Google Earth blurs line between information and politics

I really like Google.

What's not to like? Every product it puts on the market is wonderful.

First, it took the world by storm with its search engine, then its e-mail client. And now, it's working its way into the world of word-processing software and office program suites.

It looks like Google can do no wrong - or can it?

Media outlets and bloggers have recently criticized Google for a new feature it has added to its Google Earth program.

Google Earth now displays images and detailed information about the Darfur crisis on maps of the area. The images may bring even more media attention to the situation in Darfur, but they also raise serious questions about the implications of further politicization of media.

On April 15, Google Earth launched its "Crisis in Darfur" initiative. The program, a joint venture between Google and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, allows users to view the effects of genocide in Darfur through pictures of the destruction and detailed statistics.

Google Earth was originally released under the name "Earth Viewer" in 2004. It was developed by Keyhole Inc., who sold its program to Google later that year. The program was re-released as Google Earth in 2005.

The software is a fairly complex product that produces a very simple result. Using detailed satellite pictures stretched over a 3D globe, Google Earth allows users to view specific addresses and locations with a reasonable degree of detail and accuracy.

The resolution on the images is not sufficient to make out fine details but is good enough for users to identify their house on a map.

Early critics of Google Earth were concerned it would be used to invade the privacy of others. More specifically, countries around the world were upset that a private American company was able to view top-secret areas and provide free pictures to the whole world.

This ruffled a few feathers and - shortly after the program's release - numerous dignitaries and national leaders demanded Google remove the pictures of the top-secret locations from their site.

Google caved to their criticisms and agreed to blur out images of certain locations, thus protecting important locations such as Pakistani military sites and the royal stables in Norway.

Now Google Earth is getting itself into a different situation - with entirely different consequences.

Google hopes the addition of the Darfur initiative feature to Google Earth will help draw attention to the situation and inform more people of the atrocities that have happened there.

The Darfur initiative shows Google has its heart in a great place, and it will undoubtedly bring much-needed attention to the area. But an unintended consequence of its inclusion could be a further blurring of the line between information and politics.

Some see Google's support of the relief effort in Darfur as political statement.

It's no secret the line between information and politics has always been somewhat blurry. In the early days of the U.S., newspapers played an important role in the election process. Today, accusations of political partisanship are hurled towards specific television news outlets on a daily basis.

So why is Google's political statement so different?

The simple answer is exposure.

For many people, Google isn't just a brand of search engine in the same way that Fox News and CNN are brands of news outlets - to many, Google is the only search engine and outlet.

There are other search engines, but the name "Google" has become synonymous with search engines in general and isn't just a part of the online market - Google is the online market.

It's exactly the same as the way many Southerners refer to any soft drink as "Coke," how all brands of facial tissue paper can be called "Kleenex," or how some people still refer to playing any video game as playing Nintendo.

When a product transitions from a mere brand name to an inclusive catch-all for its service, people may forget it is a large company and begin to view it more as an institution.

Implicit in the assumption of institutional status is the assumption of political neutrality - which may be dangerous in the case of Google.

Google.com isn't a direct source of information - it's just a search engine.

However, Google Earth is a source of information. Its use to champion a political cause may be the first step toward further politicization of information - which is especially dangerous because Google's Internet omnipresence makes this shift nearly invisible.

Because so many people view Google as their window to new information and facts, many may confuse Google's stance on future political issues with official information.

Admittedly, my argument here is a slippery slope, and I doubt anyone will outwardly criticize Google supporting relief efforts in Darfur - the situation is terrible and everyone knows genocide is an atrocity.

But Google Earth's Darfur initiative does set a precedent for information-sharing bodies, in this case seen as unbiased, championing political causes - one that could come back to haunt us in the future.

Originally published in The Daily Reveille...