Trump accuses Google of ‘negative’ news
Search engine faces tighter regulation after president claims it rigs results in favour of the ‘liberal Left’
Donald Trump hinted he might consider regulating Google more tightly after saying the search engine’s news section had been rigged against him. The US president tweeted that most of the articles that appeared after conducting a “Trump news” search were negative. His comments came in the wake of coverage of his reaction to the death of Senator John Mccain and the temporary lowering to half-staff of the American flag at the White House.
DONALD TRUMP’S administration yesterday said it was considering regulating Google more tightly after the US president claimed the search engine’s news section was rigged against him.
Mr Trump tweeted that 96 per cent of articles that appeared after searching “Trump news” on Google came from liberal media outlets, while conservative sites were shut out. He warned that this would be addressed.
Google dismissed the claims, stating there was no political agenda in its search. The row followed criticism from conservative voices in America about their treatment on social media.
Alex Jones, the Right-wing provocateur, was kicked off Facebook and Youtube recently, while other Trump allies accused Twitter of “shadow banning” prominent Republicans. Mr Trump tweeted yesterday morning: “Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media.
“In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of results on ‘Trump News’ are from National Left-wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation – will be addressed!”
Mr Trump appeared to be referencing a report that featured on Lou Dobbs Tonight, a television show on Fox Business Network. The report originally came from research by an author for PJ Media, a conservative blog. The writer typed “Trump” into part of the Google search that filtered news stories and analysed the results.
Looking at the alleged political leanings of each media organisation behind the articles returned, the author said that 96 per cent came from Left-leaning companies.
Google has never disclosed how it ranks news results, but overhauled the system in May and confirmed it used artificial intelligence to filter content.
Barry Adams, an expert on search engine optimisation, questioned the accuracy of the original report. He said it was “not very scientific” and appeared to not be a comprehensive analysis.
Following Mr Trump’s tweets, Larry Kudlow, his senior economics adviser, confirmed: “We’re taking a look. We’ll let you know.” Google later stated: “Our goal is to make sure users receive the most relevant answers in a matter of seconds. Search is not used to set a political agenda and we don’t bias our results toward any political ideology.”
Mr Trump later widened his criticism when responding to questions from reporters, saying that Facebook, Twitter and Google all “better be careful”. He added: “They are really treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful. It’s not fair to large portions of the population.”
Donald Trump is not going to win any plaudits for his response to the death of his bitter rival Senator John Mccain. Mr Trump’s critics have lost no time in castigating him over what they regard as his lack of respect for Senator Mccain, reflected in the president’s decision to only keep the Stars and Stripes at half mast for little more than a day after the 81-year-old war hero finally succumbed to brain cancer.
The public outcry eventually forced a change of heart, and the flag will now fly in tribute until the funeral takes place. Mr Trump, though, will be a notable absentee because, in his final days, Senator Mccain made a point of excluding the president from the list of attendees, a deliberate posthumous snub designed to cause the White House maximum embarrassment.
The deep-seated personal antipathy between these two leading figures in Republican politics should not, however, be allowed to overshadow Mr Trump’s achievements beyond the self-obsessed bubble of the Washington beltway.
For, as the new trade deal announced this week between Mexico and the US demonstrates, when the president’s performance is looked at in the round, the evidence suggests Mr Trump is making a good fist of delivering on his election promises.
One of the key objectives of Mr Trump’s “America First” approach is to tackle the country’s astronomical trade deficit, which last year stood at $810 billion in goods alone. The president argues that the deficit puts the American economy at a distinct disadvantage, one that has resulted in the devastation of communities throughout America that are dependent on manufacturing.
To reverse this trend, Mr Trump is demanding better terms with those trading partners, such as China and the EU, that benefit enormously from their access to America’s $20 trillion dollar economy.
The president has attracted enormous criticism over his threat to initiate trade wars with countries that are unwilling to negotiate new trading arrangements. To this end Mr Trump has already imposed 25 per cent tariffs on steel and 10 per cent tariffs on aluminium.
Mr Trump has been especially critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), the 24-yearold commercial arrangement between the US, Mexico and Canada which accounts for a significant slice of Washington’s shortfall. Trade with Mexico is responsible for $71 billion of the deficit, a figure Mr Trump now expects to be reduced radically following the successful conclusion of trade talks with the Mexican government. The new deal seeks to end the unfair advantage Mexico has enjoyed for two decades by dint of its lower employment costs.
Much work still needs to be done to keep Nafta alive, not least persuading the Left-wing government of Canadian premier Justin Trudeau that Toronto’s interests are best served by negotiating fairer trading terms with Washington. The fact, though, that, with the Mexico deal, Mr Trump has proven his detractors wrong, and that it is possible to secure better trading conditions for American businesses, is a significant victory for the White House, one that suggests the Trump administration is deeply serious about fulfilling its manifesto commitments.
Furthermore, it should send a warning shot across the bows of other trading partners that are disinclined to take seriously Mr Trump’s determination to end America’s massive budget deficit.
China, at least, has taken the hint, and its officials have just completed two days of intensive negotiations, which finished inconclusively at the end of last week, about addressing America’s staggering $371 billion trade deficit with Beijing.
The Mexico deal will also encourage Mr Trump to maintain pressure on the EU, which currently enjoys a $151 billion surplus with the US. Mr Trump can already point to the fact that a number of European members of the Nato alliance have agreed to raise their defence expenditure as proof that Europe is no longer taking American policymakers for a ride.
Nor is it just in the field of trade talks that the Trump administration can claim to be making headway. The negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear programme may have stalled, but the recent reunion of family members after decades of separation on the Korean peninsula points to an improvement in relations between North and South.
In Iran, the political turmoil over the country’s increasingly perilous economic predicament is the direct result of Mr Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal and impose new sanctions. For all the criticism Mr Trump has received, including from Britain, for withdrawing from the deal, hitting the ayatollahs where it hurts most, in their pockets, remains the best way of persuading them to behave more responsibly.
All of which suggests that, while Mr Trump might not be the most sensitive politician ever to have occupied the Oval Office, he could still prove to be one of the most effective.