Robert Epstein appeared on Fox and stated:  He can prove that the Democrats cheated in the 2018 election in order  to win.  If that is the case – why isn’t this investigated rather than the Democrats still chewing on the Mueller,  “Russia/Russia” investigation?

Ep. 1061 The Search Engine Manipulation Effect: A Psychologist Looks at Google

The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its
possible impact on the outcomes of elections
Robert Epstein1 and Ronald E. Robertson
American Institute

Why doesn’t one of the conservative Fox reporters work with Epstein and let him show us how the Democrats cheated in the 2018 election in order to win?

Why not – because the Dem’s never want to go into their own camp, even with Mueller’s investigation – he would back off, make a u-turn, if it ran into the Hillary investigation camp.  Mueller’s whole investigation was not about Obama and the Dem’s whole cheating narrative; but, about the fake Trump/Russia collusion which never happened and is still on-going.  It seems that all of these investigations are “stuck in mud and spinning their wheels.”  Just spinning those wheels until the 2020 election.

The Democrats didn’t/don’t need Russia – they have the tech companies/TV fake news reporting each day for the Democrat Socialist – twisting the news against the President and the American people.  The following picture tells you exactly what the Democrats are doing – that is the purpose of the OPEN BORDERS:


“In total, nearly 250 people shuttled from government service to Google
or vice versa during the Obama administration.

“The same study found that Google representatives attended White House
meetings more than once a week, on average, from the start of the Obama
presidency through October 2015. During that same period, Google
lobbyists visited the White House 128 times, the most of any lobbyist
during that time.

“What Google and Facebook lost with a Trump victory is cronyism,” Mr.
Motley said.”


How The Liberal Leanings Of Google & Facebook Shape The Political Landscape


Algorithms have become a modern-day Cronkite deciding what news reaches
the eyes and ears of many Americans

by Jeff Mordock
October 23, 2017
The Washington Times

Robert Epstein tried a simple experiment in the run-up to the
presidential election: running searches on Google and Yahoo for
political topics.

The results were stunning. Google searches returned twice as many
pro-Hillary Clinton news articles as Yahoo searches.

Perhaps even more stunning was that men and blue-state residents saw
more than double the number of pro-Clinton articles than women and
people living in red states, Mr. Epstein, of the American Institute for
Behavioral Research and Technology, and Robert E. Robertson, a
professor at Northeastern University, argued in a report this year.

Mr. Epstein said he is still studying what caused the bias but worries
that Google’s search algorithm — a form of artificial intelligence that
chooses what results a searcher is looking for — ranked pro-Clinton
articles ahead of positive articles about her opponent, Donald Trump.
Those algorithms have become the modern-day Walter Cronkite or Edward
R. Murrow, deciding what news reaches the eyes and ears of Americans in
an increasingly Google-Facebook-Twitter media environment.

In recent months, the focus has been on whether the companies were able
to be manipulated by Russian-connected operatives who attempted to sow
“chaos” in the U.S. surrounding last year’s elections.

But the power of the companies to shape American politics goes well
beyond that.

“The social media companies are the gatekeepers,” said Frank Foer, a
writer at The Atlantic and former editor of the New Republic who has
authored a book on social media’s power. “Whatever choices these
companies make to elevate or bury information is very powerful and will
have a big impact on what people read.”

Conservatives say they have long suspected that some of the internet
giants discriminate against them and their content. They point to
whistleblowers who have acknowledged they were pushed to treat
conservatives differently.

The companies have denied the claims. They insist the algorithms are
designed to capture the most-read news stories across the political
spectrum. A computer program cannot distinguish between liberal and
conservative, they say.

Mr. Foer, who says he is concerned about the level of power wielded by
the algorithms the tech companies use, dismisses accusations of a
liberal bias as “conservative paranoia.”

Studies allege bias
But an emerging set of studies suggests there is something to the

Mr. Epstein and Mr. Robertson, in their research, looked at 4,045
election-related searches on Google and Yahoo during a 25-day period
from mid-October through Election Day. They found that the pro-Clinton
articles swamped pro-Trump news.

