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.
At the moment it suggests searching for "Michelle Obama monkey" when you search for "Michelle Obama"
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
No one complained when Bush was made to look a monkey
They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.
Though not terribly surprising, I suppose.
Google did not act when there were images of the prophet in its search results, or offensive images from shock sites, or when Bush was made to look like a chimp. Bowing to pressure like this only re-inforces the belief that "new" media, as well as "old" media, has a liberal bias.
Since when is Google responsible for the content on the Internet?? I thought it just showed what was there, no matter what.
... that Google is now being held accountable to what is available on the internet. That should take them down a peg or two.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
Google *should* just index what it finds, and thats what originally happened here...
There are thousands of sites out there hosting insulting pictures of george bush, some where he looks like a monkey or is compared to one and some where he's likened to adolf hitler... If you're going to do something that makes you famous, then you will attract a huge amount of attention and inevitably some of it will be bad. That is well known up front and you can't go crying about it when it happens. Noone forced obama to stand, and now that he's won there will be a lot of attention given to him and his family, if he doesn't like that he should have thought about it before.
Incidentally, when i woke up this morning i had no plans whatsoever to look for pictures of michelle obama on the internet, but having read this story i went looking for the picture in question and i'm sure a lot of other people will do the same. Had i stumbled across such pictures by accident without having read this story i probably wouldn't have thought anything of it because there are countless other derogatory pictures of famous people out there.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
When Google said that it wouldn't remove the picture I was quite annoyed with them, but then it suddenly dawned on me that if they removed that picture, the very next thing that would happen is that some bright spark would speak up and say "Great, now take this one down too, because it's just as bad" and before you know it, the whole situation's lost control.
It wasn't particularly fair on Google and they had to make a tough decision and I think in this instance they made the right one.
Summation 2
why is that picture "racially offensive"?
because the portrayed person is black?
what if it was made by a black person?
do we know it wasn't made by a black person?
would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person?
if we want to reach REAL equality between all races, this also means we mustn't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about the same insult to a person from another race (remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures?)
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
and frightening.
If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.
That includes racist bullshit too. Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.
Christ on a stick you guys are fail.
How we know is more important than what we know.
No one forces you to use Google. If you don't like Google's exercising of free speech (of choosing what *not* do display) you may as well refrain from using its product.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
They have not censored this image, or blocked it from their search. They just removed it from the top pick when you do an image search of her name. One of their suggested searches points you directly to the image. If you google Michelle Obama Monkey it comes up.
Come on.. this is the just the Zeitgeist. There are more people searching for the picture in question rather than just her name. That would put the suggestion higher in the list (I'm guessing that's how the autocomplete algorithm works).
Google isn't really to blame.. and them removing this item can be seen as censorship.
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
I think the Google apology link was a good idea, since it explained to the uninitiated how Google works, rather than making Google responsible for everything on the Internet.
Further, I agree with this statement: "Racism won't be truly a thing of the past until we can make fun of black and white politicians alike."
However, this is not "alike". We make fun of white politicians--and their wives, at times--without reference to their race. That's not the same as dehumanizing Michelle Obama for being black.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
No. This is the "he hit first"-argument, and it doesn't work in kindergarten either.
(Actually, it's the "he said some bad things back after I killed his brother and tortured him, so it's ok that I say bad things too"...)
It is not OK to vote racist. No matter who you are. Voting based on skin colour is undermining the entire idea of egalitarianism and democracy - we cannot outlaw it, but we can definitely cry foul. So I find your post informative and interesting, but I do not agree with your conclusion (or was it just a provocation?)
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
African-Americans have voted in a much larger percentage for the Democratic party since the civil rights era. That whole time they were voting for white politicians.
Frankly, your entire premise here is ignorant bullshit. Going by your logic every white person is a racist, if they've only voted for white politicians like John Sidney McCain.
Humans are one species of ape, so of course there are clear similarities in appearance (and differences also, chiefly that humans are nearly bald over most of their bodies). For instance, we can recognize a wide range of facial expressions in apes, and associate them with comparable expressions in humans. These similarities are stronger or weaker depending on the moment, but exist for any human individual. Exploiting the similarity to parody a public figure as an ape or monkey is commonplace, and should be considered just another form of fair comment. This is not a race-specific issue - it applies equally across the board.
