Wednesday, 25 November 2009

'Racist' or Racist?

The avowedly left -wing newspaper The Guardian has a news report close to their hearts as their lead story, headline Michelle Obama 'racist' picture that is topping Google Images removed.
The impartial BBC, also covers the story prominently (more often than not taking the lead on story prominence from The Guardian), headline as Michelle Obama racist image sparks Google apology.

No quotations. The problem is that a picture cannot logically be unequivocally considered racist because of differing definitions of racism and of interpretation, The Guardian know this and have sensibly put racist in quotation marks. Yet the impartial BBC's headline does not, implying that the picture is unequivocally racist.

I personally do believe it to be a clearly racist and offensive picture, before Sunny Hundal pops over to call me a frothing rabid extremist. But then I do not claim to be scrupulously impartial. Let us play the devil's advocate. Why do the impartial BBC sub editor(s) feel so unquestionably confident that the picture is racist? They believe that any objection at all is patently incorrect? What exactly is racism? Is it an objective thing that we can palpably touch and feel?

Still, odd, to me at least, that The Guardian, which does not have a pretence of impartiality has avoided value judgements on this news story, with the converse with regards to our dear Beeb. In this instance the Guardian have reported the facts; "Google had refused to remove the offensive image from its picture search listings, despite complaints that it is racist" [my emphasis added]. Whereas the BBC says, not that there have been complaints that it is racist, but that it IS racist.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Im tired of racism.
We all looked and monkey face Bush for how many years and no one complained. Why is monkey face Bush not racist and monkey face Michelle is? Its because she is black isnt it ..So I think the whole idea of this picture being called racist is in it self racist. Just like the stink over that NY post cartoon with the monkey... who are the people who asumed it was Obama when the president doesn't even right Bills?
So my question is can anti racism become a form of racism ...
like .... for it to be racist do you have to automatically asume the maker was white?
Personally I think "monkey face" is the new black ... and if anyone has a right to protest, it is the monkeys!
Not sure what you mean by is it objective? I would say it is, simply because it does indeed exist. This was not "news" it was not "racist" and google had no need deleting it.
I do agree there are several definitions for racism today ...but it leans more towards sterotyping and cultures than colour so maybe this is something all new and more in need of a word .. then a definition.

Tu S Tin

Anonymous said...

to prove a point ...
( my next philosophy group includes this story )
I was just looking around and thought this was interesting ...

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=195216994&blogId=512014855

its some little girls blog but if you scroll down ..she added pictures of monkey Bush but photobucket block monkey obama ..
wonder what the other blocked image was?