Site Meter

Santorum: Please Don’t Google

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Maggie says:

    What this article leaves out is that Dan Savage’s campaign against Santorum back a decade ago was driven specifically by Santorum’s politics and beliefs (he was, at the time, a US Senator in a well-populated state). It didn’t come from nothing, and Mr. Savage didn’t merely blindly choose his name out of a governmental handbook. That he is running for President now shouldn’t erase any negative thoughts or smear campaigns against him in the past (especially because a large group of people think it is either a) funny, or b) valid retaliation.) There are SEO companies who could probably assist Mr. Santorum in pushing those results farther down the chain and bringing up more positive search results, and I’m not sure if he’s tried that option. It seems like lots of people want to start with the search engines without looking at other, less media-driven options. If he wins the nomination (doubtful, but possible), he would be smart to look into other options that attacking search engine sites that mostly pride themselves on staying neutral.

  2. JoeJP says:

    I don’t expect librarians to red flag me if I ask for a book by certain disreputable authors and search engines shouldn’t be in the practice of doing so. There are enough troubling implications with them guiding searches as it is.

    I am sympathetic to Dan Savage’s general views but am not a big fan of his technique here. Someone with some more nefarious beliefs could very well sometime do the same thing. Also, looking up members of Congress, even those with views we don’t like, shouldn’t require us to skip over R rated websites. But, society survives either way and there is some humor to it, obviously.

  3. Ron Miller says:

    I’m not a fan of Santorum. But, yeah, Google should step in and do it. They are so random – maybe understandably – in stepping in so I’m not sure it is political.

  4. Ken Arromdee says:

    People believe that attacks against their political opponents are funny. Saying that there should be a Jew warning but not a Santorum warning because the Santorum search “is darn funny” is equivalent to saying “there should be warnings for causes I disagree with”.

    I’m sure that Nazis were laughing their ass off about searching for Jews and getting the Jewwatch site.

  5. Derek Bambauer says:

    @JoeJP: it’s worth noting that American political criticism has long been a bit R-rated. See, for example, the political attacks on Andrew Jackson’s wife Rachel regarding her divorce.

    @Ken: sorry, you need to think harder. Santorum entered political life willingly. He assumed the risk of funny and off-color criticism. Jews as a religious group have not. And comparing the history of anti-Semitism (in particular under the Third Reich) to the mild criticism Santorum is receiving only embarrasses you.

  6. JoeJP says:

    The Google thing is a tad more explicit than the sort of thing Jackson had to deal with, don’t you think?

    Also, Jackson was attacked for what very well might have technically been true: Rachel might not have been technically divorced. He wasn’t, to my knowledge, targeted (explicitly) for certain sexual acts performed or anything.

    Santorum to my knowledge did not do the acts connected to the satire. They are the sort of thing he would find immoral and if given his druthers, probably criminal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image