“The algorithms are not programmed with an equal time rule,” said Mr.
Epstein, a vocal Clinton supporter. “They are programmed to put one
thing ahead of another in a way that is highly secret and

He said his experiments show the power of news searches to affect
politics and has found that he could boost support for a candidate by
as much as 63 percent after just one Google search session. That is
based on five experiments Mr. Epstein ran in two countries in which
study participants changed their opinions of a candidate based on a
manipulated search engine. He has dubbed this the “search engine
manipulation effect.”

A separate study by Nicholas Diakopoulos, now at Northwestern
University, analyzed the Google search results on Dec. 1, 2015. He
searched for the names of all 16 presidential candidates and discovered
Democrats, on average, had seven favorable search results among
Google’s top 10. Republican candidates, meanwhile, had only 5.9
positive articles in the top 10.

Mrs. Clinton had five positive search results but only one negative on
the first page, according to the study. Mr. Trump had four positive and
three negative search results on the first page. Sen. Bernard Sanders,
another Democratic candidate, had nine positive results without a
single negative, and Republican candidate Sen. Ted Cruz had no positive

Mr. Diakopoulos ran a second study during the summer before the
election and found the vast majority of sources selected for Google’s
news box were left-leaning outlets. The New York Times, CNN and The
Washington Post accounted for nearly 50 percent of Google news sources.
Articles from Fox News, the only conservative news source among the 113
featured by Google during Mr. Diakopoulos’ study, appeared about 1
percent of the time.

Google eliminated the news box in November. Company spokeswoman Maggie
Shiels said the box’s algorithm picked up news across the internet.

“There are several hundred signals that go into surfacing an answer,”
she said. “The algorithm does not focus on political party or ideology.”
The company is secretive about the algorithm and insists it is
constantly tinkering with the formula. But it says it promotes articles
based on “freshness, location, relevance and diversity.”

“As a result, stories are sorted without regard to political viewpoint
or ideology and you can choose from a wide variety of perspectives on
any given story,” the company says on its online explainer.

Analysts have caught some deeper glimpses over the years, based on
testing and on information gleaned from patent applications Google has
filed, saying Google judges trustworthiness and importance of a news
site, how much content it produces and even length of stories to gauge
whether to elevate a site’s content.

News operations, just like other website owners, invest a lot of time
and money trying to figure out Google’s system, and an entire industry
known as search engine optimization, or SEO, claims to offer shortcuts
to earn more eyeballs.

Patents suggest search engines may be increasingly tailoring results to
the individual’s history, promoting websites or story themes the
searcher seems to select the most.

Mr. Diakopoulos said someone who searches for positive news about Trump
is more likely to get exposed to conservative news, while someone who
searches for left-leaning topics will receive more liberal news.
And then there is the issue of the press itself.

“If 70 percent of the news media is liberal, you can expect there to be
some unequal results to come from a search engine,” Mr. Diakopoulos

That means the social media may not be biased, but instead is a
reflection of the bias perceived in traditional media, said S. Robert.
Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George
Mason University.

“If you are getting a certain perspective from the major news outlets,
that is going to be passed on through social media, which is the last
link in the chain,” he said.

But Mr. Epstein said the concern about who is creating the algorithm is
just as concerning as the program itself.

“When accused of a liberal bias, these companies say, ‘It’s not us;
it’s the algorithm,” he said. “That is so hilarious because they
programmed the algorithm.”

Facebook workers raise questions
Accusations of an indirect bias may not carry as much weight if not
accompanied by accusations of direct bias by the social media companies.

In May 2016, a group of several former Facebook workers told technology
blog Gizmodo that they routinely suppressed news about prominent
conservatives, including Mitt Romney, Rand Paul and the American
Conservative Union’s Conservative Political Action Conference. The
employees, who worked as ‘news curators,’ also said stories reported by
conservative outlets such as Brietbart and Newsmax were dismissed
unless The New York Times, BBC or CNN covered the same article.

