Trump Accuses Google of Rigging Search Results To Favor 'Bad' News About Him (cnet.com)

President Donald Trump says Google search results for "Trump News" show only negative coverage about him. From a report: The results present "only the viewing/reporting of Fake New (sic) Media," the president tweeted early Tuesday. He said it's a "very serious situation" that "will be addressed!" "In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of ... " he wrote in the first of two tweets at 5:24 a.m. ET. Update: White House probes Google after Trump accuses it of bias.

Comments

Occam's Razor

[omnichad]

The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.

Re: Occam's Razor

[SirSlud]

Anything not that's not sychophantic is liberal to you yokels.

Re:Occam's Razor

[Gravis Zero]

Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets

You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.

If you apply some critical thinking then the results make sense. You have most of the entire English literate world using Google, not just the US. Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable and therefore avoid them. Google ranking is a convoluted feedback loop so you inevitably are going to end up with results people look at which aren't US conservative media outlets.

Re:Occam's Razor

[omnichad]

There are a lot of reasons this can happen. Google ranks pages higher when they are shared / linked to more often. Google is not "neutral" in the fact that they let more popular pages rise to the top. Not being neutral in that respect is what made them what they are vs. search engines that only rank on keywords - it weeds out spam. But not being neutral is not the same as intentional bias.

Re:Occam's Razor

[omnichad]

Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.

Re: Occam's Razor

[alvinrod]

That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.

I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.

Re:Occam's Razor

[AmiMoJo]

Google's search results are also influenced by how many other sites link to a given article. Theory being that well linked articles are considered good by other people. When offering up evidence people tend to link to sources with a reputation for impartiality (aka "extreme far left bias").

Google weights links from less reputable sites lower too, so all those blogs and forum links don't really help Trump supporting sites.

Re:Occam's Razor

[omnichad]

You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?

For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.

But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.

Re:Occam's Razor

[jellomizer]

Most media outlets are rather centrist. However we have a President treating the presidency like a Reality TV Show, and not government.
So every time he has a temper tantrum, or trolls on twitter, the Media needs to call him out on this for clarification. However he doesn't want to answer the tough questions. So it leads his intentions up to interpretations.

While I am all for an open government, A presidents internal monologue shouldn't be broadcasted. Because it distracts from the issues at hand, and less on substance we are focusing on intent.

Trump is doing it to himself. Sure some site may be left leaning, however even most left leaning site will not go out of the way to to hinder the president unless they feel what he is doing is that wrong.

Re:Occam's Razor

[onepoint]

I looked at your link, read the entire thing,
so I asked myself, why are the results this way...

Well, I came up with some theories, most likely wrong but might be true.

you have a few sites like infowars what are sensational sites having a narrative of hate and conspiracies.
They are adding negative values of trust to the trump name within certain search terms
While sites like CNN are adding positive value to the trump name under the same rules

CNN put's out more content on a daily basis than fox and google is scanning both.

it's coming down to truthiness and trust. I trust CNN over infowars, I can trust Barrons over stars and stripes. I can see that CNN seems more truthful than Fox, and it starting to show.

so yes, the leaning to non-trump side.
Also, the non-trump side propaganda machine is designed differently than the trump side. that could also be an issue.
( because it sound smart people think it's smart concept )

Re: Occam's Razor

[infolation]

Yet... Trump's tweet has achieved its goal.

Up until his tweet today, Google's first page of results for 'Trump News' did indeed return 'only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media.'

But since Trump's tweet that crucial first page is now 100% news about his tweet, replacing the voice of the news with noise from Trump.

Re:Occam's Razor

[allcoolnameswheretak]

"Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable"

And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.

Sorry, but no. By European standards, Fox News is a conspiracy theorist right-wing tabloid. Pretty much every Fox News opinion host is perceived as a populist, fear-mongering, right-wing extremist. We form this opinion based on our own cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills - no "leftist media" required.

Re:Occam's Razor

[kqs]

And one significant reason for this is the relentless and universal portrayal of US conservative media outlets as disreputable by the US Leftist media.

