News Where is the line in Political Cartoons?

[russ_watters]

I suppose that they decided they could only be so boorish for so long. But surely you must be heartened by what can only be seen as a semi-apology. I

Boorish? No. Heartened by it? No. The Post was right and they know they were right. The half-apology won't satisfy anyone, but it will cause guys like Sharpton to see weakness and it is also an insult to those who didn't get it. Basically, they are saying 'sorry you're not smart enough to understand our political cartoons.'

Everything about that half-apology was wrong.

guess they just got too choked up at the thought of actually admitting that Sharpton had a legitimate beef even though his motives themselves are maybe not all so pure.

He didn't have a legitimate beef so there was no chance of that.

 

[WhoWee]

Indeed, it is. But the issue here isn't really free speech, it is profit. The newspaper's tone is based on what it thinks will generate the most profit while reflecting the ideals of the owners/editorial staff. It isn't likely an overt racist would be hired, but that's irrelevant - if the editorial staff saw this and thought it might damage the paper's profits, they wouldn't have run it.

No doubt many people who otherwise wouldn't even look at the publication will rush out today to see what they write in response to the controversy. In a week, 80% of the population will forget why they know their name.

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's another one of those brilliant Delonas cartoons, which will only get a chuckle out of the typical NYPost audience. Just about as unfunny as the recent one:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2009/02/custom_1234980113416_delonas3.jpg

 

[rootX]

I think he just like controversies:

Cartoonist Sean Delonas has stirred controversy before, with cartoons which have made fun of Heather Mills's amputated leg and depicted Muslims as terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7900963.stm?lss

 

[WhoWee]

I think he just like controversies:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7900963.stm?lss

It's their job description...like children, many act as though they don't know the boundary until they're corrected/disciplined...perhaps made to apologize.

Cartoons have been used for a long time to say what is unacceptable to say.

 

[Moridin]

There is no line. However if you consistently make political cartoons with no relevant point, you will just get laughed at and ignored.

 

[LowlyPion]

He didn't have a legitimate beef so there was no chance of that.

Of course he had a legitimate beef. The cartoon is prima facie insensitive to the feelings of black people. Just look at the reaction throughout the black community if you're thinking otherwise. It wasn't just Sharpton.

And if you think people don't understand the Post's cartoons, I think that the outrage has more to do with the fact that people do understand the cartoon. That they do understand the history of such depictions and the mean-spiritedness with which such rhetoric has been used in the past.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course he had a legitimate beef. The cartoon is prima facie insensitive to the feelings of black people. Just look at the reaction throughout the black community if you're thinking otherwise. It wasn't just Sharpton.

And if you think people don't understand the Post's cartoons, I think that the outrage has more to do with the fact that people do understand the cartoon. That they do understand the history of such depictions and the mean-spiritedness with which such rhetoric has been used in the past.

My first thought was of Pelosi...I guess it's because I dislike her more than anyone in politics (Barney Frank is a close 2nd). Beyond that, as their intent was Obama...they are jerks...don't buy their rag.

I'd still like to know why this doesn't offend anyone

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Senator-Burris.htm

or this

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/ig/Barack-Obama-Cartoons/Reaching-Out.-ng_.htm

I find this a LOT more offensive

 

[Moridin]

Do you even have the right to be offended?

LowlyPion,

Of course he had a legitimate beef. The cartoon is prima facie insensitive to the feelings of black people. Just look at the reaction throughout the black community if you're thinking otherwise. It wasn't just Sharpton.

If anything, your notion that all black people share the same reaction or sentiment or that there is such a thing as "the black community" should be much more racially offensive than a satirical cartoon.

 

[LowlyPion]

If anything, your notion that all black people share the same reaction or sentiment or that there is such a thing as "the black community" should be much more racially offensive than a satirical cartoon.

