It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Google Censors Ads For Anti-Clinton Book

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:13 PM
Candice Jackson has a new book out called, "Their Lives, The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine." Most people, however, haven't heard of this book because most stores won't carry it. However, the internet's safe from such censorship, right? Not anymore. Google previously approved ads for the book, but just announced that they are pulling the ads. Some question if the CEO's public support for Hillary Clinton may have influenced this decision.

The controversy comes at a time when the search engine giant is facing increasing scrutiny for claims of editorial unfairness by conservative organizations. Last month, a conservative activist group, went public with claims that Google was rejecting its ads targeting House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi while at the same time running identical ads attacking Republican Leader Tom DeLay.


EDIT: In the interest of fairness, I figured I'd quote the part of the article where Google defends its self, too:

Representatives for Google - whose corporate motto is “don't be evil” - attempted to defend the surprise ban on the book’s ads by claiming their policies prohibit ads that are against an individual. But while the ads for the book - which featured images of the book's cover and pictures of the former First Couple - were suddenly deemed too offensive, Google happily accepts advertisements with headlines such as "Hate Bush? So Do We," “Bush Belongs Behind Bars,” and "George W. Bush Fart Doll."

Whoops, that didn't defend them much at all, did it...

[edit on 6-13-2005 by junglejake]

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:31 PM
I'm curious as to how many responses would have already been on this thread if it was a Michael Moore book being censored...

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:36 PM
Actually JJ, either way, I probably would not have much to say on it.
Google has proven itself to be politically one-sided while at the same time breaking it's own rules.
An exmple of google ignoring it's rules. In 2003 they decided that they would no long host advertisements for on-line pharmacies. Did this stop them? Nope. See they left themselves a little loophole so that they could still host these ads as long as the company was outside of the US. They figure that this was still obeying to the letter of their rules whiles still allowing them to pad thier wallets.
It also does not dissuade them from posting these out-of country ads in the US.

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:11 PM
It's kinda disturbing that the most used search engine is starting to introduce bias into its search results. A buddy of mine and myself were joking about creating our own web browser. Might not be such a bad idea. We see the internet as the last source of informational freedom, but if the sites which direct us to these ideas start censoring which are displayed, so much for freedom of information!

Just an example, when that ad was pulled by google, sales dropped off by 60%. Now, imagine if that were to extend to their web hits! Imagine doing a search for fox news and the only results which come up are from DailyKos, DU, and FauxNews. This sure ain't good...

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:26 PM
Good one !
Hopegully someone else will come along with another good search engine that will (at least at first) not have an agenda.

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:54 PM
The site listed as a source is by PR Web = Press Release Web =

PR Web™ has offered free online press release distribution services since August 1997. Since then PR Web™ has gradually made the transition to a fully integrated press release newswire service. We are the largest Newswire catering to small and medium sized companies and organizations and one of the largest online press release newswires.

= Me, since I own a company & wanted to say, about my upcoming ATS Op/ED piece that, for example, JungleJake hates Jesus & wears pentagram footsie PJ's & drinks a glass of genadine syrup each night before bed saying it's baby's blood, I could say that & they'd post it ....for FREE!!

In the pursuit of

Science, here are the results from Goggle after putting in the book title: 22,800 hits in .0007 seconds

How's that go? "Work the wolf?" or "The boy who cried referee?"

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Bout Time]

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:00 PM
It's not the actual search results which are in question here. It's the "Ads by Google" that are being censored, apparently because they don't fit in with Google's policies about attacking an individual. Granted, they have no problem advertising for Bush Fart Dolls, or books against DeLay, but when it comes to Clinton, just leave him alone.

I was mearly speculating as to where this level of censorship could lead, meaning google's search results.

drinks a glass of genadine syrup each night before bed saying it's baby's blood
Hey, don't knock it until you try it!

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:07 PM
I wuss out & put 2% milk in with the grenadine!

It's cool, I was just showing that, as referenced by the "article's" plug for the author & where to call if you want to interview her ( maybe a suggestion for ATS Guest Speaker?), it's purely from the author, not a news article or even a trade publishing magazine.

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
I wuss out & put 2% milk in with the grenadine!


Despite that being a press release, here's another article, admittedly from a biased news source, but a news source none the less, which backs up the claims. This one doesn't go as much into detail on this one instance, but rather delves into many cases where Google hosted ads for Democrats against Republicans, but when just about the same ads were to be displayed by Republicans against Democrats, Google balked and said they were offensive.

Hicadola (is that how you spell it? Been a while since I've seen that Family Guy...)

new topics

top topics


log in