The Web is buzzing about an offensive and crude Photoshopping of Michelle Obama that, until recently, showed up as the top result in a Google Image search of the first lady.

You can see the image at the top of this blog. It's racist, offensive and more than a little disturbing. Personally, I find it disgusting.

Naturally, many asked Google to remove the image, and in typical Google fashion, the company said no.

Instead, they acknowledged the controversy and placed a disclaimer above the photo that morphed Mrs. Obama into a monkey:

"Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google ... We apologize if you've had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results."

The Chinese Web site that hosted the image has since removed it, but it's not hard to find the photo if you look. And, the ironic part is that Google uses popularity largely to determine rank. The more people who search for, link to and click on that awful photo, the higher up it will shoot. When done on purpose, it's called "Google bombing." (Remember how searching for "miserable failure" once brought up the bio of George W. Bush?)

If it wasn't so offensive, this all might be funny. But it's not. You might recall a similar flap a few years ago when the top result for the search term "Jew" led to an anti-Semitic site. At that time, Google explained that their search results are automated and based on a complex algorithm, and thus, aren't vetted by human beings.

Still, some human beings were, and still are, well aware of the controversy, to the point that they overrode their results page with that text disclaimer. If Google wanted to invalidate those results, it could.

But should it?

It doesn't really matter, and that's the point of this blog. Google is a public company, but it never claimed to be a beacon of morality. Despite its mantra of "don't be evil," it's not held to any standards of ethics. You have a choice whether to use Google or whether to use Yahoo! or Bing or any other search engine.

Google's search results -- like everything online -- should be treated with a healthy skepticism. Despite my ironic bumper sticker on the door of my office that reads, "THE INTERNET IS NEVER WRONG," it frequently is.

While the Internet is not inherently more or less truthful than any other medium, it's certainly more expansive and easy to contribute to. People who swear by Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, mom-and-pop blogs or anything they find on Google, are simply fooling themselves.

Let me put it another way: Just because you found an answer from "Googling" a question doesn't mean it's true, no matter how legit the URL seems or how flashy the site looks.

Be skeptical always, and remember to look at the source. You can decide who to trust and who not to trust, whether that's "60 Minutes," NPR, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or OnMilwaukee.com. Ask yourself what Google has done to earn your trust, and ask yourself if you are satisfied with their answer that is basically, "Hey, it's not our fault, it's the fault of robots."

Because, technically, Google is right. They've never once tried to hide the methodology they use to index results.

It's not Google's fault that a monkey woman showed up when people searched for the first lady. It's not Google's fault that an anti-Semitic site showed up when people searched for "Jew."

And it is certainly not your fault if you think that, by leaving the offensive results intact, Google is not the kind of business you'd like to support.