I'm not suggesting that all black people were offended. But the commentary that I have seen both on TV and in the media has been apparently pretty broad based among blacks. If you are offended by the shorthand of "black community" to refer to that portion of society that is black, I'm all open to suggestions on how to at once be descriptive and not disrespectful.

As to whether I have a right to be offended by the cartoon, of course I do. I don't have to be a member of any demographic sub-division to recognize when people are treated with disrespect and to understand that there but for the color of their skin or their religious beliefs go I. Does that kind of thing offend me? You bet.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'd still like to know why this doesn't offend anyone

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Senator-Burris.htm

or this

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/ig/Barack-Obama-Cartoons/Reaching-Out.-ng_.htm

I find this a LOT more offensive

The first is from Lieberman's home state, the Hartford Courant. Sorry I don't see anything particularly racial about that. Given Lieberman's prominent role in McCain's candidacy and the fact that they allowed him to retain his Chairmanship, I see no real problem with that.

As to the second, what's the beef? That Obama is inviting too many of these whining Republicans to come over for Super Bowl parties and dinner with the Obamas? That's more an "enough is enough" kind of thing, not a racial thing isn't it?

 

[WhoWee]

The first is from Lieberman's home state, the Hartford Courant. Sorry I don't see anything particularly racial about that. Given Lieberman's prominent role in McCain's candidacy and the fact that they allowed him to retain his Chairmanship, I see no real problem with that.

As to the second, what's the beef? That Obama is inviting too many of these whining Republicans to come over for Super Bowl parties and dinner with the Obamas? That's more an "enough is enough" kind of thing, not a racial thing isn't it?

Take another look at the first one.

The second is deplorable...forget about race...they're inferring Obama would "pimp" his wife to get a vote...that is MUCH worse than the chimp cartoon. Personal attacks on his family should be off limits...PERIOD!

 

[LowlyPion]

The second is deplorable...forget about race...they're inferring Obama would "pimp" his wife to get a vote...that is MUCH worse than the chimp cartoon. Personal attacks on his family should be off limits...PERIOD!

By all means contact the Atlanta Constitution and express your displeasure with the inference that you drew from Mike Lukovich's cartoon.

Maybe you can find others to join in your outrage and your Crusade.

 

[WhoWee]

By all means contact the Atlanta Constitution and express your displeasure with the inference that you drew from Mike Lukovich's cartoon.

Maybe you can find others to join in your outrage and your Crusade.

I'm not on a crusade...I just think a lot of these publications go too far. If racism is the only measure of our disgust...then think of it in terms of black stereotyping...again, it qualifies as deplorable. Michelle and the kids should be off-limits...PERIOD!

 

[LowlyPion]

Post Apology not enough

Many aren't satisified with the partial apology. Director Spike Lee, Judge Greg Mathis and others will join the Rev. Al Sharpton in front of the New York Post tonight to address it. The rally begins at 5 p.m. on Sixth Avenue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29290857/

"Though we think it is the right thing for them to apologize to those they offended, they seem to want to blame the offense on those (who) raised the issue, rather than take responsibility for what they did," Sharpton said in a statement.

Like him or his tactics or not, I think the man continues to have a point.

The Post's apology laced with venom for those that have complained about them in the past is hardly an unqualified one.

 

[WhoWee]

By all means contact the Atlanta Constitution and express your displeasure with the inference that you drew from Mike Lukovich's cartoon.

Maybe you can find others to join in your outrage and your Crusade.

LowlyPion

Look at this crap...

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=48094845

I'm not an Obama supporter...mostly because I don't think he can control Pelosi and Reid (and company)...but this kind of stuff goes too far.

Attack the politics...not the person or their families.

 

[BobG]

Take another look at the first one.

The second is deplorable...forget about race...they're inferring Obama would "pimp" his wife to get a vote...that is MUCH worse than the chimp cartoon. Personal attacks on his family should be off limits...PERIOD!

