Axios recently reported the Kamala Harris campaign was using Google ads to appear as credible news stories. This paid advertising tactic is frowned upon in politics because it suggests allegedly objective news outlets support one candidate over another.

Harris’s ads framed her as the superior candidate while attacking her opponent, Donald Trump. MIG Reports analysis of conversations about this story shows voters treat this generally as unethical and shady.

The Kamala Harris campaign has been running google ads that link to mainstream media articles, but with headlines rewritten by her campaign to appear more supportive

This makes it look to people using Google that the news outlets are saying what her campaign wrote, even though… pic.twitter.com/x4chVdPS7T

— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) August 14, 2024

Sausage-Making on Full Display

The theme of authenticity and integrity permeates discussions, with frequent use of terms like fraud, lie, trust, and fake. Conversations questioning Harris's authenticity often accuse her of adopting policies for political gain rather than genuine conviction—her recent proposal for “no taxes on tips” is a recent example.

Voter skepticism extends to Harris’s communication style, with criticism that she avoids unscripted interactions and press questions. The sentiment here is distrustful, portraying Harris as a political figure lacking in genuine leadership qualities and transparent communication.

Many voters are disillusioned with political tactics and thus unsurprised by the Harris campaign’s advertising tactics. Still, with reporting on the abnormality of the ads, people voice their displeasure at mixing political campaigning with purportedly objective news publications.

Negativity also increased when the Axios reporter who wrote the story posted on X walking back criticisms of the campaign's tactics. This exacerbated distaste among voters who already view mainstream media as biased in favor of Democrats. Some also consider it an ironic implication that Democratic narratives are pushed by media outlets without ad dollars.

Harris camp doing nothing wrong and Google, which is pretty strict about banning spammy ads, doesn’t see it as a consumer harm. News outlets just collateral damage in this weird ads tactic https://t.co/xEAiW3JWNC

— Sara Fischer (@sarafischer) August 13, 2024

Show Me Your Friends, I’ll Show You Your Future

Discussions around Harris's policies often intersect with evaluations of her running mate, Tim Walz. Walz has remained in the news cycle for reported “stolen valor” through lies about his military service, combat action, and his rank. Many view this as consistent behavior among politicians.

They conclude questionable Harris campaign tactics foreshadow the deceptive strategies of a potential Harris presidency. This intersection indicates that public perception of Harris is partly influenced by her associations, leading to compounding negative sentiment from shared controversies.

• Discussions of Kamala Harris’s ideologies represent 10.5% of overall conversations about her and show lower approval.

Democrats Don’t Care

Conversations also reflect partisan sentiments, with distinct divides between Harris’s support and opposition. For instance, the hashtags and statements from Democratic voters mostly criticize the Republican Party, emphasizing a clash of ideologies. Harris supporters prioritize voting down Republican candidates, framing her as pivotal in defending rights and democracy.

This position is further demonstrated by Harris’s voter base showing no interest in policy, as the campaign continues to operate without a platform and no challenges from traditional, establishment media. Despite this, positive sentiment from Harris’s advocates is outnumbered by the more frequent and vociferous criticisms from her detractors, highlighting a polarized perception.