Nope, there is NOTHING that other media can do to make US conservative media outlets seem more disreputable.

Re:Occam's Razor

[houghi]

And CNN is seen as right wing as well in Europe.
Politicaly compared to the rest of the world the US has a right wing and extreme right lunatics.

(Yes, Urup also has extreme right, but also extreme left and all things in between.)

Re: Occam's Razor

[kqs]

Yup, left wing media constantly smears Trump

It is completely impossible for anyone to smear Trump more than his own tweets and speeches.

Re: Occam's Razor

[allcoolnameswheretak]

That would be the problem with people at the political extremes. They are so far to their own side that everything else looks far left or far right by comparison.

I think that these people tend to be the noisiest as well, which makes those extremes appear far larger or more important than they really are.

That is indeed a huge issue nobody in the US except a very few seem to acknowledge. Conservatism and traditional values in the US have gone to shit.
The US had a conservative president who embodied traditional values. He was a married, religious family man from the middle-class with a spotless political career and social engagement, he reached out to the opposition party to move forward on bipartisan issues... but conservatives hated him because he was a Democrat and he was black.

Now the US has a "conservative" president who was divorced two times, he did not serve in the military or a political career, has had various affairs with porn stars and models, grew up as an entitled rich-kid, frequently disrespects women with sexually charged commentary and is so self-centered that he spends most of his days checking what people are saying about him on the news... but conservatives love him because.... I don't know. He's as morally depraved as they are?

There was time of real Republican conservatism as embodied by the likes of senator John McCain. This conservatism cared about the middle-class and lower incomes, about traditional family values and also about international alliances, fairness towards partners, the rule of law, honoring treaties and also listening to facts and reason.

That Republican party is no more. It has been hijacked by the right-wing populists who push agendas and fake news (all the while accusing their opponents of doing exactly that in attempt to muddle the minds by pulling everyone else to their low standards). It has solemnly sacrificed logic, reason and the traditional values for some kind of modern, right-wing dadaism that rejects all social norms and values.
The current president and his favorite news channel (Fox) embodies this state that conservatism has morphed into, perfectly.

What I don't understand is, why nobody in conservative America is standing up to all of this bullshit. John McCain was, and now he's dead.

Re: Occam's Razor

[doggo]

Many of these people are the same people who give money to prosperity ministries.

Rubes. Yokels. Marks. Suckers. Dupes. Chumps.

Trump is playing them for the fools they are. He's not conservative, he's a damn con man & thief.

Re:Occam's Razor

[jellomizer]

What about George W Bush in the middle of that?
or George H Bush before
Ronald Regan
Jimmy Carter
Harold Ford
Richard Nixon

The president being an elected official, will take opportunity to be in the spotlight, but that is different from being a Reality Star.
Obama had star status, I bet he loved it too, but he kept it under control and used it to actually lower the drama, with self deprecating humor.

Presidents have been unofficial entertainers from the TV era onward. But it wasn't a daily dose of scandal and scorn.

Re: Occam's Razor

[postbigbang]

Not so long ago, there was another conservative, ex-military officer, a technologist who stood down Russia over Afghanistan, and battled the oil cartels. He was a white guy from the South.

His name was Jimmy Carter.

Carter did what he thought was right, and wasn't interested in polls. During his office, the primordial tech soup evolved into the first microcomputers. The long peace process with Vietnam was started. The Cold War got colder.

And conservative as he might be, he was also a Democrat.

Re: Occam's Razor

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Wait, are you saying McCain was given cancer because he stood up to this bullshit!?! That makes so much sense!!!

No, what I'm saying is, that if, figuratively speaking, traditional conservative values were an Eastern Algonquian Native American tribe, John McCain was the last of the Mohicans.

