Google appears to favor liberal sites in its searches

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Link here.

The author tries to quantify the suspected bias of Google against conservative and climate-skeptic websites, and is successful in showing that these sites definitely show up much less in Google search results. In some cases he labels the search results so low he calls it blacklisting.

The results show that Google Search is heavily biased against conservative domains, and some respectable conservative domains seem to be blacklisted:,,,,,

The numbers for Drudge are especially damning, as they come up in Google searches less than any other site measured, despite having routinely more traffic than anyone, conservative or liberal.

It is still possible that the differences here are just a reflection of society, and that conservative sites simple get less traffic, but I increasingly do not believe this and this paper adds weight to the growing conclusion by many that Google has its thumb on the scale.



  • wayne

    “I am shocked…

    Referencing Drudge;
    He absolutely does have huge page-views (like’ 900 million/month) and his monthly unique-visits run around 19 million/month.

    Not apologizing for google, but Drudge is a link-farm.
    – I only play a search-engine-optimizer-expert, on the Interweb, but one thing about google’s search algorithm(s)– they give weight to both “linked-to” and “linked-from” traffic.
    Drudge links to 100’s of items daily, but there are far less reciprocal links leading back to Drudge.
    That being said–

    I am fairly certain google manipulates everything they do. (and although I have a heavy libertarian bent, it’s a monopoly run by Progressive Statists.)

  • Garry

    I have no doubt that Google results are biased, but I’m not sure this is the best metric for evaluating it.

    As I understand it, the metric divides visits via Google referrals by total visits.

    As one example, I typically take short breaks from my intense editing work, about every hour or so. At this time I do a quick check of my favorite sites, including Behind the Black, Watts Up With That, and Drudge. On a typical day, I generate perhaps 10 hits on each site, none of them via Google referrals. So I ad 0 to the numerator and about 10 to the denominator.

    I would guess that most people who visit Behind the Black either have it bookmarked, or type it in directly after hearing Mr. Z on the John Batchelor Show. All of these visits register as hits, but not as Google-referred hits.

    Drudge gets so many hits per day that it would need probably millions of Google referrals to hit the “normal” rate of 30% by Google referral. A better comparison for Drudge would be MSNBC, Yahoo, or some other news site, which I suspect get most of their visitors in a similar way as Drudge (plus via the advantage of being the default homepage in some instances, such as when getting free wifi in a hotel room or when installing certain search engines).

    I think many people have their favorite sites, and visit often without doing a Google search. Many of us visit sites very often, skewing the metric used in this article.

    Where Google makes a difference is when people are looking for info on, say, global warming. There must be a better metric for measuring referrals to different sites for particular keywords; that metric may very well show Google to be more biased than shown by the metric used in this paper.

  • Chris

    Use DuckDuckGo or many others.
    Quit using the phase “go Google that”. Use “Web-Search” instead.
    These guys -Google – want us to think differently and they are directing us and tracking us. Move away from them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *