A family-owned news outlet in North Dakota, WDAY Radio, is reportedly considering legal action against Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign and Google over what it claims are deceptive tactics being used to manipulate news coverage in favor of Harris. The controversy stems from a recent incident where WDAY Radio noticed that a headline about Harris had been altered in Google Search results, making it appear as though the station was endorsing Harris and her campaign plans.

According to Steve Hallstrom, President and Managing Partner of Flag Family Media, which owns WDAY Radio, the manipulation of headlines by the Harris campaign crossed a line. Hallstrom expressed his frustration to the “Daily Caller” emphasizing that the campaign used the station’s news brand and URL to mislead the public. The headline in question falsely claimed, “Harris Picks Tim Walz – 215,000 MN Families Win,” when in reality, the station had published two separate articles: one about Walz being selected as Harris’s running mate and another on the Minnesota Child Tax Credit.

Hallstrom accused the Harris campaign of dishonestly merging these two unrelated stories to create a misleading headline that suggested the station was celebrating Walz’s selection as Harris’s running mate. He also pointed out that this deceptive tactic not only misrepresented the station’s editorial stance but also damaged its credibility. “We never wrote anything close to what is alleged here,” Hallstrom asserted, adding that his organization is now exploring all possible legal options.

The situation has drawn broader criticism, with other news outlets expressing similar concerns. For instance, spokespeople from the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters both condemned the manipulation, stating that their organizations were unaware of their content being used in this manner. Reuters even promised to investigate the matter, calling the practice “entirely wrong” and “misleading.”

Google, for its part, has acknowledged the issue but downplayed it, suggesting that the problematic ads do not violate their advertising policies. They did, however, admit that a “glitch” had led to some ads being displayed without the required paid-for disclosure, which they promised to fix.

Hallstrom, unimpressed by Google’s explanation, questioned the Harris campaign’s ethics, particularly given that the original news coverage wasn’t even particularly critical of Harris. He voiced his disbelief that a campaign, especially one as high-profile as Harris’s, would resort to such deceptive practices. “This is clearly leading, it’s clearly deceptive, it’s dishonest,” Hallstrom remarked, wondering aloud about the decision-making process behind the strategy.