Google's conduct in cowing to politically motivated whiners is reprehensible. It is apparently acceptable to compare George W Bush or Steve Ballmer to monkeys (or chimps, or whatever) in words or pictures as social or political comment. Tony Blair mostly got poodle comparisons, but there's probably a few monkey ones around also. RMS would be fair game as an ape, too, although he typically gets cave-man or neanderthal comparisons. 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.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I just did a Google vs Bing comparison on image search for michelle+obama+monkey.
First comment: the images were displayed really slowly on Bing; many never appeared at all.
Second comment: of the images displayed, Google's had more with a monkey theme of some sort.
Third comment: neither search produced anything I'd refer to as offensive.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
You can only take it.
Say what you want about the Right (and being an equal opportunity center-of-the-aisle kind of snark, I've said a lot...), they have much thicker skins than the Left, I've noticed. Every joke made about the current administration can never really be just a joke about the current administration, it's either borne of "racism" or a "disturbing indication of a growing violence and unrest." The recent SNL stuff is making my leftie friends apoplectic; when the same show skewered Bush and Cheney, my rightie friends were, like, "SNL? Is that still on?"
Sure, it's all anecdotal, but you know I'm correct.
I think that righties don't mind being un-hip. Many even carry it as a "badge of honor." (I am reminded here of bowtie-wearing Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson.) The lefties are mortified that they might somehow be un-cool, and that the Stewarts/Colberts/SNLs/Lettermans will turn on them. They need to be "in" on the joke, and not the butt of it, and if they ARE the butt of it, well, it can't really be a joke then, can it? It must be sedition and racism...
If I do a GIS for "Laura Bush" on the very first page is a photoshopped picture of her naked. If I do a GIS for "George Bush" on the very first page is a picture of him eating a kitten, three pictures of him giving the finger, one picture making him look like a monkey, one picture making him look like some kind of ogre and one picture of a bush impersonator being spanked on his bare bottom. I think some are being overly sensitive here. Michelle Obama is an intelligent and successful woman, I think she can handle a corny picture on the internet.
And the constitution is entirely about democracy
Really? Show me where the word is mentioned. I'm sure it must be in there somewhere.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Looking at US politics from the outside, one thing I simply can't understand is this.
You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against (eg kept under control by lynching) within living memory. Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day.
Then you act surprised that they vote as a block for one of their own to be head of state the first time they have a real chance! Seriously what the fuck did you expect? That isn't racism, its human nature.
This sig all sigs devours
How many republicans are against Obama's plans because they don't believe in them and how many because he is black? Like the "you lie" outcry that has not been done to any white president, this case is still to sensitive.
The movie "white man can't jump" could also have been titled "black men can't shoot without trying to look good even it means missing", a point made in the movie itself. Both are racial slurs and yet... there is a difference.
In a movie, writers typically show a bad guy is truly evil by having him kill an unarmed woman who is totally defenseless. Yet in "Apocalypse Now" the "hero" does exactly this while he is not treated as truly evil by either the writers or the audience for the rest of the movie. Because asian women are not truly human perhaps? American-japaense were interred during WW2, American-Italian and American-german were not. There were no neutralized japanese civilian spies. There were PLENTY of neutralized german and italian spies. So why was the loyal group rounded up?
Racism exist, and might never be truly eliminated. Until that it does, we need to be careful claiming that all should be treated equal when this isn't happening.
I don't know if this was unique to holland but there was a racism awareness event that tried to show how stupid racism was by claiming blue-eyed people were less intelligent. Fake docu's showing blue-eyed people being rounded up and put in special accommodations where there lower intelligence could be accounted for. Why blue-eyed? Because bigger noses or dark skin would not be clearly as idiotic perhaps?
Think about it for second. If you had to come up with such a campaign and select a body characteristic that was clearly not linked with someones social value yet obvious to everyone, what would you pick? I would stick with a white characteristic. Else people MIGHT just believe your campaign. Same as people believed Archie Bunker and the actor who played him were for real, while his character was supposed to be a parody and the actor was a well known anti-racist (just played a racist on tv and a movie)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It is morally reprehensible to vote racist.
