Harris campaign ‘manipulating’ news headlines in Google Search ads to show favourable coverage

The Harris campaign has been found editing Google search ad headlines and descriptions to make it appear as though prominent media outlets like The Guardian, Reuters, and CBS News are endorsing her.

While this practice is common in commercial advertising and doesn’t break Google’s rules, it closely mimics real news search results, leaving some media organizations caught off guard by the association.

The advertising strategy and its implications
This method of altering headlines in search ads isn’t new, but it has drawn attention in the political sphere because of how it blends with actual news content in search results. The ads, while clearly marked as “sponsored,” are crafted to look like they come from credible news sources, which can be misleading to voters.

Google’s ad transparency centre confirms that the Trump campaign isn’t using this method, though it has been employed by other campaigns in the past.

The issue arises from the fact that the text accompanying these real news links in the ads is not written by the media outlets themselves but by the Harris campaign. This can lead to confusion about the source of the information, especially since the headlines suggest an endorsement or alignment of these news outlets with Harris’s political objectives.

For instance, an ad linking to a Guardian article was edited to promote Harris’s stance on reproductive rights, while another ad linked to an NPR story with altered text to highlight her healthcare policies.

Media outlets respond
Media organizations featured in these ads were reportedly unaware of how their content was being used. The Guardian expressed concern about the practice and indicated plans to reach out to Google for more details, emphasizing the need for appropriate use of its brand.

Other major outlets like CNN, USA Today, and NPR also stated that they were not informed that their content was being used in this way.

Despite the controversy, Google maintains that the ads are within its guidelines. The company argues that because these ads are labelled as “Sponsored,” they are distinguishable from organic search results.

However, this defence hasn’t alleviated concerns from media outlets about being unintentionally associated with a political campaign. The format used by the Harris campaign, while compliant with Google’s policies, raises questions about the potential for spreading misinformation, especially in an era where media bias is a hotly debated topic.

Is this the future of political advertising?
This tactic highlights the murky waters of political advertising in the digital age, where regulations are still catching up with technology. Platforms like Facebook have already taken steps to prevent advertisers from altering news headlines in ads, a move aimed at curbing misinformation.

However, Google has taken a different stance, relying on transparency labels to inform users about the nature of the content.

The situation underscores the fine line that tech companies must walk between maintaining transparency and ensuring efficiency in their ad platforms. The effectiveness of search ads lies in their ability to blend with actual search results, making them a powerful tool for advertisers.

However, this blending can also blur the lines between genuine news and political messaging, potentially misleading voters and further complicating the media landscape.

For media organizations, the use of their content in political ads without explicit consent or awareness can lead to accusations of bias, which is particularly sensitive in today’s polarized environment.

Even though the ads comply with Google’s rules, they might expose news outlets to criticism or damage their reputations by suggesting an unintentional alliance with a particular political campaign.