Facebook denied the accusations and said an internal study found
virtually identical rates of liberal and conservative new topics. The
company did concede bias could have occurred through improper human
actions and it would take steps to prevent it from happening in the
future. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg invited 16 conservative leaders to
the company’s headquarters for a meeting.

Mr. Zuckerberg opened the meeting acknowledging that both he and
Facebook are liberal and that he knows little about the conservative
movement, according those who attended. But Mr. Zuckerburg conceded
that if Facebook wants to be an open marketplace of ideas, then it must
be open to conservative viewpoints.

“The meeting opened on a positive, honest note and went that way
throughout the whole meeting,” said Brent Bozell, president of the
Media Research Center.

Mr. Bozell said Facebook has made a sincere effort since the meeting to
include conservative voices.

“We’ve never had a serious problem with Facebook,” he said. “Does that
make us the exception to the rule? I don’t know.”

Zachary Moffatt, CEO of Targeted Victory, a Republican political
strategy group, agreed that Mr. Zuckerberg was sincere and concerned
about the perception of a liberal bias. Mr. Moffatt, who is working
with Facebook ahead of the Senate hearings on the Russian ad buy, said
Mr. Zuckerberg’s staff has followed up since the meeting.

“I think Facebook is doing more to address the unconscious structural
bias than other partners in this space,” he said.

Conservative commentator Steven Crowder was among the voices blocked by
the former Facebook workers. He said a social media bias against
conservatives is real but sometimes gets obscured by conservatives
claiming censorship when, in fact, they violated a site’s rules by
spreading fake news or using a copyrighted image or song without

“There are too many conservatives screaming censorship, but they need
to make sure they are not embarrassing Facebook with false stories or
too many pop-ups,” Mr. Crowder said. “That does a disservice to
everyone who has been harmed by some of these practices. It does
happen, but, unfortunately, the people it happens to are not the ones
who scream the loudest.”

Mr. Crowder won a settlement with Facebook after filing a legal action
seeking more information about the company’s advertising practices. He
claimed Facebook refused to acknowledge his advertising payments. Mr.
Crowder said he could not discuss whether the issue came from bias or
mismanagement by Facebook’s advertising team because of the settlement

It’s not just Facebook and Google. Earlier this month, Twitter blocked
a campaign ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee Republican, claiming
it included “an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong
reaction.” In the ad, Ms. Blackburn said she helped stop Planned
Parenthood from selling baby body parts.

Twitter initially said it would air the ad for Ms. Blackburn, who is
running for U.S. Senate, if the line about the sale of baby body parts
is removed. After the congresswoman went public, the social media site
backtracked and allowed the ad to run.

“The damage being done to conservatives is almost incalculable,” said
Seton Motley, a technology policy specialist and president of Less
Government, a conservative organization dedicated to reducing
government power. “If network television media bias can give a
candidate a 4- to 6-point advantage and social media giants have more
power than the networks, can we even quantify a number?”

Google insists there is no truth to Mr. Epstein’s hypothesis that it
could secretly influence an election outcome.

“Claims that Google News is biased or favors one political point of
view over another are just not true,” Ms. Shiels said. “The whole ethos
of the product is to give people access to a rich and diverse world of
news, views and perspectives. We are able to do that thanks to the more
than 80,000 publications from around the globe that are part of the

Companies are politically active
The companies’ denials are complicated by their executives’ perceived
political leanings.

Employees and affiliates of Alphabet Inc., a Google holding company,
donated nearly $1.6 million to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential aspirations
and about $359,000 to her Democratic primary opponent Mr. Sanders,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Trump, meanwhile,
received roughly $23,000 from the company.

In fact, the top 16 candidates who received contributions from Alphabet
employees were all Democrats. The top Republican was Rep. Greg Walden
of Oregon, who received just over $23,000.

Mr. Walden is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
which is reviewing net neutrality legislation. Net neutrality, if
imposed, would block internet providers from charging for or blocking
online content.

