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.
  • #91
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?
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
LowlyPion said:
Here is their apology.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192009/postopinion/editorials/that_cartoon_155984.htm

That much is good.

But whoa. Look at this snippy swipe at those that have spoken out about it.

If no one had spoken up I think we can be sure that their insensitive commentary would have gone unredressed.
They caved?!? I am so disappointed.
 
  • #93
russ_watters said:
They caved?!? I am so disappointed.

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 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.

I figure their half apology warrants a half of a congratulation for deciding to only be half respectful, even while denying any responsibility for any misconstruction of their dubious attempt to belittle congress.
 
  • #94
russ_watters said:
This thread has moved pretty fast, but... Insensitivity is anything that could possibly be interpreted as racism, but that doesn't mean that we should draw our line of what is acceptable there.

Here's where I draw the line of what is acceptable: Obviously, the Bush/chimp comparison could be applied to anyone who has certain looks or personality traits and many fit Obama - he has a round face, a big grin, and his ears stick out a little. In addition, his presidency has led some to see traits that might provoke the comparison: haphazard, disorganized, reactionary, frantic.

heh, that reminds me. have you seen this morph? hopefully the ends are not shopped to get a better result, but i think it may say something about how we primates choose leaders.

11tqy52.jpg
 
  • #95
Proton Soup said:
but i think it may say something about how we primates choose leaders.

By the size of the ears?
 
  • #96
The right of free speech includes the right to object to material that seems offensive. The public outcry that motivated the semi-apology is just as much a right of free speech as was the publishing of the cartoon; whatever it was meant to imply. So those who object to the objections are objecting to free speech.

The right of free speech is in part meant to allow social pressure to take its course. It all worked just as it is supposed to work.
 
  • #97
I just remembered that sharpton has previously taken issue with racism in a politically oriented cartoon. its a cartoon that has criticized black culture as being inundated with drugs sex and violence. it portrays all of its characters as stereotypes ranging from the angry black revolutionary youth to the wannabe gangsta to the self hating black man who worships the ground white people walk on. its criticized black culture for not living up to MLK's dream. its criticized black entertainment television. its even made fun of katrina victims. sharpton specifically stated a problem with the gratuitous use of the 'n word' the response to which was an episode that attempted to use the word as much as possible.
is it racist? apparently sharpton specified an issue with the cartoon and with the producers but gave a pass to aaron mcgruder the creator and writer. I was unaware until sharpton pointed it out that a cartoon can be racist and that the people who give that cartoon a venue can be racist while the actual creator and writer of said cartoon may not be racist if they happen to be black.
I wonder if sharpton would have given a similar pass to the artist of the cartoon in the op had he been black. hmm...
 
  • #98
TheStatutoryApe said:
I wonder if sharpton would have given a similar pass to the artist of the cartoon in the op had he been black. hmm...

Seems unlikely that a black cartoonist would have drawn the kind of connection Delonas did. For instance I doubt that Delonas is black and I would find it surprising if he was, if for no other reason than the demonstrated insensitivity that its embodiment portrays with respect to black stereotypical depiction, intended or not.

But hey, there is always the possibility of surprises. For instance there's Michael Steele.
 
  • #99
LowlyPion said:
Seems unlikely that a black cartoonist would have drawn the kind of connection Delonas did. For instance I doubt that Delonas is black and I would find it surprising if he was, if for no other reason than the demonstrated insensitivity that its embodiment portrays with respect to black stereotypical depiction, intended or not.

But hey, there is always the possibility of surprises. For instance there's Michael Steele.
I suppose that depicting black katrina victims leeching off of family members by guilting them then running off to cash a fema lotto ticket leaving their hosts broke isn't at all insensitive or possessed of a certain racial stereotyping.
maybe "racially insensitive" is a term that really only applies to white people... or maybe aaron mcgruder just looks black. who knows.
 
  • #100
Ivan Seeking said:
The right of free speech includes the right to object to material that seems offensive. The public outcry that motivated the semi-apology is just as much a right of free speech as was the publishing of the cartoon; whatever it was meant to imply. So those who object to the objections are objecting to free speech.
People can hold whatever opinions they want, but when they are wrong and still hold those opinions, that's, well, wrong. And no one suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to object. Stupidity is, of course, part of the right to free speech.

But be careful trying to connect this issue for free speech: what you're suggesting here leads us down a road where it is ok to shout down opinions that you don't like. It's one of the primary complaints people had about how we got into the Iraq war that you are advocating!
 
Last edited:
  • #101
LowlyPion said:
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.
 
  • #102
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #103
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
  • #105
rootX said:
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.
 
  • #106
There is no line. However if you consistently make political cartoons with no relevant point, you will just get laughed at and ignored.
 
  • #107
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #108
LowlyPion said:
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
 
  • #109
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.
 
  • #110
Moridin said:
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.
 
  • #111
WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #112
LowlyPion said:
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!
 
  • #113
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #114
LowlyPion said:
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!
 
  • #115
Post Apology not enough
MSNBC said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
LowlyPion said:
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.
 
  • #117
WhoWee said:
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)
 
Last edited:
  • #118
BobG said:
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.
 
  • #119
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #120
LowlyPion said:
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.
 

Similar threads

News Meanwhile, from left field - Jeremy Corbyn, UK Labour Party
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is the Washington Post a Reliable News Source for Political Coverage?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
News Is America Post-Racial or Is It Media Fiction?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
What Are Our Varied Preferences in Physical Aesthetics?
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
50K
News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?
  • · Replies 298 ·
10
Replies
298
Views
73K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News What say should the church have in politics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K