Wow! The second one takes a lot bigger leap to see than the chimp cartoon. They're all sleeping on Barak's side of the bed.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first one, either. Is it the insinuation that Jews are allowed in the Senate and blacks aren't? (Burris is the only black currently in the Senate). There will be 13 Jews in the Senate regardless of who eventually wins the Minnesota race, so the cartoon misses by using Lieberman. The cartoonist could have done as well by using a woman Senator's name (17 in the Senate). Better would have been Menendez or Martinez (only 2 Hispanics in the Senate after Salazar joined Obama's cabinet).

Hmmm. Only two Muslim and only two Buddhists in Congress, but all three are in the House. (Congress Demographics)

 

[WhoWee]

Wow! The second one takes a lot bigger leap to see than the chimp cartoon. They're all sleeping on Barak's side of the bed.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first one, either. Is it the insinuation that Jews are allowed in the Senate and blacks aren't? (Burris is the only black currently in the Senate). There will be 13 Jews in the Senate regardless of who eventually wins the Minnesota race, so the cartoon misses by using Lieberman. The cartoonist could have done as well by using a woman Senator's name (17 in the Senate). Better would have been Menendez or Martinez (only 2 Hispanics in the Senate after Salazar joined Obama's cabinet).

Yes, they are all on his side, and she is objecting...

As for the Burris cartoon...I agree the Jewish vs Black element is present.

 

[LowlyPion]

LowlyPion

Look at this crap...

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=48094845

I'm not an Obama supporter...mostly because I don't think he can control Pelosi and Reid (and company)...but this kind of stuff goes too far.

Attack the politics...not the person or their families.

Was that sent out by the Democratic Party, you know like that Barack the Magic Negro dvd that was sent out by the buffoon running to head the RNC?

Since it has no affiliation except with an apparently vulgar individual ... I mean really just consider the source. What kind of accountability do you expect if some whack job gins up some vulgar homage that if you hadn't linked it would have suited me fine to never see.

This of course is dissimilar to a syndicated cartoon that expresses mean-spirited sentiment under the thin pretense of political comment. Since the paper chose to print it, then that expression reflects directly on them. And hence the outrage they have attracted.

 

[WhoWee]

Was that sent out by the Democratic Party, you know like that Barack the Magic Negro dvd that was sent out by the buffoon running to head the RNC?

Since it has no affiliation except with an apparently vulgar individual ... I mean really just consider the source. What kind of accountability do you expect if some whack job gins up some vulgar homage that if you hadn't linked it would have suited me fine to never see.

This of course is dissimilar to a syndicated cartoon that expresses mean-spirited sentiment under the thin pretense of political comment. Since the paper chose to print it, then that expression reflects directly on them. And hence the outrage they have attracted.

I agree with you.

I think part of the problem is the old adage "familiarity breeds contempt"...Obama is not just one of the guys...he's our President. Likewise, the First Lady should be treated with dignity and respect.

I'm glad there was outrage over the chimp cartoon...I just wish we were less tolerant about personal attacks that don't involve race.

 

[Moonbear]

I haven't read any of the replies on this one yet, but really had to comment on this one. I think the racist is Al Sharpton. I'm not even sure the cartoon was about Obama, and even if it was, it's hardly new to refer to the president as a chimpanzee. Why wasn't it racist when everyone compared Bush to a chimpanzee? My initial impression of the cartoon was actually that it was celebrating that Bush was out of office and no longer had anything to do with the stimulus package, since he's been depicted as a chimp since very early in his presidency.

For example:
http://web.mit.edu/margret/www/myndir/comics/bush_chimp.jpg
http://web.mit.edu/margret/www/myndir/comics/bush_chimp.jpg

Why is it suddenly racist to treat Obama just as every other president gets treated? They all get their fair share of ridicule.

 

[Evo]

Well Moonbear, probably the fact that these aren't political cartoons published in a major paper, eh? Someone digging up photos on the internet by jokesters associating monkey facial expressions with Bush is really lame and quite frankly has nothing to do with the cartoon that was published.

