Google Takes On Michael Moore

UPDATE: Google has responded again to the firestorm raised by this incident saying it shares the concerns Michael Moore raised in his movie.

For a while this weekend, it looked like Google had chosen to insert itself in the middle of the national debate over healthcare and take on controversial filmmaker Michael Moore.

Sicko handout

In an official corporate blog, a Google employee criticized Mr. Moore’s movie, Sicko, as one-sided: “Moore’s film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare’s interest in patient well-being and care,” wrote Lauren Turner, a Health Account Planner at Google.

Ms. Turner went on to suggest that Google could help much-maligned health care companies to “Get the Facts” out. How? By buying ads on Google, of course.

By Sunday, after her post raised some eyebrows in the blogosphere, Ms. Turner clarified that the opinion about Sicko was hers, not Google’s. “Some readers thought the opinion I expressed about the movie Sicko was actually Google’s opinion,” she wrote. “It’s easy to understand why it might have seemed that way, because after all, this is a corporate blog. So that was my mistake — I understand why it caused some confusion.”

A Google spokesman told me much the same.

But Ms. Turner also said that she stood by her earlier comments that Google stood ready to help anyone, whether the healthcare industry or Mr. Moore’s himself: “Whether the healthcare industry wants to rebut charges in Mr. Moore’s movie, or whether Mr. Moore wants to challenge the healthcare industry, advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue,” she wrote.

That said, it’s not clear that Mr. Moore needs to spend money on Google to get his message out.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Google News has continued to highlight the negative articles about Sicko in the entertainment section for the entire time since release. It has consistently “played” a highly negative MTV article as the lead story and relegated the hundreds of positive articles to the background.

I’m surprised Google has such a loose policy on the content posted to their corporate blogs.

What’s worse, Ms. Turner apparently thought that she had the novel idea to rebut Michael Moore’s SiCKO via advertising. This is an idea that was no doubt already obvious to the health care industry, which had already been on record as stating that it would combat Michael Moore’s claims through ads.

In conclusion, Ms. Turner has twice showed us why she shouldn’t be Google’s mouthpiece.

“advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue”

For Whom? (hint…$$$)

Unless Google has a sliding scale system in place for buying ads it is insulting to say that it is democratic, effective, or public.

One sided or not, the issue for 48 million uninsured Americans, in need of health care is actually the issue.

A reader over at Boing Boing(link below), says his ad on Google was rejected because it was basically the reverse of what Ms. Turner is trying to sell healthcare companies on. His ad was for his site which criticizes a large medical testing company.

So much for not being evil.

Link:
//www.boingboing.net/2007/07/01/more_on_google_vs_si.html

history is a weapon July 2, 2007 · 9:39 am

Google’s trumpeting of the original point was offensive, but the apology is even worse: “advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue.” Advertising is anti-democratic in and of itself: it is limited to those who can afford it. Google should apologize for this statement as well and check its policies and procedures to make sure that the bean counters don’t blindly violate one of its supposed central tenets: “don’t be evil.”

It is about time that someone other than me took on Mr. Moore. See //www.juggernuts.com.

Given Ms. Turner’s position at Google (Health Account Planner), one wonders just how objective she might be. After all why would she want to criticize the very system that affords her employment.

Agreement with Ms. Turner or rebuttal via advertising are mere distractions. Moore’s central question remains: why are we the only western country without affordable healthcare for everyone? Health-related expenses are one of the largest reasons for indebtedness given by those with extensive credit card debt. There are powerful forces hoping to maintain the status quo. What shall we do about this?

Jim, you’re just now noticing that Google manipulates which articles it wants to highlight? This has been going on for some time now. It is especially noticable in politics where opinion pieces often get top billing over actual news pieces.

Maybe you’re just noticing it now since this is one of the first times they have promoted a less-than-liberal-lockstep view.

Thanks for the BGO.

Scott

Heh heh, looks like “Jims” are very politically active. Right on!

Anyhow, I work for a corporation and I’m rarely sick or need health care, but I know way too many people where getting and affording health care is a real problem, so I applaud Michael Moore for rising up to speak for them. Obviously the rich don’t have a leg to stand on since they can afford good health care so I find comments from such sources repugnant and hollow.

Access to health services continues to deteriorate for just about everyone except super-affluent, influential or rich people. We used have great capacity in health but now hardly anyone can use it. Our strides in medical knowledge are useless without application to a broad base of our citizens. Our hospital capacity and health delivery will atrophy without wide use. Michael Moore is sometimes over the top in his means of presentation but his movie is right on point. The costs of NOT treating everyone far outweigh everything else that is brought up as an argument against univeral access. Single payer or public/private partnership? Let’s just get there!

Unless Google has a sliding scale system in place for buying ads it is insulting to say that it is democratic, effective, or public.

— Posted by Andy

Quite possibly the stupidest thing I will read on the Intarweb all day.

She’s basically saying that Google’s stance on the healthcare issue is up for sale. That they’ll back whoever pays them to, with a wink-nudge toward the healthcare industry since they’ve probably got the money to spend.

Google has come a long way from “do no evil”. Pretty disgusting from my viewpoint.

Moore is a fat liar – if you want to see the ugly truth behind Socialized medicne – search for Dead Meat…

Touche’, Andy. You hit the nail on the head.

Moore is a sensationalist, and sensationalism sells. Sober facts (like the health care industry might want to get out) are boring.

I have used Google for the last time. Never again.

Can I have the time I wasted reading this article back?

An advertiser is asking people to advertise. Thats news?

I am shocker that GOOGLE would hire someone this
biased.

I think its’ time to REPLACE .
bob

I agree with Andy (#3). The suggestion that advertising is in any way democratic is a reflection of the very scary direction that this country is headed in. Corporate control, characterized by the ability to alter public perception through unlimited resources and advertising, is surely one of the most dangerous trends taking place in America today. It worries me to think that a corporation such as Google condones that kind of “democracy”.

I am shocked that GOOGLE would hire someone this
biased.

I think its’ time to REPLACE .
bob

I think my new home page will no longer be Google’s
Attacking a movie then suggesting ($$$$$) a solution by placing ad’s has a touch of what Moore is fighting

I was surprised to see how long Turner’s negative ‘news article’ lingered and lingered and lingered on the news page.

I’m glad someone in corporate America is striking back at Moore. This guy is a loose cannon and always shows one side to every issue. I have relatives still living in Cuba and the portrayal he showed is nothing more than state sponsored propoganda. Sure you get free health care in Cuba, but only if you want to wait six months to get it. My uncles heart was giving him problems and he made an appointment to have it checked…six months later, he found out he had acid reflux. Great news, but was it worth the six months of terror he endured before getting treatment?