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat
Clearly your definition of racism is different from mine. I view racism as any act that distinguishes somebody on their race. By that definition I would say nearly all democrats are "racist" as they use race as one of their election platforms (a truly non-racist party would not need to promote equality legislation that distinguishes race as a factor). Neither would they feel the need to denigrate anyone in opposition to their candidate as "morally reprehensible racists". The fact is that if both Republicans and Democrats put up candidates of identical race there would still be votes for both. It is clear that Democrats, therefore, are an extremely racist party by any definition.
As a foreign viewer of the American presidential race I was astounded to the extent that self-promotion based on race was a factor.
That isn't racism, its human nature.
Just because something is part of human nature, does not mean it's not racist.. in fact it's the natural human "us/them" mentality that causes racism, sports related violence, religious wars and all that good stuff :/ I suppose it also drives things like capitalism.
Basically we are social animals, and need to feel we belong. On top of that, a lot of people like to believe that what they belong to is better than everything else.
It will be nice when everyone can think of "us" as the whole of humanity. Until we as a species have a more natural enemy (whether real or imagined) than other humans, things will probably continue to suck.
which is totally what she said
Calling Michelle Obama a monkey is more offensive than calling George Bush a monkey because in her case it is because of her race, not because of her person. In Bush's case it is a personal insult because of certain people's perception of him, personally, being clumsy and lacking intelligence.
There is a difference
Are you actually arguing that the constitution is not about democracy? Seriously?
Yes, dead seriously. Try reading it some time, because anyone who would say such an idiotic thing obviously hasn't.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
We've heard the argument before: "we are just a search engine, we arent responsible for child porn, warez, illegal mp3s or anythign like that that show up in our results"... unless its a picture of Michelle Obama... If you can flush that you have proved you can flush the other things as well. So whats next?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I don't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey' pictures were all the rage? Oh, that's right, he's white.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just trying to be prepared for when Tiananmen happens in the U.S.
I presume this means that Google will be removing the images - or at least apologizing for the images - that show Bush and Clinton as a monkey (e.g. among others http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/8130george-w-bush-monkey-posters.jpg, http://www.buttmonkeycentral.com/album/Funny%20Stuff/images/90576096af1be680a4643139f000e6db_11439207240/image.jpg), Bush as hitler etc.
It absolutely /is/ racism. It's /the/ definition of racism. Regardless of whether or not you consider it human nature.
Someone please explain to me how this is in any way a "racial slur". As far as I can tell, it's a political statement, and people are pulling the race card because they don't want to see the first lady criticized.
The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common. So yeah, someone please explain to me on what grounds people are calling this a racial slur, because it isn't and never has been as far as I've ever been aware.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I believe in Act:9-12 talks about where followers of Jesus were first called "Christians".
You mad
Why is Google trying to censor its results? Presumably results are returned in page rank order, and sticking their fingers into this mess is going to open up a whole can of censorship/regulation woes.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Why is this offensive? Because certain viewers attach a negative connotation to it? Give me a break. Ask my 6yo son what the image 'means' and he will just think it is funny. The only reason this is offensive is because the race baiters of the world in concert with the criminal liberal media continue to educate the uneducated that an image of a monkey is (more correctly was) racist - at one time. Get over it and quit propagating your own hate and blaming others for it.
Politics aside, I am against Google altering search results for most any reason. If it is a result and relevant, display it.
On the other side, if the site was using a clever google bomb to bait malware - then he!! yeah shut em down!
I remember that I saw some pics resebling former President Bush to a monkey, even in the New Yorker Magazine!... Any actions then?
Dear
Everyone knows you can only do tasteless jokes about a black woman or man when they are a conservative.
Remember Condoleezza Rice?
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&sa=1&q=condoleezza+rice+monkey&btnG=Search+images
Remember Michael Steele?
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=1&q=michael+steele+blackface&btnG=Search+images
Racism is in YOUR head. The people making this picture have been making it for ALL public figures, white or black.