 

[Moonbear]

Well Moonbear, probably the fact that these aren't political cartoons published in a major paper, eh? Someone digging up photos on the internet associated with Bush is really lame and quite frankly has nothing to do with the cartoon that was published.

There were TONS of depictions of Bush as a chimpanzee during his term, and they did appear in mainstream media. You may think its lame if you share the same biases as Al Sharpton, but it seems to me that it's more racist to suddenly jump to the conclusion that it was Obama they were depicting at all. The cartoon did not name anyone. This is typical Sharpton propaganda, trying to conjure up racism where it does not exist. I'm not surprised you'd be jumping on the bandwagon though and calling those with differing opinions "lame." I see things haven't changed so much around here as I was told they had.

 

[Evo]

Moonbear, you said

My initial impression of the cartoon was actually that it was celebrating that Bush was out of office and no longer had anything to do with the stimulus package

Are you serious? Please explain what part of the cartoon would suggest that.

I'm not surprised you'd be jumping on the bandwagon though and calling those with differing opinions "lame." I see things haven't changed so much around here as I was told they had.

Do you really want people to know what you did?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why wasn't it racist when everyone compared Bush to a chimpanzee?

Because the "black person = monkey" reference is a well known racist slur. I'm aware of no such slur having been used against white folk.

 

[lisab]

There were TONS of depictions of Bush as a chimpanzee during his term, and they did appear in mainstream media. You may think its lame if you share the same biases as Al Sharpton, but it seems to me that it's more racist to suddenly jump to the conclusion that it was Obama they were depicting at all. The cartoon did not name anyone. This is typical Sharpton propaganda, trying to conjure up racism where it does not exist. I'm not surprised you'd be jumping on the bandwagon though and calling those with differing opinions "lame." I see things haven't changed so much around here as I was told they had.

The fact that Bush was so often compared to a chimp was childish, I think.

But there is no long, wretched history of equating whites with monkeys or apes. Unfortunately, there is with black Americans - it has been used to dehumanize blacks for a very long time.

Try this - imagine the same cartoon was run several years ago, when Bush was president. This averts the racial issue. Imagine the caption said something like, "They'll have to find someone else to give tax cuts to rich people."

I would still feel it was over the line, because it depicts a president being shot. That's over the line, no matter who the president is.

Add the racial element, and it's way, way over the line, IMHO.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would still feel it was over the line, because it depicts a president being shot. That's over the line, no matter who the president is.

That would also probably have the Secret Service knocking on your door that afternoon.

 

[LowlyPion]

There were TONS of depictions of Bush as a chimpanzee during his term, and they did appear in mainstream media.

You're right. Perhaps PETA should have complained. It's not racist really so much as setting one Hominidae family against another. And I do agree it certainly portrayed chimps in a rather poor light. Chimps have feelings too, and those attempts at humor should of course be seen for what they are. Legitimate spot on political assessments of Bush's abilities in the world of Sapiens but a really fundamental insult not only to chimps, gorillas, bonobos, baboons and really maybe the entire family back to oh maybe say spider monkeys?

Btw. And seriously too, good to see you back.

 

[rootX]

You're right. Perhaps PETA should have complained. It's not racist really so much as setting one Hominidae family against another. And I do agree it certainly portrayed chimps in a rather poor light. Chimps have feelings too, and those attempts at humor should of course be seen for what they are. Legitimate spot on political assessments of Bush's abilities in the world of Sapiens but a really fundamental insult not only to chimps, gorillas, bonobos, baboons and really maybe the entire family back to oh maybe say spider monkeys?

I'm deeply offended that no one ever cared about the chimps!

 

[skeptic2]

Add the racial element, and it's way, way over the line, IMHO.

Where exactly is the line and why?

 

[russ_watters]

Try this - imagine the same cartoon was run several years ago, when Bush was president. This averts the racial issue. Imagine the caption said something like, "They'll have to find someone else to give tax cuts to rich people."

