News Where is the line in Political Cartoons?

[LowlyPion]

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

Looks like you are equating their intent with their subsequent public statement of their intent.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

it's a really good example that people on the internet are retarded and that using google stats is not only a reflection of this, but also a retarded argument.seriously though, do we want to condescend to/appease stupid people?

 

[Esoteric]

Are people aware that chimps resemble whites more than blacks?

Have any of you ever seen a chimp? They are hairy - the average black person is less hairier than whites(see Robin Williams). Underneath all that hair, they have light skin, they are born pale white and their faces get slightly darker due to sun exposure. They have thin lips and big ears. Blacks on average have smaller ears(see Micheal Jordan) and fuller lips. And son and so forth.

Anyway my question is, is Al Sharpton offended because the NY Post editors saw "chimp" and failed to think "black guy"?

In which case he's moron.

Or is it because he believes it would encourage violence towards the President?

In which case his concerns are baseless. Obama has secret service up the ***. If he gets assassinated, it will be an inside job. No racist redneck with a confederate flag hanging in front of his porch will ever get close to harming the president.

I don't see how anyone should be offended by this cartoon.

 

[russ_watters]

Looks like you are equating their intent with their subsequent public statement of their intent.

Yes, I am, of course, assuming they are not lying. If you want to assume people are lying, then that opens up all sorts of doors in a discussion...

 

[Gokul43201]

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

Apparently the fan club doesn't read PF.

PS: The parenthetical clause is not my own opinion, if that's what you're saying - it is what I inferred from the Sharpton response.

PPS: As for whether or not people are aware of the black man = monkey slur, I stated my opinion (perhaps obliquely, I'll have to go back and look) in an earlier post. I expect the level of unawareness to be significantly greater among white people than among colored people living in the US.

Final PS: After re-reading Sharpton, I see he does go a little further than I described him as going, in that he wonders (aloud) whether the cartoon is indeed being racist.

 

[Evo]

I don't see how anyone should be offended by this cartoon.

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yes, I am, of course, assuming they are not lying. If you want to assume people are lying, then that opens up all sorts of doors in a discussion...

That certainly is a mighty trusting way to treat public statements of intent or action. Blago said he wasn't selling the senate seat. You of course would believe him prima facie?

The issue of course is not in assuming that they have necessarily have lied or not lied, but merely that it would certainly advantage an agenda to paint themselves in self righteousness by choosing to publicly present a reason that is more politically correct, than to say admit that they would have erred in forwarding a portrayal that was so widely viewed as carrying stereotypical racial overtones.

 

[Gokul43201]

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

That's what I'd imagined back in the beginning, but after googling around a little bit, I found some "yahoo answers" types of places where a lot of people seemed to be unaware of this. All of them (when they had them) had avatars depicting young white males/females, and from the spelling, some significant number of them seemed likely to be American. Oddly, some Brits seemed to be more aware of it, and many Aussie and Indian cricket fans (there was a similar incident in a cricket match where an Aussie of aboriginal descent was called a monkey).

 

[Esoteric]

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

I'm aware of the slur. The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity. What is the point of being offended? Showing racial "sensitivity" to the slur, on top of it being illogical, does nothing of eradicating the racial stereotype, it keeps them alive.

Asimov(yes that Asimov) made that same point in the 70's. He dedicated at least 2 pages to the stupidity of using that particular slur and the irrationality of being offended by it in his book "Today, Tomorrow, and..."

 

[Evo]

That's what I'd imagined back in the beginning, but after googling around a little bit, I found some "yahoo answers" types of places where a lot of people seemed to be unaware of this. All of them (when they had them) had avatars depicting young white males/females, and from the spelling, some significant number of them seemed likely to be American. Some older Brits seemed to be more aware of it, and many Aussies and Indians (there was a similar incident in a cricket match where an Aussie of aboriginal descent was called a monkey).

Surprising that there could be such a lack of social awareness.

But some people really do lack social awareness. I think understanding the people you live with (in your neighborhood, state, country), and being aware of negative social stereotyping is important when there are still wounds to heal.

 

[Gokul43201]

The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying it is no longer used?

 

[Evo]

I'm aware of the slur. The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity. What is the point of being offended? Showing racial "sensitivity" to the slur, on top of it being illogical, does nothing of eradicating the racial stereotypes, it keeps them alive.

Asimov(yes that Asimov) made that same point in the 70's. He dedicated at least 2 pages to the stupidity of using that particular slur and the irrationality of being offended by it in his book "Today, Tomorrow, and..."

Acting like you don't understand how someone could feel hurt is not the way to move forward. Read recent history and understand that we still need to be aware and respectful until such a time that the streotyping truly becomes a thing of the past. Telling people to "get over it" certainly is not the way to help them "get over it". That is a good way to appear to act superior to them.

