Slashdot Mirror
Google Apologizes For "Michelle Obama" Results
theodp writes "CNN reports that for most of the past week, when someone did a Google image search for 'Michelle Obama,' one of the first images that came up was a picture of the First Lady altered to resemble a monkey. After being hit with a firestorm of criticism over the episode, Google first banned the site that posted the photo, saying it could spread malware. Then, when the image appeared on another site, Google displayed the photo in its search results, but displayed an apologetic Google ad above it. On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for 'Michelle Obama.' Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment."
Update — 15:38 GMT by SS: A reader pointed out that this article from the Guardian says the image was de-listed simply because it was removed from the blog where it was hosted rather than by any "deliberate" action from Google.
What makes you so sure that this comparison is racially charged? Why is all criticism (whatever the form) of Obama branded as racism?
Can't we even disrespect our president without being branded as racists?
Of course, Google *does* have a liberal bias.. being that conservatives are so anti-intellectual.
How we know is more important than what we know.
maintained that too a8d as BSD sinqks
Google did not act when there were images of the prophet in its search results
Sorry, who are you talking about here? Not everyone worships your religion.
Summation 2
Really? When I searched for "Michelle Obama Monkey" on google image search, the pictures I got was of George Bush.
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm157/cin2008_album/bush_monkey3.jpg
http://www.globalpov.com/images/bush-monkey.jpg
And a monkey that got to first base:
http://klog.imjustsaying.org:81/files/images/monkey.preview.jpg
Another was of Palin being compared as an Ape
http://i.somethingawful.com/u/garbageday/apepalin.jpg
The only Michelle Obama photo was from a site called celebrity apes (a site which now seems defunct http://www.celebrityape.com/).
This furor over the photos shows a double standard in the media when liberals are concerned.
In the past, numerous artists have drawn caricatures of numerous politicians, and no one apologized for the caricatures.
In much the same way, the media has ignored the racist voting pattern by African-Americans in favor of Barack Hussein Obama. Allow me to explain.
During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
Why is all criticism (whatever the form) of Obama branded as racism?
Because the Obamas as Gods and ought be revered as such.
Ah,. c'mon, you can't blame Google for genetics!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
.. if that's what it thinks people WANTS to see when searching for Michelle Obama.
Redesign your algorithm please to be more useful.
Yes there really is a difference between mocking the privilleged (white) and mocking the discriminated (black).
Only if you are a total moron.
Google is not the government, it is a private company with no legal or moral requirement to link to something that clearly offends some of its customers.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Apparently you forgot to read the liberal playbook. Anything that shows a conservative (which Bush wasn't by the way) in a bad light is good. Anything that shows a liberal in a bad light is bad. I quit using google over a year ago. You can't blame them "technically" though. Look where they are headquartered...San Fran...the heart of liberal~socialism. Hey, it's their product. If they want to be like that, doesn't bother me...it's a 1st amendment thing with me, but, I also have the choice to search elsewhere. They aren't the only search engine in the world, just the most known/popular.
I'm just saying there is a difference between comparing a white public figure to a monkey, and comparing a black public figure to a monkey.
So, what would be an appropriate way to portray a black politician as a buffoon? (Other than the obvious fact that you called them a politician?)
Your difference only occurs in the motivation of the person who presents the image. Is it right to set aside a group of people as 'protected' from a certain form of speech while allowing that speech to be used against another group of people.
If you suggest that the form of speech is OK against one group of people, it is OK against another. The speech isn't what you should have issue with, it is the motivations of the person who presents the image.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The US cannot consider itself color-blind or non-racist until the same gamut of insults can be levelled at any public figure without fear of censorship or witch-hunting.
What utter crap. The US can consider itself free of racism when there are the same ratio of black politicians as there are black citizens. This also applies to Caucasians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and every other ethnic group that makes up the population. This applies to any country, which shows that the vast majority are racist to a greater or lesser extent. Much of the racism in the world is subconscious though which makes it much harder to deal with.
There is an excellent section on this in the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. He tests himself and discovers that he has a slight autonomic preference towards white faces which he finds disturbing as he is partially of afro-Caribbean descent. It is definitely worth reading.
Back on this original topic of censorship of this image it fairly obvious why Google pulled this image: It is the presidents wife. It is no different to the "Miserable Failure" one that went round a few years ago where it linked to President Bush. Pissing off the ruler of your home country is generally a bad idea, especially when your competitors are busy spending large amounts of money lobbying on Capitol Hill that you are engaging in anti-competitive and privacy abusing practices.
I dont read
Sure, it's all anecdotal, but you know I'm correct.
Ahh, a republican scientist.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.