News Where is the line in Political Cartoons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a controversial cartoon published by the New York Post that depicts a chimpanzee being shot by police, which some interpret as a racially insensitive commentary linking President Obama to the animal. Participants express varying opinions on whether the cartoon is legitimate political satire or an example of latent racism. Many argue that the imagery of a monkey has historically been used in derogatory ways towards African Americans, making the cartoon offensive, while others claim it was merely a joke without racial implications. The conversation highlights the complexities of interpreting political cartoons, especially in light of current events, and raises questions about the responsibility of media outlets to consider the potential impact of their content. There is also a discussion about the public's reaction to the cartoon, with some calling for a boycott of the Post and others criticizing the newspaper's lack of sensitivity and poor judgment in publishing it. Overall, the thread reflects a broader debate about race, humor, and the boundaries of political commentary in media.
  • #31
drankin said:
I found it a little bit clever but it wasn't really funny. But, I don't think I've seen one of these type of cartoons that I found very funny.
Heh, echo.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
signerror said:
Yes, it uses a current event as a template for the joke.

Except of course that for one thing there is no easy relationship to be made between the shooting of a chimp gone bad and the authorship of a stimulus package, regardless of your opinion of it, when the more obvious connection that might be made is the racially offensive connection between a monkey and Obama - that has regrettably already been so recently in evidence during the campaign just ended. That rather makes the cartoon not a joke at all to some people.

If this cartoon had appeared in a KKK Newsletter I suppose no one would have bothered, because it's an issue of consider the source.

That the NY Post a more mainstream content source would have forwarded it, I think quite rightly raises serious questions about their judgment. And most especially in light of their rather churlish defense of their actions, as opposed to say recognizing that they have been the agent of spreading content that a significant number of people find objectionable. Not allowing the possibility that they are wrong and that they have offended more than just Al Sharpton is a rather haughty and arrogant response I'd say.
 
  • #33
drankin said:
It looks to me like it's insinuating that the stimulus bill was written by a monkey and the cops shot the author of it. The cartoonist related the recent chimp shooting to it. As far as racism, I didn't see it. I think you would have to really read into it to get that. Now cartoonist can't relate monkeys to politics? C'mon.
The cartoonist would have to be completey clueless not to know the implications. It's like that woman's group that printed the anti-Obama flyers with pictures of fried chicken and watermelon that claimed they had no idea of the racial stereotyping. PUHLEASE.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Them being American and knowing the possible reaction from people (which they did get it), I don't know why would they publish it anyway.

Maybe, looking for some controversy and popularity...
 
  • #35
LowlyPion said:
That may be well and good from your defensive perspective, but the fact that it would be found to be offensive by others - maybe a large number of others - should at least suggest that from the perspectives of these others that the cartoon is drawing from an unfortunate well of connotation and alternate entendre.

A cartoon that is prima facie 2 white cops shooting a black monkey with the monkey the inferred author of the stimulus package I'd say shows more than a little insensitivity and poor judgment.
A black monkey? From a black and white cartoon?
 
  • #36
Part of the background: couple days ago the NY Post featured a story on a rapid chimp attacking somebody, chimp was shot by the cops.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162009/news/regionalnews/bizarre_animal_attack_in_stamford_155493.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
well you have to remember that it was a monkey the first creature to ever solve the wavefunction for the water molecule. Besides, monkeys have been shown to like strawberry and chocolate ice cream which in turn has been proven to increase virility. I'm no trying to extrapolate our established standards for what is cool or not but monkeys do have a lot to give to this world...

...give it a rest it's a cartoon, get a life
 
  • #38
The caption should have read:

Now that Bonzo is dead, the Reagan era really is over.

or

Another reason to own a handgun - wild chimps!
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Gokul43201 said:
Anyway, I don't particularly care whether or not there was an intended racist angle to the cartoon, and I doubt Obama gives a damn about it either. It's actually a bigger deal for me that I still don't find it at all funny. Do you?

Well, that's the thing.. I think the cartoon was so unfunny that people were scratching their heads about what was funny about it and leapt from there to try to understand who might find something funny in it. "Oh, ok, maybe it's racist humor. Maybe if we look at it that way we can see how a racist would laugh at this." And of course, certain opportunists seized upon it. And, no. I still don't "get" the cartoon.

Listen up, cartoonists, for at least the next 4 years:

Political cartoon with ape/monkey + obscure humor element = likely career death

We're just not that grown up yet.

Anyway, I thought the story about the chimp was very sad. I think the caretaker made bad decisions.
 
  • #40
Oh, and if they wanted to be topical, couldn't they just have Michael Phelps writing the bill while hitting the bong? More people would get that one.
 
  • #41
perhaps the artist and/or the editor who added it to the spread are honestly not racist people and hence never made the connection. but I guess that's just a silly thought.