Being insensitive is not the way.

 

[Esoteric]

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying it is no longer used?

I'm saying the slur means nothing. We all know how chimps look. My guess is that back then blacks and whites weren't educated enough on the appearance of chimps.

 

[LowlyPion]

The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity.

I may not know a lot about art, but I know what I like.

Thinking it is stupid may be your enlightened frame of reference. But surely you don't expect everyone to share your enlightenment? Just because you can dismiss it as stupidity doesn't mean that others aren't offended. That others that have lived a lifetime of being characterized "stupidly" should have to accept it?

Neither does it abrogate The Post's responsibility for having said something stupid or offensive to others.

To try and shift blame to those offended for being offended is hardly a productive solution. Seems like you are trying to blame the victim and that doesn't seem to me like the smart way to go.

 

[Esoteric]

Acting like you don't understand how someone could feel hurt is not the way to move forward. Read recent history and understand that we still need to be aware and respectful until such a time that the streotyping truly becomes a thing of the past. Telling people to "get over it" certainly is not the way to help them "get over it". That is a good way to appear to act superior to them.

Being insensitive is not the way.

You're just keeping the stereotype alive by your sensitivity - and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Instead of being "sensitive" maybe you should educate those using the slur, and those offended, of their irrationality.

 

[WhoWee]

Have any of you ever seen a chimp? They are hairy - the average black person is less hairier than whites(see Robin Williams). Underneath all that hair, they have light skin, they are born pale white and their faces get slightly darker due to sun exposure. They have thin lips and big ears. Blacks on average have smaller ears(see Micheal Jordan) and fuller lips. And son and so forth.

Anyway my question is, is Al Sharpton offended because the NY Post editors saw "chimp" and failed to think "black guy"?

In which case he's moron.

Or is it because he believes it would encourage violence towards the President?

In which case his concerns are baseless. Obama has secret service up the ***. If he gets assassinated, it will be an inside job. No racist redneck with a confederate flag hanging in front of his porch will ever get close to harming the president.

I don't see how anyone should be offended by this cartoon.

I don't see how everyone shouldn't be offended...it's in bad taste. I guess we should be happy they didn't make fun of the woman who nearly died.

As for the chimp controvery...if it wasn't for the timing of the event...immediatly after all of the coverage of the CT chimp attack, there would be no doubt as to the racial slant.

However, given the timing, if they claim they were saying a monkey could have done a better job of writing a bill...we should consider it as possibly being their actual intent.

I think Sharpton reacted in the expected action as did other black leaders...again, given the timing (Black History month) and growing criticism of Obama and the stimulus plan/bank nationalization and the Attorney Generals recent comments regarding racial cowardice.

I think the voters spoke clearly that color doesn't matter...let's all move on...and don't buy the Post.

 

[Esoteric]

I may not know a lot about art, but I know what I like.

Thinking it is stupid may be your enlightened frame of reference. But surely you don't expect everyone to share your enlightenment? Just because you can dismiss it as stupidity doesn't mean that others aren't offended. That others that have lived a lifetime of being characterized "stupidly" should have to accept it?

Neither does it abrogate The Post's responsibility for having said something stupid or offensive to others.

To try and shift blame to those offended for being offended is hardly a productive solution. Seems like you are trying to blame the victim and that doesn't seem to me like the smart way to go.

I'm characterizing both the user of the slur and the offended as irrational. Stupid is harsh, however, if that also means ignorant of the facts, then yes, stupid is apt.

 

[Evo]

You're just keeping the stereotype alive by your sensitivity - and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Instead of being "sensitive" maybe you should educate those using the slur and those offended of their irrationality.

Refraining from using racial slurs is the way to end it. And to refrain, one has to recognize.

Those offended are not irrational. Do you know the history of abuse of black people in the US? Are you aware of White Supremacists?

 

[Evo]

As for the chimp controvery...if it wasn't for the timing of the event...immediatly after all of the coverage of the CT chimp attack, there would be no doubt as to the racial slant.

Many people hadn't even heard of the chimp attack, or would have made a connection.

I think Sharpton reacted in the expected action as did other black leaders...again, given the timing (Black History month) and growing criticism of Obama and the stimulus plan/bank nationalization and the Attorney Generals recent comments regarding racial cowardice.

Yes, and some over-react for publicity.

I think the voters spoke clearly that color doesn't matter...let's all move on...and don't buy the Post.

Good idea. If people were more sensitive as what NOT to say or do, we could put this kind of thing behind us.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm characterizing both the user of the slur and the offended as irrational. Stupid is harsh, however, if that also means ignorant of the facts, then yes, stupid is apt.