Google and other social media companies have opposed such measures.
In total, 63 percent of Alphabet contributions in last year’s election
went to Democrats and 22 percent went to Republicans — even though
Republicans dominate elected offices at the national and state levels.
The remaining 12 percent went to support independent candidates.
Ms. Shiels declined to comment on the donations.

Facebook also donated heavily to the Democratic Party. Of the nearly
$4.6 million Facebook employees and affiliates spent on last year’s
election, 67 percent went toward Democrats and 32 percent went to
Republican candidates. Mrs. Clinton received $478,000 from Facebook,
while Mr. Trump received about $4,665.

“These companies are shockingly political,” said Scott Cleland, who has
authored a book about Google. “They are the gatekeepers of all the
world’s information, and everything they do has a political angle to

The relationships were also personal.
Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg was one of those in
email communication with John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman,
according to messages released by WikiLeaks.

“I want HRC to win badly,” Ms. Sandberg said in one missive. In a later
email, she told Mr. Podesta she was looking forward to working with him
“to elect the first woman President of the United States” and she was
“thrilled” by the progress Mrs. Clinton was making.

A representative for Ms. Sandberg declined to comment.

The leaked Podesta emails also showed that Google had loaned its jet to
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign staff on several occasions. Eric Schmidt,
executive chairman of Alphabet, publicly supported Mrs. Clinton, and
the Clinton campaign’s chief technology officer, Stephanie Hannon, and
chief product officer, Osi Imeokparia, were former Google executives.

The Obama administration also built deep links with Google, where 22
former White House officials worked, while 31 Google executives went to
work for the White House or were appointed to federal advisory boards,
including the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology
and the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, according to a
study by the Campaign for Accountability.

In total, nearly 250 people shuttled from government service to Google
or vice versa during the Obama administration.

The same study found that Google representatives attended White House
meetings more than once a week, on average, from the start of the Obama
presidency through October 2015. During that same period, Google
lobbyists visited the White House 128 times, the most of any lobbyist
during that time.

“What Google and Facebook lost with a Trump victory is cronyism,” Mr.
Motley said.

Google and Facebook have increased their lobbying efforts over the past
few months as Congress scrutinizes their power. Facebook spent $285
million on lobbyists from July through September, a 41 percent increase
over the same period last year. Google spent $417 million during those
three months, including hiring Republican lobbyists Jochum Shore &
Trossevin PC to fight a bill that would penalize tech companies for
content that promotes sex trafficking. The companies are fighting the
bill because it weakens some of their legal protections.

Both Republicans and Democrats have come to respect the power and reach
of the tech giants. Although Mr. Trump’s Twitter account gets the most
attention, his campaign said it was Facebook that helped them win the
presidential election.

Brad Parscale, who ran Mr. Trump’s digital team, said in a recent
interview with CBS’s “60 minutes” that he asked Facebook employees to
be “embedded inside our offices” to help craft carefully tailored ads
he said reached voters they never could have with television ads.

“I think Donald Trump won, but I think Facebook was the method — it was
the highway in which his car drove on,” he told CBS.

Patrick Hynes, an adviser to the 2008 McCain and 2012 Romney Republican
presidential campaigns, said he expects social media companies to
double down on their support for Democrats in the 2020 election. He
predicted efforts to silence Mr. Trump and others, similar to Twitter’s
attempt to ban Ms. Blackburn’s ad.

“The social media companies will engage in full-scale censorship with
the approval or rejection of advertising content in the next
presidential election,” he said. “Trump’s advertising will be critiqued
in a way that they will not do to the Democrats.”

“If the media can’t be trusted to report the news, then that’s a
dangerous place for America.”


That is the stage the U.S. is in – as we can factually see every day since the fake news perpetuates every minute of the day with all of the Polly parrots talking in unison on the talking points sent out by the Democrats to the TV  fake news.   All of this is under the tutelage of former  Obama advisors’ – David Axelrod and Ben Rhodes.  All TV stations are run by former Obama workers.



About kommonsentsjane

Enjoys sports and all kinds of music, especially dance music. Playing the keyboard and piano are favorites. Family and friends are very important.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s