Anti-Google AstroTurfing masked as "journalism"

Summary: A glance at how Microsoft boosters distort the facts or apply selective coverage to make Google look evil and Microsoft look like a victim or the solution

A lot of systematic FUD against Google has come from Microsoft this month, especially over the past fortnight or so. Some say that it is intended to bolster complaints against Google -- formally filed by proxies of Microsoft. Given the original source of most of this FUD, it is likely to be seeded by proxy by Microsoft PR agencies.

There's lots of Microsoft boosters trying to bring back a controversy which we first wrote about in May. Microsoft booster Gralla gets rebutted here for example:

So, Gralla thinks that this one app has the power to kill the entire platform? Wow! So, Amazon's Kindle have no future as there is no official YouTube app.

It's like reading the Lords of the Rings, one app to rule them all.

So going by Gralla's logic Google should have stopped releasing apps like Chrome, Maps, Earth, Gtalk, Google Music, Google Drive for Windows and killed Windows to protect Chrome OS!

If Google really feared something it should be iOS. Going by Preston Gralla's own 'assumption', if Google wanted to damage iOS it would have never released YouTube app when Apple discontinued their in-house app. Apple had a license with Google for the app. Does Microsoft have any such licensing deal with Google? If Google was really frightened, it would have iOS users keep getting lost with Apple Maps and should have never released Google Maps for iOS. Google did.

Tom Warren, over at The Verge, says in his headline that "Google blocks Microsoft's new YouTube Windows Phone app" (misses the full story).

Pamela Jones asked: "What is Microsoft up to? Let's guess. Maybe trying for some helpful headlines to buttress its FairSearch complaint about bundling? Or is a tech company not able to figure out the tech so as to get it right?"

Microsoft's lobbying blog joins in. As Jones put it: "If you read the most recent FairSearch complaint filed with the EU Commission, which Microsoft and other FairSearch members hope will become an official investigation, I think you'll see that Microsoft is here trying to buttress its case, rather than trying to "work with Google" to solve the issues raised. As you watch this play out, I think you'll find that is what this is really all about. When it's a lawyer writing a blog post, they're not just whistling Dixie."

The author at the lobbying blog is "David Howard, Corp. V. P. & Deputy General Counsel, Litigation & Antitrust, Microsoft" (antitrust which paints Microsoft as the victim).

Meanwhile, in a smear attributed to Consumer Watchdog (based on false information) we find sheer hypocrisy (ZDNet likes to pick on Google these days) and as part of this AstroTurfing against Google we also find that Microsoft Jack recommends Microsoft, the ally of the NSA, for privacy in E-mail (Microsoft is far worse than Google).

There is clearly some orchestration of propaganda in the media, so it is hard to tell apart legitimate Google scepticism from AstroTurfing. Not every criticism of Google is invalid, but a lot of it is manufactured by exploitative spin doctors. ⬆