Re:Occam's Razor

[DamnOregonian]

What's more comparing news organizations FOX is the number one rated news channel,

No, Fox is the #1 rated channel on cable news, as watched by people ages 25-54.
The fact that a bunch of angry shit-for-brains are glued to their tube for large portions of the day doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
If you were remotely honest instead of trying to push a narrative, you'd have acknowledged that when you tried to use that shit ass metric of "truthiness"

CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel

You've touched upon the point right there, buddy. Cable news ratings favor bullshit programming for the simpler folk who don't know how to get off their couch, and like being told fantastical conspiracy theories.

despite having similar standards with regard to factuality.

Yes, that must be it.
Answer me this- how the fuck do you hold down a job being so unforgivably stupid? I know that's a crap word to use, but what the hell else do you call someone so incapable of applying even fundamental logic to an argument they're trying to make?

Re:Occam's Razor

[fuzzywig]

Mate, I've seen some Fox news and I can tell you that by international standards your "US Leftist media" is being pretty polite.

It took me a few minutes to be sure that it wasn't a piss-take on a statical news show. The amount of distortion would be flat out illegal in a lot of countries I think (as shown when they do have news from outside the US, and get it so hilariously wrong)

I'm afraid to say it's reality's well known liberal bias, raising it's head again.

Re:Occam's Razor

[squiggleslash]

Most US media is right wing, even in American terms, but gets labelled liberal because:

1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party
2. A concerted smear campaign since the impeachment of Nixon and the failure of the Vietnam war, a war that the media covered largely accurately, as a result increasing political pressure to end what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable quagmire.

People who doubt this should ask themselves:

1. Do you think the media often discusses the same issues as the Democratic party because it's biased towards "The Democrats", or because the Democratic party is more likely to listen to the media than the Republicans?
2. Does the media regard the following policies as mainstream or does it frequently describe them as "leftist"? Are they actually "leftist", or are they pragmatic and common among Western democracies outside of the US:
. - Free education, including University education without tuition fees
. - Single Payer healthcare
. - A livable minimum wage
. - An effort to ensure employment is available for all

For those wondering if I just pulled these examples out of my ass, they're on "notorious leftist" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Wikipedia page. I omitted views that either the media is usually sympathetic with (Immigration), or stuff that falls outside of the left/right spectrum (such as Israel) and that would count as foreign policy. Coverage of Ocasio-Cortez has been... if not hostile, certainly "This is far from a serious candidate", by most media outlets that right wingers here would call "mainstream" and "liberal". Absolutely none of her positions is remotely radical - like I said, most Western democracies have these in some shape or form - it's just to the left of the media's position, and hence also to the left of the party that treats the media seriously.

Re: Occam's Razor

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Obama ... caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs...

Not according to fact check:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017...

Re: Occam's Razor

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama never claimed what you claim he did.

He promised to wind down the war in Iraq and focus on the war against Al Queda. He accomplished this.

He promised to end the indiscriminate drone killings of civilians and low level fighters that was endemic during the bush years (the Bush admin actually fired a hellfire at a guy because he was tall and people deferred to him, seriously, this action killed a high level tribal member not affiliated with the Taliban and caused them to ally with the Taliban) and to use more aggressive targeted drone strikes against the al queda and Taliban leadership, something he was lambasted on the right for during the campaign. He was in fact immensely successful in this, the leadership of both groups was forced to break all communication and their war effort and coordination fell off a cliff for a number of years because they were forced into hiding and unable to communicate except through hand delivered couriers. These targeted strike were about 100X more effective than the Bush's indiscriminate attacks were and the anger in Pakistan about the Bush drone attacks largely faded because of it which allowed the drone program to continue.

Obama talked about the NSA and did change his mind once he had access to the intelligence. I don't consider that a broken promise, I consider that an example of willing to admit you were wrong.

Obama oversaw that biggest cut to federal spending in a LONG time when he signed the bill that authorized the sequester. The vast bulk of the debt accumulated during the Obama administration was the debt created by Bush. Two unfunded wars and an economy in a tailspin. Within 1 year Obama was able to bottom out the recession. Job growth began almost immediately afterward and proceeded until the end of his term.

