Googlebomb This! (The Five Stages of Republican Grief Online)

Are you getting biased information when you Google for political news?

Last election, Democratic bloggers "Google bombed" dozens of Republican candidates, which pushed negative news articles higher in their search results. This worries National Review's Mark Hemingway (of Supreme Court "sissy mary" fame), who argues that Democrats are winning the "arms race" of Internet activism. His new article, "Google Gap," sounds the alarm. Hemingway makes a good case study for the five stages of grief that Republicans experience when pondering Democratic dominance online: anxiety, adoration, outrage, denial, and finally, reversion to rivalry. It's a kick to watch him bare his nervous, partisan soul.

Hemingway begins, predictably, with anxious anonymous complaints: "some would say [Google bombing] is insidious." (I wonder who?) Then he lauds the Internet's big impact: "there's no way to quantify the contribution of Google bombing to the Democrats' electoral success," but it surely "can't be discounted." And you knew it was coming -- those outrageous blogger ethics: "The liberal blogosphere ... [has] few if any ethical qualms" about Google bombing. Then Hemingway turns to the cold comfort of denial: "Few Google bombs make it to the top result where they could have the most impact," and experts say many of these efforts are "almost completely worthless."

So what is the upshot to all this grief?

Republicans should use the Internet like Democrats, of course! (The rivalry stage.) "Republicans are outmatched when it comes to tapping the resources of the Internet for political gain," Hemingway concludes, and then passes the mic to a Republican operative, who ends the article calling on his party to embrace "a more effective Internet strategy going into 2008." This would presumably include Google bombing.

Put the grief aside, though, and it's clear that Hemingway really doesn't get Internet activism. Political Google bombing is simply one example of how regular people can use the Internet to have a greater say in public discourse. Writers may like blogs and comment sections. Thousands of less verbal activists, however, prefer communal projects that influence the debate. But even committed Google Bombers don't think that promoting a given link ends the debate. Google is popular because of its pluralism. People use it to get a range of information and views -- not a single answer - especially when they're trolling for politics. Hemingway misses this reality when he presents a false choice between objective and manipulated results:

When you search the Internet for information are you seeing an objective listing of what's notable about that candidate or issue -- or are you seeing what someone else wants you to see?

The top results for a candidate (or any search term) have never been an "objective" notability listing. They are a rough measure of popularity online. Ironically, that measure is actually closer to Hemingway's stab at the second, supposedly scary choice of "seeing what someone else wants you to see." Here's how Google explains its search system:

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at considerably more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; for example, it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."

Google bombers agree. They are "voting" to make certain links important. By promoting a link about, say, Rudy Giuliani's decision to put personal profit above serving on the Iraq Study Group, they're contending that link should be important. Other people will ultimately decide what, if anything, to do about it. (As it turns out, Google does not always agree. The company has taken some steps to reduce the impact of bombing campaigns to alter rankings.)

The fundamental point for politics is that a good search engine should provide access to a wide range of information sources, based on mass popularity, niche popularity and activists who can achieve visibility through numbers. This is good for public discourse - across the political spectrum.

Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler, an expert on Internet policy, argues that one of the Internet's greatest virtues is this ability to present "contested" narratives in our culture, society and politics. In his book, The Wealth of Networks, Benkler examines this phenomenon by comparing the results of Internet searches for "Barbie":

Google... uses a radically decentralized mechanism for assigning relevance... The little girl who searches for Barbie on Google will encounter a culturally contested figure. The same girl, searching on Overture [a commercial search engine], will encounter a commodity toy... In an environment where relevance is measure in non market action ... as opposed to in dollars, Barbie has become a more transparent cultural object. It is easier for the little girl to see that the doll is not only a toy, not only a symbol of beauty and glamor, but also a symbol of how norms of female beauty in our society can be oppressive to women and girls.

The transparency does not force the girl to choose one meaning of Barbie or another. It does, however, render transparent that Barbie can have multiple meanings and that choosing meaning is a matter of political concern for some set of people who coinhabit this culture. Yahoo! occupies something of a middle ground -- its algorithm does link to two of the critical sites among the top ten... (emphasis added)

In other words, Google is for the questions. The answers are up to us.

--------
Ari Melber writes for Campaign Matters, The Nation's campaign blog, where this post first appeared.

Comments

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

There is no way to quantify it but nevertheless it can't be discounted.

Gad what fools these mortals be....

[Herrington]

A real purpose built library, you know books and periodicals, put together by professional librarians will beat the internet for the organization of and the quality and quantity of information at every turn. Problem is, you have to go there, and that is a big problem.

If you are like me, you have begun to count on search engines as an annex of your brain because it is so much less time consuming for quick answers. Serious research still takes libraries and libraries take time, both to assemble the information and for you and for you to find it. Involves walking even.

So the internet is an information panacea for those of us who are lazy and or pressed for time, in other words, all of us.

The political impact of the internet is still evolving. The uptick in political sites and blogs shows that there has been a serious political need going unserved. Duh. But what is fascinating is the developement of a flourishing public debate outside of and parallel to the MSM. I imagine that the political tracts of the early American Revolution were similarly suprising to the powers that be, and they were not prepared for how effective these tracts would be.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

I will hope, no matter how hard they try, the republicants will ever again stuff this cat back in the bag.

In the past the major political parties were able to 'control the message', because some of their major donors owned most or all of the outlets. Now, for a time, TRUTH from the perspective of the citizens is bursting forth from a source available to most everyone, and 'the powers that be' are still struggling to regain their lost control.

I sincerely hope in the future we are not looking back nostalgically at OUR days of 'everyone's' free speech on the internet as some lost treasure, especially if it's because we failed to fight for it.

[Neuromancer13]

They are trying...

Two words. Net Neutrality.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[mommadona]

Well, I was a newbie on blogs when the "ROVER PATROL" or "Freepers" were very active knocking down forums and groups with their little 'bait posting'...I believe most of us learned that lesson well, and ....well....they just can't 'get' to us any longer.

Besides - they were paid help (RedBull and Cheetos count), and TOP DOWN controlled....creepy, but effective in their little Rush Limpbaugh kinda way.

The sad part is they set the tone for the subsequent debates and interaction to the detriment of our communities and government from local to national.

They are twitty thugs - Revenge of the Nerds on steroids.

Now, they got a 'leader', Adam Putnam. This crop I call the Putnam Puppies in his honor.

You can spot them a mile away.

[Herrington]

I like to strap on the "Freepers" from time to time. It is always a big time sink, but can be good practice for a live debate with the unrepentant.

Seems if you kick some serious butt, they call in one of the bigger fish to pick up the slack. That can be interesting. It is a waste of your time but is of his as well. I consider it a sport, in moderation.

[mommadona]

Yeah, like I said, TOP Down.

Then, you get the summer bumper crop of "aides" out to make their bones and.....wheeeeeeeee.

I always think they really have waaaaay too much "private time" on their hands.