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.