I call people (in general) monkeys fairly often. I often wind up catching myself before saying it when there is a black person involved. and I feel stupid for it. I'm censoring myself from saying something I would normally say because someone might call me a racist. at the same time I am regularly, and intentionally, referred to by racial epithets as if its no big deal. the terms don't bother me so much as the hypocracy in that if I were to refer to them in kind they would likely be furious.

responding to a perceived slight by publicly attacking and demonizing a persons character to such a degree as to call them racist is disgusting. I wouldn't be apologizing to anyone either. I'd be tearing sharpton a new one.
 
  • #42
wrt this subject, i have empathy fatigue and can't be arsed to care.
 
  • #43
LowlyPion said:
If this cartoon had appeared in a KKK Newsletter I suppose no one would have bothered, because it's an issue of consider the source.
Agreed.
That the NY Post a more mainstream content source would have forwarded it, I think quite rightly raises serious questions about their judgment.
Wrong. Yes, it is an issue of the source. If the source is a KKK magazine, then the interpretation of racism is obvious. Since it is the NY Post, the interpretation of racism is not warranted. As you said: people need to consider the source.
 
  • #44
Math Is Hard said:
Oh, and if they wanted to be topical, couldn't they just have Michael Phelps writing the bill while hitting the bong? More people would get that one.
People still wouldn't know if the object was Obama or Congress, but yeah, I think more people would have gotten closer to the point, duuuuude.
 
  • #45
TheStatutoryApe said:
I call people (in general) monkeys fairly often. I often wind up catching myself before saying it when there is a black person involved.
A close friend of mine does too and that might be why I got it. He uses lower level primate imagery to describe his coworkers all the time and given the industry he's in and his location, his coworkers are probably about 80%+ white male.

He uses an image that is a little too sick to post here, but it involves two monkeys and a football...you can google it, but consider yourself warned. He even made himself a model with stuffed animals. I admire his commitment.
I'm censoring myself from saying something I would normally say because someone might call me a racist. at the same time I am regularly, and intentionally, referred to by racial epithets as if its no big deal.
the terms don't bother me so much as the hypocracy in that if I were to refer to them in kind they would likely be furious.
I see the same double standard in our society. Hate speech is almost by definition a one-way street and that's wrong.
responding to a perceived slight by publicly attacking and demonizing a persons character to such a degree as to call them racist is disgusting. I wouldn't be apologizing to anyone either. I'd be tearing sharpton a new one.
Agreed. This tells us more about society's reaction to perceived racism than it does about the author's intended interpretation. This author's next political cartoon should depict Sharpton in a split screen, once in a monkey suit and once in a clown suit. Then maybe we'll see if he gets the joke or still sees racism...

Heh, it is even possible that this cartoon was intended as that kind of bait. Now that would be funny!
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking said:
The caption should have read:

Now that Bonzo is dead, the Reagan era really is over.


Yes, if the cartoonist was somehow committed to finding a way to use the chimp as some kind of humorous satire, he could have found a lot better subjects.

And, of course it's absolutely essential to use the chimp in his cartoon. It's always been a successful tactic in Super Bowl commercials, so it has to work in political satire, as well, right? :rolleyes:

No, I didn't find it very funny, even taking the more logical link that the author was trying to make. It wasn't a very good cartoon.

I did, however, at least get a chuckle out of Ivan's caption.

Edit: Ivan's caption would be pretty timely, too. A lot of people are blaming the current economic mess on deregulation run rampant. Whether right or wrong, the proposed solution is a 180 degree turnaround to Keynseian economics. We're going spend our way out of the recession.

(And I don't mean that derogatorily. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens before deciding. I'm open to what ever works.)
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Also, the cartoon has restricted audience by virtue of the opinion it expresses (presumably that the stimulus bill must have been written by monkeys). Believe it or not, Congress is actually seeing a pretty strong gain in approval ratings over the last few weeks.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/135/picture22ab6.png

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html#chart
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
Sharpton would actually have a point if Obama had actually written the bill. He didn't and he doesn't.
 
  • #49
A boycott is planned now for the Post.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_rev_al_sharpton_black_leaders_planning_b.html

In the face of such public outcry you'd think they would offer an apology for those that might have been offended as opposed to taking the position that they did nothing wrong and so any that disagrees ... well tough.

The we didn't mean to say that defense just doesn't fly when so many take it the "unintended" way. Now that they refuse to offer apology they just come off as arrogant and if anything they would seem to reinforce the idea that there was an intentional juxtaposition that had the benefit of calling Obama a monkey as well as the stimulus package ill considered.
 