Handed wall street and corporations vast amounts of money? Really, when did Obama do this? And this in comparison to Trump who just gave the average corporation, millionaire and billionaire a 20% tax cut? Seriously, that's your talking point?

As stated before the Job losses were in place when Obama took office, peak losses were in the first quarter of the Obama administration (after growing consecutively for the past 8 quarters) and began to grow net jobs within his first term. Frankly an amazing achievement given the depths of the great recession with 10-20% of the population unemployed.

The healthcare reform Obama "saddled" us with provided insurance to millions of uninsured and arrested the price increases. Prior to the passage of the ACA health costs were increasing at 20% a year for the past 2 decades. Cost growth was in the single digits when he left office even with the number of retiree's growing every year. It's also point out Obamacare was in fact a proposal created by the Heritage foundation (Koch) created as an alternative proposal during the attempt by President Clinton to reform the healthcare system. It IS the conservative plan.

You have no memory for history.

Re: Occam's Razor

[Gr8Apes]

Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.

He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited. Targeted killings are the best option out of the crap shoot of terrible options in war. See Dresden Bombing or the Battle of Verdun for examples of what all out war is about. Then come back and complain about targeted killings.

Obama ... massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations

You do realize that was only completing what was started under Bush and Republicans, right? And started because Bush and Republicans deregulated wall st to the point that they needed the bailout.

, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs,

Again, Bush and Republicans. You do recall how much Bush was considered the worst president ever? How I miss those times.

and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable.

Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer. I'm not sure any of the architects were forward thinking enough to realize the end game though, so I'll give you this one.

... was simply a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected ...

Are you describing Trump?

Re: Occam's Razor

[cleavet]

What rubbish. The 2007 recession and resulting financial crisis caused millions to lose their jobs, and turned large deficits--thanks to the tax cuts passed by the GOP--into gargantuan deficits. The trends for both of the labor force participation rates you cite (thanks for including the 2008-2009 data in your second set), as well as for the unemployment rate, were fully in place before he took office. And as for the Affordable Care Act, it was so unworkable that it dropped the uninsured rate by a third from March 2010 to Nov. 2016.

Re: Occam's Razor

[iMadeGhostzilla]

So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated city folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like rolling coal.

The only hate I see is coming from your post. You may (and I'm sure you do, from your perspective) have personal reasons to be angry at them but you are the only one who can decide if you'll let it consume you or not is yourself.

Imagine if an academic wrote this about practicing software engineers: "So maybe instead of being a bunch of hateful fucks, those yokels could work together with the hated university folks to address those issues. Instead, they'd rather be spiteful shitheels doing shit like using NoSql databases." What would you think of him?

Re:Occam's Razor

[Green Mountain Bot]

Narcissitic Personality Disorder:

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. Those affected often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or on their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them.
...
Self-confidence (a strong sense of self) is different from narcissistic personality disorder; people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they openly disregard the feelings and wishes of others, and expect to be treated as superior, regardless of their actual status or achievements. Moreover, the person with narcissistic personality disorder usually exhibits a fragile ego (self-concept), intolerance of criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in order to validate their own superiority.
...
The DSM-5 indicates that persons with NPD usually display some or all of the following symptoms, typically without the commensurate qualities or accomplishments:
1) Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from other people
2) Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
3) Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions
4) Needing continual admiration from others
5) Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
6) Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
7) Unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people
8) Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them
9) Pompous and arrogant demeanor

Re: Occam's Razor

[calgarynerd]

Oh, maybe... because of the 2008 recession, which was caused by the financial crisis meltdown? The crisis which became widely public in late summer/early fall of 2008, while he was still in the process of actually getting elected? He didn't actually take office until 2009... This has been a standard part of the republican playbook since the 80's... Either run up massive debt and ignore fiscal responsibilities just before leaving office, so that when democrats are elected, it "appears" as if it was all their fault, and then they have to spend time recovering...

