First they were anti-Sicko, now they're anti-democracy. Google's getting caught in a little PR disaster. Last week, an advertising employee blogged about Sicko, saying that Michael Moore's exposé of the health industry "portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare's interest in patient well-being and care." She then encouraged health care clients (this was, granted, the "Google Health Ads" blog) to manage their reputations through ads. Some readers got skeeved out. And then the story got into the New York Times: "Google takes on Michael Moore."
Now Google took the story to the company's official blog. "We blew it," said a product marketing manager, by "fail[ing] to recognize that readers would — properly, but incorrectly — impute the criticisms as reflecting Google's official position." Mm, could be that. Or maybe they blew it by even letting an employee publicly criticize a liberal hero and imply that all America's health care system needs is a good Google Ads campaign.
The new post went on: "In fact, Google does share many of the concerns that Mr. Moore expresses about the cost and availability of health care in America. Indeed, we think these issues are sufficiently important that we invited our employees to attend his film (nearly 1,000 people did so)." (Incidentally, the Google health care package includes helicopter ambulances, robot doctors, and two bottles full of a secret cure-all.)
Google must have smelled a big PR disaster if it so quickly backtracked into practically endorsing Michael Moore. Meanwhile, they let the original health ads blogger post her own reaction, in which she called Google's ad marketplace a "democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue."
Uh-oh.
Outside Google expert Philipp Lenssen caught that phrase and worked it over in an essay criticizing the concept of a pay-for-play democracy that competed with the supposed democracy of organic search results. Who would want such a democracy other than powerful corporate interests (and the free-market Silicon Valley libertarians who also support unlimited campaign donations because "money is free speech")?
