Contrast that to The Atlantic, where 78.4% of SEO traffic is unbranded.
Semrush chart of Branded vs. Non-Branded Traffic for RealClearPolitics.com
You can see similar patterns around that time with other right-leaning sites like The Blaze, The Federalist, and Breitbart, as well as left-leaning sites like Mother Jones and HuffPost.
While those sites flailed in SEO, mainstream news sites like The New York Times and CNN skyrocketed.
Semrush chart of SEO performance for NYTimes.com
What happened?
In 2020, Google likely implemented changes similar to those in its 2018 Medic update.
The Medic update aimed to protect users from harmful health and finance content.
At the time, black hat SEO tactics allowed fraudulent sites to outrank legitimate ones, leading to financial scams and misinformation, in thousands of cases harming the most vulnerable populations.
Many elderly and low-income individuals were defrauded, and those with serious illnesses were misled by false medical claims.
To counter this, Google manually boosted high-authority sites to ensure reliable information surfaced.
Internally, many within Google likely viewed political content as an extension of the “Your Life” portion of YMYL.
This likely led to the creation of a list of trusted and untrusted sources.
While that information isn’t public, it’s not a stretch to assume it’s similar to the one maintained by Wikipedia editors, one which left-leaning individuals may find reasonable and right-leaning individuals would find extremely biased.
How one-sided news can affect public opinion
Here’s an example of how a lack of diverse perspectives can create a one-sided narrative.
In April 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, the virus was spreading rapidly, especially affecting the elderly, with no vaccine or cure in sight.
On April 23, the White House held a press conference where William Bryan from DHS shared promising research updates. (You can read the full transcript here.)
Specifically, he discussed the effects of sunlight and UV rays on the coronavirus and briefly mentioned the effectiveness of isopropyl alcohol in killing the virus on surfaces.
Following Bryan’s remarks, President Trump asked about potential clinical applications of the findings.
I think most would agree his wording was inartful and a bit bombastic, but fact-checking organizations would go on to conclude that he never suggested drinking or injecting household bleach.
A year later, peer-reviewed studies confirmed UV light as a viable concept.
However, a Google search for “trump bleach” immediately after the press conference presented a different picture:
The BBC ranked No. 1 with the headline: “Coronavirus: Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment.”
The New York Times was No. 2 with: “Trump’s Suggestion That Disinfectants Could Be Used to Treat Coronavirus Prompts Aggressive Pushback,” accompanied by a stock photo of household bleach.
The Washington Post was No. 3 with: “Trump asked if disinfectants could be injected to kill coronavirus inside the body. Doctors answered: ‘People will die.’”
The rest of the top results followed the same narrative – mocking or criticizing Trump for allegedly encouraging Americans to ingest or inject household bleach.
This could be attributed to the “fog of war,” but independent and conservative outlets provided alternative perspectives that were virtually invisible in search results.
For instance, RealClearPolitics published the full video and transcript on the day of the press conference, allowing readers to judge for themselves – yet it didn’t even rank in the top 100.
Did Google do anything wrong?
Now I’m going to upset the other half of America.
Did Google do anything wrong?
Not really.
Yes, Google likely tilts the scales – especially in amplifying smaller left-leaning sites over their right-leaning counterparts.
But even if Google didn’t interfere, the mainstream media would still dominate the top 10 rankings for most searches.
Most of us in SEO have experienced the frustration of seeing a niche site with outstanding content outranked by lower-quality content from an “authority” like Reddit or YouTube.
Similarly, major outlets like CNN and The New York Times have far more links and traffic than any conservative or progressive news site.
Big brands dominate the top results, while smaller sites fight for long-tail visibility. That’s how it’s been for a long time.
It’s also worth noting that Google is a private company.
The First Amendment protects speech from government interference – it doesn’t apply to private entities.
Unless the government is compelling Google’s actions, the company is free to serve up whatever results it wants.
Conservatives who cry foul at Google’s dominant position might want to remember how they pushed back in the 1990s against those who wanted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine when conservative talk radio gained influence.
Their argument back then was that the free market of ideas would self-correct.
This worked to some extent in broadcast and cable news.
MSNBC emerged as a counterbalance to Fox News.
Podcasters like Joe Rogan and the social media platform X attracted audiences seeking more transparency and alternative perspectives outside mainstream media and Google News.
In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta issued a ruling confirming what many in SEO had long anticipated: Google had maintained a monopoly in General Search Services, covering both paid and organic search.
Evidentiary hearings are set for April 2025, with a final ruling expected by August 2025.
Whether these remedies will – or even can or should – compel Google to present a more diverse range of opinions remains uncertain.
But in my view, a bigger threat to Google is on the horizon.
The future of news
The bigger threat to Google is people realizing that there is a powerful alternative to their curated political content: AI.
Here’s an example: I asked xAI’s Grok to present both perspectives of a highly contentious political question.
You’ll find similar responses on ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and others.
For the first time in eight years, I finally received a balanced answer – one that represents both sides fairly (or, if you prefer, equally unfairly).
Last year, I predicted that people would gradually shift to AI chatbots for search. I began that article predicting it would take three years.
But less than a year later, I find the majority of my own “searches” now happen on ChatGPT and Grok.
This shift reminds me of the search landscape in the late 1990s, when companies like Excite, Lycos, AltaVista, Yahoo, and Google were competing to be the top search engine.
Google won by offering the best experience.
It took years before content manipulation and link schemes forced algorithm updates like Panda and Penguin.
Today, a similar race is underway. ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Claude, and Grok are vying to become the new search standard.
Unlike Google, searches won’t take the form of one or two keywords, but detailed questions unlocking an expansive long-tail of search queries.
Many assume the U.S. political landscape consists of two sides, but in reality, there are 335 million perspectives – each shaped by unique experiences and biases.
Since 1998, we’ve been conditioned to search for head terms and accept Google’s 10 organic results as the authoritative answer.
But I continue to believe that the winner of the AI wars will be the platform that, like early Google, embraces free speech and classical liberalism.
That means using training data that reflects all viewpoints – even those that company insiders might find uncomfortable – and allowing AI to answer questions honestly.
We’ve already seen DeepSeek censor viewpoints that conflict with the Chinese government, as well as how trying to solve for “algorithmic unfairness” made Google Gemini look silly.
Can any American AI companies resist the temptation to limit AI’s knowledge by limiting its access to information and forcing it to follow their internal bias rather than objective truth?
We’ll find out in four years.
Contributing authors are invited to create content for Search Engine Land and are chosen for their expertise and contribution to the search community. Our contributors work under the oversight of the editorial staff and contributions are checked for quality and relevance to our readers. The opinions they express are their own.