Maybe it's bad taste, not funny. But perhaps some people even find it funny. It's not racism though, that is only your projection (which if you read the article, but this is /. after all ;-), you wouldn't make this mistake.
Racism dies the day you decide it isn't real (and you can still fight for equal rights and opportunities for ALL people in society).
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Google left the "miserable failure" link to Bush's official bio at whitehouse.gov intact for years. When Obama took office they realized the link pointed to the new president's bio. After years of it being okay to link to Bush the google bomb was disabled within a matter of days.
This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Eric Schmidt is a big supporter of Obama.
So don't be surprised now when a fake picture of Michelle Obama is taken down within days, but fake pictures of Sarah Palin still make the top of the list.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Racism: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
Any discrimination based on differences in race (which is kind of a silly concept anyways IMHO) is racism. Period.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
[..]
As a foreign viewer of the American presidential race I was astounded to the extent that self-promotion based on race was a factor.
Examples? Obama did everything possible to downplay ethnicity during the campaign and only brought it up when opponents tried to use his race/ethnicity (usually vis-à-vis his associations) to make political hay. There's a reason why "post-racial" was such a buzzword here last year.
A republic (in the modern sense) is just a state without a monarch as head of state. There is nothing special about a republic, and you can have perfectly democratic and/or representative monarchies (ie. monarchies with powers bound by a constitution such as Great Britain) with a high amount of liberty for most citizens, and yet have have quite oppressive republics with little liberty for most citizens.
What the US constitution (and others like it) really espouses is Liberty. Liberty is closely tied to Rights and how Rights are structured as to permit an individual to do anything according to his will as long as it does not infringe on the Rights of others. This idea is also related to the "pursuit of happiness", but be aware that Liberty is not to maximise happiness, but to enable its pursuit.
Britain, instead of rejecting the Monarchy, bound the Crown by setting up, using legal and political means, a structure (the unwritten constitution) that enabled representation for the aristocracy and gentry through Parliament. This was gradually expanded to universal suffrage in the 20th century and correspondingly the power of the Crown gradually contracted to the ceremonial role it plays today.
The reason I point this out is because in your post, you seem to have some sort of implicit admiration for anarchy. This I feel is misguided. Order is important in a society as it establishes what is acceptable and what is not (and how this is enforced). This threshold, however, is dynamic and multi-dimensional and there are many factors at play in any given society.
Without order and a power structure, society will break down, and new forms of authority will fill the power vacuum and the cycle repeats ad infinitum. Most humans need order, whether because of genetics, social conditioning or individual experience. They need a society that can give them the framework for security and production as these are linked directly to the most primal human instinct - survival.
The nature of power (in the human sense) is neither good or evil, it is just the measure of adherence of the Many to the will of the Few. A fundamental idea of the US constitution is the "balance of power" which was actually heavily influenced by the ideas of a Frenchman (Montesquieu) who admired the British system of checks on the power of the Crown through a legal framework and a body of elected representatives.
In short, the balance of power is not to limit the amount of power, yet that may be a side effect that brings many benefits; the essence of the idea is to prevent the corruption of power through institutional vigilance within government. As such, it is not about big government or small government, it is about good government.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
95% of black Americans always vote for the Democrat. 19 out of 20 black Americans voted for John Kerry. That's not a racial issue directly, it's more of a racial issue indirectly, because Dems like to make government programs that help black people. In that way, it is really a simple matter of voting for the policies out of self interest.
Moreover, affinity groups always gravitate toward their own representatives: Catholics liked Kennedy; Jews like Liberman. Considering this, it's surprising that more blacks didn't vote for Obama; but also, it's hard to improve on a base of 95%.
Finally, despite you being wrong about all your facts, I think you are right about your conclusion: you can vote for or against candidates any way you want, even for racial reasons. If your conscience says that black people are in some way bad, then you should not vote for black people. The grand effort of a liberal society should be to convince racists, bigots, haters, and the ignorant to change their ways; and if that's not possible, to convince their children to be different, and wait for the bigots to die. So as much as I hate to do it, I give you my personal blessing to continue voting your conscience, even as I vainly encourage you to stop being a bigot.