I would still feel it was over the line, because it depicts a president being shot. That's over the line, no matter who the president is.

That does, of course, require the interpretation that the cartoon was intended to be about Bush. What if it was intended to be about Congress, who wrote the bill in question? Is it still over the line because it might be misinterpreted as being about shooting the president? I am not one who favors being so PC that you have to think about all possible misinterpretations of your speech before you say something.

 

[Gokul43201]

Is it still over the line because it might be misinterpreted as being about shooting the president? I am not one who favors being so PC that you have to think about all possible misinterpretations of your speech before you say something.

It's not a huge stretch, Russ. Two white cops shooting a monkey meant to personify someone ... someone essentially involved in writing the stimulus bill. It's one thing to say this cartoon crossed a line, and another thing altogether to claim that it takes contortions to see the possibility of an Obama-monkey interpretation.

If you had to name one person to most associate with the stimulus bill, who would that person be? Most of the broad ideas in the bill did in fact originate with Obama. And most of the public, does in fact, call it the Obama Stimulus Bill (as have most news outlets).

I've also wondered how many people here that didn't see the (obvious to others) monkey slur are also not colored people living in the US.

 

[WhoWee]

Because the "black person = monkey" reference is a well known racist slur. I'm aware of no such slur having been used against white folk.

Doesn't evolution apply to everyone?

 

[Gokul43201]

Doesn't evolution apply to everyone?

I can't tell if this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek (or rhetorical), so I'll wait for confirmation.

 

[LowlyPion]

As a gross measure of association with Obama, the exact phrase "Obama Stimulus Bill" gets beau coup hits, suggesting to me anyway the general association in the public discussion.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,440,000 for "Obama Stimulus Bill"

On the other hand this exact phrasing gets somewhat less:

Results 1 - 10 of about 16,300 for "Congressional Stimulus Bill"

 

[Bystander]

"1 - 10 of 5,730,000 for "economic stimulus"+"pelosi" (About) - 0.19 s | SearchScanBETA On

Also try:2008 economic stimulus pelosi,More...
SPONSOR RESULTSFree Stimulus Grants Kit
Get Your Free Stimulus Grants Kit Never Repay. Get Your Free Kit Now.
www.thousanddollarprofits.com"

Save the "race card" for when you're really going to need it --- playing it 2-3 times a year is going to wear it out.

127 million for just "economic stimulus."

 

[Hurkyl]

Er, why are you comparing hit counts of google searches to hit counts of some other type of search? And why are you copy/pasting that other search's advertisements?

 

[LowlyPion]

"1 - 10 of 5,730,000 for "economic stimulus"+"pelosi" (About) - 0.19 s
... 127 million for just "economic stimulus."

Neither of which are the phrasing in the cartoon. I fail to see your point.

As for your inclusion now of Speaker Pelosi from center field, I haven't seen anyone that offered the vaguest interpretation that Pelosi was the target of the cartoon - that she was somehow supposed to be the dead chimp.

As for playing the race card ... I think the point is that Delonas and The Post are the ones that are playing to racial stereotypes in the minds of many, and rather than 2-3 times a year, perhaps the issue is that it shouldn't be played at all?

 

[Gokul43201]

Google gave me about 26,000,000 results for [Obama "stimulus bill"], 574,000 hits for [pelosi "stimulus bill"], 281,000 for [Reid "stimulus bill"], and 60,100 for [Obey "stimulus bill"].

 

[Proton Soup]

great, we've devolved to the "people are stupid" argument

 

[Gokul43201]

Argument? What's to argue?

 

[Bystander]

Er, why are you comparing hit counts of google searches to hit counts of some other type of search? And why are you copy/pasting that other search's advertisements?

Just a little demonstration that searches can produce any set of statistics the searcher desires as far as pages on a topic. What ads?

Neither of which are the phrasing in the cartoon. I fail to see your point.

See previous to Hurkyl.