  • #50
Are we boycotting it today because it's cartoon makes fun of great historical white presidents by drawing them with silly eyes?
I understand that for a far-left, pro black, revisionist history journal like the NY Post this might be acceptable but many people could take it the wrong way.
 
  • #51
LowlyPion said:
In the face of such public outcry you'd think they would offer an apology for those that might have been offended as opposed to taking the position that they did nothing wrong and so any that disagrees ... well tough.
I don't see public outcry as a good reason to apologize for anything. I'm not going to apologize, for instance, if there's public outcry that my class on Evolution (I don't teach one, but assuming I did) is offending millions of Christians.
 
  • #52
Hey if the boycott doesn't bother them and they don't mind appearing offensive to a significant portion of their potential readership then they should continue to act arrogantly and wrap themselves in their imagined righteousness and not care who they may have offended or why. That kind of insensitivity is not uniquely theirs apparently.

So I do agree it's their business, and if they want to alienate their general readership and tilt it toward the knuckledraggers then I say let them. It's worked for Fox after all.
 
  • #53
Would it be cynical to think that a certain religious/political figure feels that he isn't getting enough media attention since Obama took centre stage?

Perhaps his PR people and the Post's PR people should have arranged everything to fit in with a slow news day. It's much better than just letting these major newsworthy events happen at random.
 
  • #54
mgb_phys said:
Would it be cynical to think that a certain religious/political figure feels that he isn't getting enough media attention since Obama took centre stage?

Perhaps his PR people and the Post's PR people should have arranged everything to fit in with a slow news day. It's much better than just letting these major newsworthy events happen at random.

If you think I would deny that Sharpton is an opportunist, then you misjudge. In fact speaking of opportunists I'm surprised Jesse Jackson hasn't waded into the scene. This kind of thing total nectar to these publicity seeking bumble bees.

But regardless of who's leading the parade, there wouldn't be a parade if there wasn't a vein of offense to be mined from the cartoon.
 
  • #55
LowlyPion said:
there wouldn't be a parade if there wasn't a vein of offense to be mined from the cartoon.
You can always find offence if you try hard enough , there was the guy fired because somebody decided the word niggardly was racist. Or the people that have decided that 'picnic' is racist.

Personally I am deeply offended by the brutal stripping of supposedly unimportant whitespace by this racist forum software. And don't get me started on the negative connotations of blank.
 
  • #56
I've always been puzzled by the concept of the right of free speech except for offensive speech. Isn't the whole idea behind freedom of speech to permit offensive or critical speech?
 
  • #57
LowlyPion said:
Hey if the boycott doesn't bother them and they don't mind appearing offensive to a significant portion of their potential readership then they should continue to act arrogantly and wrap themselves in their imagined righteousness and not care who they may have offended or why. That kind of insensitivity is not uniquely theirs apparently.

So I do agree it's their business, and if they want to alienate their general readership and tilt it toward the knuckledraggers then I say let them. It's worked for Fox after all.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/politics/BushChimp.jpg".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
mgb_phys said:
You can always find offence if you try hard enough , ...

Unfortunately this kind of imagery doesn't require a KKK decoder ring. It's pretty blatant. I didn't need Al Sharpton to tell me how he sees it for me to think it could be viewed as veiled racism.

The failure to apologize to any who might have taken it in a way that they presumably say they didn't intend is puzzling, as I don't understand the profit of arrogance. That just seems like pretty poor community relations with a community they are nominally hoping to serve.

Gibbs said:
Even those who declined to comment took their shots at the Post - like White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

"I have not seen the cartoon," he told reporters aboard Air Force One. "But I don't think it's altogether newsworthy reading the New York Post."
 
  • #59
skeptic2 said:
I've always been puzzled by the concept of the right of free speech except for offensive speech. Isn't the whole idea behind freedom of speech to permit offensive or critical speech?

I haven't heard anyone talking about censorship.

People have the right to speak offensively and reap the whirlwind for what they say.
 
  • #60
LowlyPion said:
Unfortunately this kind of imagery doesn't require a KKK decoder ring. It's pretty blatant. I didn't need Al Sharpton to tell me how he sees it for me to think it could be viewed as veiled racism.

You know, it's funny. I saw the thread the day after it was posted, so when I went to the link it didn't have that cartoon but the one for the following day. I looked at it and couldn't find out how it could be racist, then figured it was the wrong one. [It was.] So I went back one day and saw the cartoon with the monkey, looked it over, and figured that this couldn't be it either. I then went to the one before it, which didn't seem any more racist than the other two. At this point I went back to the first two -- I was pretty sure I wasn't more than two days out -- but still couldn't see how either would be racist. That's when I gave up trying to find it and went to read further in the thread.

It seems that my experience provided some kind of unintentional experiment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
50K
  • · Replies 298 ·
10
Replies
298
Views
73K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K