Re: Occam's Razor

[Tough Love]

While you are googling, try "worst president" and set the time frame to "past year". Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

In particular, there is this link: The White House's Disastrous Reaction to McCain's Death

Re: Occam's Razor

[cleavet]

I'm not blaming Obama for the financial crises (other progressives are responsible for that). What Obama did was to turn what should have been a normal recovery into a long and drawn out stagnant economy that kept millions who lost their jobs from regaining their jobs.

That is not at all what you originally said, and what you're saying is still false. The 2007 recession and financial crisis was not a normal recession, and there was never going to be a normal recovery. There was too much damage, and it was spread too widely. The GOP capture of the House in 2010, and complete intransigence in the Senate (check how often the filibuster was invoked after 2010) was what stymied the recovery. After the Democrats passed the ARRA in 2009 there was no further opportunity to improve the economy, thanks to Republican dogma.

As for ACA, it's easy to cover more people in the short term if you borrow to pay for it; that's not sustainable. It's the lack of sustainability and financial responsibility that makes the ACA so crappy.

In 2010 the CBO estimated that the 10-year cost of ACA reforms would be $940B, and that taxes and cost reductions would yield revenue of $1044T. Since then overall costs have come under projections, and have been below pre-ACA estimations. In other words, the ACA has saved the federal government money vs. doing nothing.

Re: Occam's Razor

[Tough Love]

Trump benefits from hostile mainstream news

I see very little "hostile" trump news on the google news front page. If you want that, you have to go to twitter feeds and the like. What you apparently mistake for hostile news is actually horrified news, in reaction to the horrific actions of a horrible person.

One thing is clear: today's "google news is fake news" trump troll is just a brazen attempt to switch the focus away from John McCain and back to him. Same with yesterday's fake trade deal. Sigh, this week is going to be along week from trump. Expect another troll tomorrow morning.

Re: Occam's Razor

[Tough Love]

#1 link on Google News right now: "Trump slams Google search as rigged -- but it's not: CNN". That is a fairly hostile title

You apparently have your own private definition of "hostile". Did you read the article? (I doubt it.)

The central point in that article is: "Google's most fundamental interest is returning search results that users find helpful, because that's how it gets them to come back. It does that, in part, by prioritizing results from trusted news outlets with large audiences." The headline summarizes the thesis, the article supports it.

By the way, Google personalizes all news results according to what its algorithms say you are interested in, and you don't need to be logged into gmail for Google to get an accurate read on who you are. Google fed you that article at the top of your new page because you frequently search for and click through to similar content.

Hey Trump

[olsmeister]

I like your new invisible suit.

These days reality has a liberal bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution, global warming, the facts about Trump... All these aspects of reality that mainstream media is willing to embrace, conservative media largely rejects. The result of these processes is that, to the conservative eye, reality appears to have a liberal bias. Is it such a bad thing that Google reflects that reality?

Re:These days reality has a liberal bias

[ranton]

So if reality has a liberal bias then GMOs are the devil, vaccines cause autism and there are no biological differences between males and females? Oh, and a new one I found out yesterday is that apparently race isn't based on biology either.

Idiot.

There are certainly falsehoods believed by groups on both sides of the political spectrum, and in the recent past it could be argued the crazies on both sides were fairly equal. But unfortunately today the far right has went so far off the deep end there is no comparison. Lets look at some of your examples.

Liberals do tend to have unfounded anti-GMO biases, which while misguided are still based on some solid scientific concerns. Compare that to Conservatives and their antagonistic views on global climate change, which go against an effectively unanimous backing from the scientific community.

Anti-vaccination concerns started out with a tiny section of liberals, but today these concerns are roughly equally shared by the far left and far right. Even here, one side is merely anti-corporation where the other is more generally anti-science. Both are misguided, but the far right is driven as usual from its anti-intellectual beliefs.

No liberals I have ever read about believe there are no biological differences between men and women. They simply follow the research which shows biology is not a prime driver of gender inequities in our society. Compare that to conservatives who still believe gender is a binary condition, and the far right is clearly less educated in their beliefs here as well.