As for your inclusion now of Speaker Pelosi from center field, I haven't seen anyone that offered the vaguest interpretation that Pelosi was the target of the cartoon - that she was somehow supposed to be the dead chimp.

Her excellency, madame speaker of the house, ramrod extraordinaire, Nancy Pelosi IS the democratic house of representatives.

As for playing the race card ... I think the point is that Delonas and The Post are the ones that are playing to racial stereotypes in the minds of many, and rather than 2-3 times a year, perhaps the issue is that it shouldn't be played at all?

Certainly not in defense of big league congressional bungling. Face it. The kid's got plenty of problems without having democrats on his side and covering his back --- yeah, he screwed up bigtime turning a bunch of idiots loose with the credit card to write and fill their own Christmas lists. Maybe he learns, maybe he doesn't. His fan club doesn't do him a whole lot of favors defending mistakes that can be assigned to the entire democratic party with a very tortuous misinterpretation of an editorial cartoon as blatant racism aimed directly at him.

Google gave me about 26,000,000 results for [Obama "stimulus bill"], 574,000 hits for [pelosi "stimulus bill"], 281,000 for [Reid "stimulus bill"], and 60,100 for [Obey "stimulus bill"].

Again, page counts on searches don't really mean much.

 

[LowlyPion]

My point, such as it is, would be that there is unarguably a very significant association of Obama with the idea of this stimulus bill, and it is rather disingenuous of The Post to have attempted to seek shelter behind such a skimpy fig leaf of saying they meant "congress". The tone of their nettling apology does little to address their intent, whether a genuine blind spot in their thinking or an intentional racial slight.

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, page counts on searches don't really mean much.

And they mean even less if done shoddily.

 

[Gokul43201]

His fan club doesn't do him a whole lot of favors defending mistakes that can be assigned to the entire democratic party with a very tortuous misinterpretation of an editorial cartoon as blatant racism aimed directly at him.

What does one have to do with the other? It is entirely possible for the DP to bungle at the same time that racists are being racist. Besides, I don't think the so-called fan club have said anything about the cartoon being blatantly racist. From what I'd read, they were only saying that it could easily be interpreted as being racist (and any fool ought to know that), and so would you kindly take it down asap? And things got more heated when the NYP told them to go stuff it.

Incidentally, about 60% of people polled by CNN/Opinion Research (I think a couple days ago) expressed a favorable opinion opinion of the bill. That's most dems, most indeps and almost none of the reps. I doubt the fan club would go to all this effort for the only reason of convincing the Rep populace that the DP didn't screw up.

 

[LowlyPion]

Just a little demonstration that searches can produce any set of statistics the searcher desires as far as pages on a topic.

My original point was to look at the 2 phrasings employed by The Post in the cartoon and in their alleged statement of intent from their apology. Concocting word combinations to seek some statistical defense as you've attempted is hardly valuable.

That Google finds nearly 2 orders of magnitude difference between the occurrences weighted toward the Obama association when likely 2 orders of magnitude the other direction might actually carry water for their point, I think in a general way vitiates their stance and calls into question why there would have been any delay in issuing an unreserved apology.

 

[russ_watters]

The tone of their nettling apology does little to address their intent, whether a genuine blind spot in their thinking or an intentional racial slight.

The intent was made clear in a previous statement by the editor (before the "apology"):

It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy.

http://m.cnn.com/cnn/ne/lt_ne_all/detail/251877/full;jsessionid=C6AB86BC71E9AEFA744656F448704175.live4ib

 

[Hurkyl]

From what I'd read, they were only saying that it could easily be interpreted as being racist (and any fool ought to know that),

I think there is enough testimonial in this thread that your parenthetical is a blatant misrepresentation of reality.

 

[Proton Soup]

um, sure, use google

 

[LowlyPion]

um, sure, use google

I'd say those are really specious examples with respect to the general sense that the Stimulus Bill is associated statistically in references on the net several orders of magnitude more often with Obama than with Congress.