Once again failing to understand the Google AdWords TOS agreement, another person is attempting to make a misguided connection between an AdWords campaign denial by Google and a liberal political bias.
This time, however, the complainant issued a press release to document their sour grape intake. The issue is this: Candice E. Jackson, the author of “Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine” claims Google is not allowing her to conduct an AdWords campaign promoting her book. In denying her AdWords ads, Google indicated Jackson’s current choice of ads violates the Google content policy, which states:
Ad text advocating against any organization or person (public, private, or protected) is not permitted. 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.
Of course, Google also reserves the right to remove any ads it deems unfit for circulation, and rightfully so, seeing how it is their service and not the public’s.
Jackson goes on to say that AdWords ads disparaging current Republican officials have remained. She makes the claim that ads targeting House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi were rejected, while ads targeting Republican Leader Tom DeLay were approved. This may have been the case at one time, but it is categorically false as of right now.
Simple Google searches of Google+Search”>Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi finds ads that either disagree with or campaign against a candidate for public office, which again is “generally permissible” in Google’s eyes.
Jason Miller also provided an article recently that points out the errors of this thinking. There have been numerous cases of ads targeting Republican officials being pulled, just as there are stories of ads aiming at Democratic leaders being denied. However, why would someone acknowledge the facts when they don’t agree with their agenda?
When you read a little further into the press release, you find what seems like the real reason for the author’s position:
Judy Abarbanel, marketing director for World Ahead Publishing, notes that the company’s ad campaign for “Their Lives” was receiving hundreds of clicks each day prior to Google’s unilateral decision to terminate it. The book’s Amazon ranking tumbled several thousand spots in the first day following the termination, costing the publisher an untold number of sales.
Again, this sounds like a case of sour grapes manifesting itself as lashing-out. Because the Google staff’s personal political beliefs have been made known (via a donation disclosure), many who don’t agree with the Democrat approach now cite this as “proof” of Google’s liberal bias.
In other words: Some of Google’s workforce supports the Democrats; therefore, Google has a liberal bias. Following Jackson’s rationale, then perhaps Fox News isn’t as Fair and Balanced as they would like us to believe.
If Google does in fact have a liberal bias, then why on Earth did they deny Jerry Vasilatos’ AdWords campaign?
Chris Richardson is a search engine writer and editor for Murdok. Visit Murdok for the latest search news.