It doesn't matter whether it's true

[Opportunist]

This statement is probably bullshit, but it serves its purpose: His die hard fans will simply believe it and any bad news is simply propaganda against him. What is or what isn't doesn't really matter either way.

In a way, it's genius. What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.

I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.

Re:trumpdot

[Opportunist]

Considering that it's a site that is used internationally, and that in general international readers think it's funny you made Donald Duck the ruler of your country...

This is just more alternative facts...

[EndlessNameless]

If the record doesn't reflect what you want, toss it out and supply your own "facts". Trump is mad that he's forced to face criticism and not allowed to make up his own facts.

And beyond all that, Google ranks pages essentially based on their popularity. If a lot of sites---especially popular sites---link to your content, then it gets ranked more highly regardless of how "good" or "true" it is. In that sense, Google's rankings simply reflect an unfavorable opinion of Trump.

This is more of the same attitude on the part of the President, and I scarcely see it as newsworthy. He's been at war with the media practically since his campaign started.

Trumps behavior is the simple explanation

[sjbe]

Bias is simple, and doesn't require any conspiracy.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is bias. Believing all news sources are biased against you is indistinguishable from believing in a conspiracy. The simple explanation here is just that Trump doesn't like news that isn't flattering to him and that there is a LOT of factual news that makes him objectively look bad. His own behavior is the simplest explanation, not bias. Some people like his behavior - many many more do not. Ergo a lot of of news isn't favorable to Trump.

Re:Only bad news?

[Anonymous Coward]

tax evasion, money laundering, obstruction of justice to start...look at all the folks who have flipped. its the entire list of folks who buried his bodies.

the rightwing media self protrait as unreliable

[aepervius]

Look, we aren't blind and deaf. When we see/hear stupid stuff like fox news comparing Denmark and Venezuela, or even many other completely ridiculous pretension like part of london being muslim only, and I pass many other, not even counting you have theblaze as conservative media we come to our conclusion alone why fox news is called faux news. You don't like it ? Then ask your conservative media to have a fact based reporting , rather than wishful thinking reporting.

Preaching to the choir

[sjbe]

What astonishes me, though, is that for him works what didn't for the commie leaders of old: Saying that the media in the liberal west are just spreading lies.

It works (on some) because he's saying it to his tribe who are already predisposed to believe it is true. Trump is basically preaching to the choir. That's why his ratings have bottomed out - his supporters don't care what he says and everyone else knows he's full of shit.

I refuse to believe that Russians are smarter than Americans.

Hard to tell if electing Trump or Putin is the dumber move so you're probably right. Technically Trump lost the popular vote which makes it harder to pick a "winner".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:trumpdot

[Green Mountain Bot]

Trump has improved the trends, with both a rising labor participation rate

Nope. It's been flat since two years before Trump took office.

and low unemployment numbers.

Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama.

But, I truly do thank you for illustrating the issue: Trump's rhetoric is at odds with reality, and his supporters would rather believe him than their own lying eyes.

They should sue for defamation

[LetterRip]

This could damage their stock price. I'd sue for defamation - he is making a factual claim as the POTUS on an official communication channel.

Re:News Feed

[fluffernutter]

In my experience, none of the negative things said about Trump are false. Most of them quote something he just said, then demonstrate why it is a lie in a completely factual way. Maybe if Trump didn't do so many detestable things, news organizations would have less ammunition.

It's not bias - it's behavior

[sjbe]

All I said is: bias is simple.

Bias is simple but Trump's behavior and dislike of unflattering news that results from it is a proven fact. Occam's razor only applies when it isn't clear what the answer is between two choices. While there are clearly a minority of news sources that are biased against (and for) Trump, many more are simply accurately relaying facts without any significant bias for or against. The fact that these facts make Trump look like an asshat is a second order effect. There is a reason his approval ratings are generally historically low - the majority of people don't approve of his actions and it should surprise no one that the news reflects that disapproval.

Trump behaves like asshat = news reports asshattery is a FAR simpler explanation than assuming widespread and universally negative bias against Trump by google and news organizations.