be
Speaker 2: counted fairly.
Speaker 1: Talk about the amount of influence so people understand. I mean,
Speaker 1: I look, I use Google every day. You guys are
Speaker 1: now saying it's time to use another search engine because
Speaker 1: of what they're doing. I totally support that idea, but
Speaker 1: the reality is overwhelming. The majority of Americans go to
Speaker 1: Google for pretty much anything they need to search. How
Speaker 1: much penetration and market share does Google have over the
Speaker 1: American voter?
Speaker 2: You know, there are different numbers. It's anywhere from ninety
Speaker 2: three to ninety six. Ninety seven percent of all search
Speaker 2: is done, you know, using the Google search engine. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and it's got so many other products too, like Google News.
Speaker 2: And this is another shocking thing. There's one legitimate outfit
Speaker 2: out there that sort of rates media outlets of whether
Speaker 2: they're left of center or right of center. It's called
Speaker 2: All Sides. It's a reliable organization. We don't always agree
Speaker 2: with them, but they're pretty good all using All Sides data,
Speaker 2: you can see that Google News. If you're searching anything
Speaker 2: about Trump, Biden or elections, Google News would link to
Speaker 2: zero zero right of center media outlets, almost exclusively to
Speaker 2: left wing outlets. Occasionally some some what are called neutral outlets.
Speaker 2: But yeah, Like, if you're searching on Google News for
Speaker 2: stories about the election, ninety seven percent of the articles
Speaker 2: that were linked to were to left wing outlets Donald
Speaker 2: Trump and Joe Biden. If you're looking for stories of
Speaker 2: on Google News about either of them, again, zero percent,
Speaker 2: you know, linked to conservative outlets. The great bulk were
Speaker 2: linked to to left of center or left wing outlets.
Speaker 2: This is what Google. This is how Google News and
Speaker 2: Google more broadly influences the mind. People think they're learning,
Speaker 2: people think they're getting information news, they're only getting Google propaganda.
Speaker 1: Lastly, what are you guys asking Congress to do? I
Speaker 1: know there's been conversations with Speaker Johnson about this because
Speaker 1: this seems like this would fall under an in kind
Speaker 1: contribution to democratic candidates. What Google is doing? Is there
Speaker 1: a chance that we could see some sort of significant
Speaker 1: reform here to make this not happen every single election cycle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Ben, I want to make sure people understand this
Speaker 2: is shocking. The media has an exception here. So let's
Speaker 2: take the media out of it. Your media, so you're
Speaker 2: not a part of what I'm about to say. But
Speaker 2: today in America, you're an individual. You do not have
Speaker 2: free speech rights. If I want to say something political
Speaker 2: and I want to promote what I am saying, So like,
Speaker 2: let's say I write a speech and I want to
Speaker 2: send my speech about a candidate or about a policy matter,
Speaker 2: and I want to send it to a thousand friends,
Speaker 2: and I print out my speech to send to a
Speaker 2: thousand friends. By law, I am required to file with
Speaker 2: a federal election commission. I have to log my speech,
Speaker 2: and if I don't, it can be considered a crime.
Speaker 2: It can be fine by the federal government for speaking,
Speaker 2: for trying to amplify my voice. But if you're Google today,
Speaker 2: the Federal Election Commission says it can do whatever it wants.
Speaker 2: It can bury, it can use its resources, it's fast resources,
Speaker 2: it can bury campaign websites. It can treat the Democrats
Speaker 2: far better than the Republicans. And it's not considered a
Speaker 2: campaign contribution, it's not considered an in time contribution, and
Speaker 2: there's no filing required. Today, big tech has far more
Speaker 2: free speech rights than I do.
Speaker 1: Unbelievable. If people want to get this report and want
Speaker 1: to find out more, where can they go?
Speaker 2: Dan Right, So the media research centers big publications called
Speaker 2: NewsBusters NewsBusters dot org. You can go there to find
Speaker 2: this report. You know the study. It's about a twenty
Speaker 2: page study documenting you know, these forty one times over
Speaker 2: sixteen years that Google has interfered in our elections.
Speaker 1: This is going to trickle out. I have a feeling more.
Speaker 1: I'm going to cover it all for you. Make sure
Speaker 1: that you download the Ben Ferguson podcast every day. We'll
Speaker 1: keep you updated. Hit the share button on our podcast
Speaker 1: as well. If you miss a show, go back and listen.
Speaker 1: We're going to cover it all and I'll see you
Speaker 1: back here tomorrow on the Ben Ferguson Podcast