Apple, Google Accused Of News Burying

Two of the world’s most powerful tech companies are now accused of quietly shielding a scandal-plagued Senate candidate from months of damaging news.

Story Snapshot

A new Media Research Center study says Apple News and Google News buried negative stories about Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner for months.
The study claims the platforms promoted zero stories about Platner’s Nazi-style tattoo, offensive Reddit posts, and sex scandals until a New York Times report hit.
Conservatives see this as fresh proof Big Tech protects favored politicians, while broader research on bias remains mixed.
The fight raises a bigger question most Americans share: who really controls what political news we see, and when we see it?

Study claims Apple and Google buried Graham Platner controversies

Fox News reports that a new study from the conservative watchdog Media Research Center alleges Apple News and Google News “spent months” suppressing negative stories about Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner. According to the study, from November of last year through May of this year, neither platform surfaced any of the many stories on Platner’s growing list of scandals, even as his race against Republican Senator Susan Collins tightened. The report says the blackout ended only after a major New York Times piece about a sexting controversy finally broke through.

The Media Research Center study focuses on at least 112 critical articles about Platner, many from right-leaning outlets, that it says never appeared in Apple News or Google News feeds during that period. Those stories covered several major controversies: an old tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol, years of offensive and sometimes misogynistic Reddit posts, and later allegations of sexual misconduct and explicit messages to women early in his marriage. MRC President David Bozell accused the platforms of running a “protection racket” for Platner by keeping these reports out of users’ default news mixes.

Who is Graham Platner and why the story matters now

Graham Platner is an anti-establishment Democrat who came from almost nowhere to become his party’s nominee to challenge long-serving Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine. National and local outlets documented a series of troubling issues: The Maine Monitor and other reporters dug up hundreds of deleted Reddit comments where Platner joked about sexual assault, used racist language, and mocked victims. A separate flap centered on a now-covered chest tattoo that experts and critics said looked like a Nazi symbol, which Platner later called a mistake he regretted.

The pressure on Platner escalated as more personal behavior came to light. The Wall Street Journal reported that he sent sexually explicit messages to multiple women while newly married, using a chat app with a reputation for enabling exploitation. Politico then published a rape allegation from an ex-girlfriend, which Platner strongly denied as “categorically false.” Days later, the New York Times released a lengthy report quoting multiple women and citing texts, emails, and diaries that painted a broader pattern of misconduct. Following these stories and mounting backlash from both Democrats and Republicans, Platner announced he would withdraw from the race.

Big Tech bias fight lands on familiar ground

This clash over Platner fits a now-familiar pattern: conservative watchdogs say Big Tech hides or downplays stories that hurt Democrats, while tech companies insist their algorithms simply elevate “relevant” or “trusted” coverage. The Media Research Center has issued several studies arguing Apple News and Google News favor left-leaning outlets and sideline conservative sources, claiming these systems effectively become gatekeepers for what millions of Americans see. Earlier MRC work found that only a tiny share of Apple and Google news recommendations came from right-leaning outlets.

The Platner study appears to build on that theme by tying alleged bias to one high-stakes Senate race. Fox News says the study claims a clear before-and-after pattern: critical stories spread widely on other platforms and websites but did not surface in Apple News or Google News until Platner’s standing collapsed. However, public reporting so far does not include the full technical details of MRC’s methods, such as how it tracked feeds, which devices it used, or how it measured what an average reader would see. That leaves outsiders able to see the pattern it describes, but not yet able to fully test or replicate it.

What research and regulators say about “algorithmic censorship”

Claims of one-sided censorship come as government watchdogs and researchers are already studying how large platforms may shape public debate. The Federal Trade Commission has launched an inquiry into how technology platforms might deny or downgrade access to services based on speech, including political content. Advocacy groups told the agency that major platforms have too much control over which news outlets thrive and which vanish from view, and that sudden traffic drops can cripple smaller or independent media.

Must be nice to have two of the biggest tech platforms in the world suppress negative news about you. Fortunately X is surpassing them for where people go for news. Only after the fake news turned on Platner, did Google and Apple News start including coverage of Platner.
—
The…

— Rachel Alexander (@Rach_IC) July 13, 2026

At the same time, a broad review of academic studies finds little solid proof that platforms consistently suppress conservative content more than liberal content. Some researchers even argue that highly emotional or controversial posts, which are common in partisan media, tend to perform well under engagement-driven algorithms. That mixed record fuels frustration on both sides: conservatives point to episodes like the Platner blackout as evidence of hidden bias, while many liberals focus on cases where platforms were slow to curb disinformation or hate speech that hurt vulnerable groups.

Why this touches a shared fear across left and right

For many Americans, the deeper worry goes beyond Graham Platner or one Maine race. People on the right see two giant corporations allegedly insulating a Democrat from hard questions until elites decide he is expendable. People on the left see the same companies quietly deciding when serious allegations finally count as “newsworthy.” Both groups are left asking who gave Apple, Google, and the insiders who influence them the power to filter democratic choices and protect the powerful from public scrutiny.

This fight lands in a country where trust in institutions is already low and where many believe a small group of political, corporate, and media elites call the shots. Past revelations have shown platforms working closely with governments, law enforcement, and big media to shape what people can see, from the removal of a sitting president’s accounts to the blocking of major newspaper stories. The Platner case, if the Media Research Center’s claims hold up under closer review, would be another sign that the digital gatekeepers can tilt the field long before voters ever step into a booth.