Actually you are only characterizing them in your frame of reference. So yes that may be your opinion, but perhaps you should also be prepared in that case that others think your opinion ill informed, as maybe others don't share your enlightenment and harbor instead intolerance for their having been characterized for so many years in a manner that makes them continue to feel that they must still sit at the back of the bus?

 

[Esoteric]

Refraining from using racial slurs is the way to end it. And to refrain, one has to recognize.

Those offended are not irrational. Do you know the history of abuse of black people in the US? Are you aware of White Supremacists?

Refraining is not the way to end it. The way to end is when seeing a "chimp" we fail to think "black guy."

Making that connection and failing to see the irrationality based on the facts(chimp appearance), like you seem to be doing, is perpetuating the history of white supremacy.

 

[lisab]

Refraining is not the way to end it. The way to end is when seeing a "chimp" we fail to think "black guy."

I find it highly unlikely that the editors of The Post were unaware of that particular racial slur.

 

[Evo]

Refraining is not the way to end it. The way to end is when seeing a "chimp" we fail to think "black guy."

And how else other than refraining to set up the scenario of chimp=black person do you propose to end it?

 

[Esoteric]

Actually you are only characterizing them in your frame of reference. So yes that may be your opinion, but perhaps you should also be prepared in that case that others think your opinion ill informed, as maybe others don't share your enlightenment and harbor instead intolerance for their having been characterized for so many years in a manner that makes them continue to feel that they must still sit at the back of the bus?

I'm not ill informed. I just fail to make the "chimp" = "black man" connection based on the facts.

 

[Esoteric]

And how else other than refraining to set up the scenario of chimp=black person do you propose to end it?

You can refrain from smoking and still be an addict.

People just need to be educated to the fact that chimps don't resemble blacks any more than any other racial group. So it's irrational to use the slur or be offended by it. And If you really analyze it, just for the sake of analyzing, you find chimps resemble whites more than blacks.

Imagine now, base on those facts, I started calling whites chimps. Should white people as a whole be racially offended? I don't know of any white person that would.

It all means nothing. You think it means something because it's "those pooor blackies, oh Esoteric have pity, be sensitive to the blackies."

You don't realize how seamlessly enmesh you are into the white supremacy way of thinking.

 

[Evo]

I'm not ill informed. I just fail to make the "chimp" = "black man" connection based on the facts.

Based on what facts? Prior to this thread, were you aware of the racial slur?

I see the slur because I am aware of years of white people's derogatory comparison of blacks to monkees.

If you are aware of this, how do you fail to recognize it all of a sudden? I'm really curious.

 

[Evo]

People just need to be educated to the fact that chimps don't resemble whites anymore than blacks do or any other racial group. So it's irrational to use the slur or be offended by it. And If you really analyze it, just for the sake of analyzing, you find chimps resembles whites more than blacks.

OMG, you seriously think that the comparison has to do with appearance? The slur has to do with comparing a black person's INTELLIGENCE to a monkey. Are you not familiar with the infamous "blacks have lower IQ's" propaganda put forth by people such as Galton and perpetuated by the likes of Rushton and Lynn?

Also, stop with the racist language.

 

[Gokul43201]

People just need to be educated to the fact that chimps don't resemble blacks any more than any other racial group. So it's irrational to use the slur or be offended by it. And If you really analyze it, just for the sake of analyzing, you find chimps resemble whites more than blacks.

But this is completely irrelevant.

When a racist calls a colored person a monkey, chimp, or macaque, they are not saying that the person exhibits stronger physiological similarities to that creature; they are essentially calling the person primitive and less than human. The length of body hairs, pigmentation of the skin, or the size of the kidneys adds nothing of relevance to the issue.

 

[Esoteric]

OMG, you seriously think that the comparison has to do with appearance? The slur has to do with comparing a black person's INTELLIGENCE to a monkey. Are you not familiar with the infamous "blacks have lower IQ's" propaganda put forth by people such as Galton?

Also, stop with the racist language.

I'm aware of that. However that's not the comparison being made in the popular media(CNN, MSNBC etc.) and Sharpton. From what I read he is angry for 2 reasons, chimp being compared to the president, appearance wise, and possibly inciting violence towards the president.

 

[Gokul43201]

However that's not the comparison being made in the popular media(CNN, MSNBC etc.) and Sharpton. From what I read he is angry for 2 reasons. Chimp being compared to the president, appearance wise, and possibly inciting violence towards the president.

Quoting Sharpton:

The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling, at best, given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.

 

[lisab]

But this is completely irrelevant.

When a racist calls a colored person a monkey, chimp, or macaque, they are not saying that the person exhibits stronger physiological similarities to that creature; they are essentially calling the person primitive and less than human. The length of body hairs, pigmentation of the skin, or the size of the kidneys adds nothing of relevance to the issue.

Right - like I said in an earlier post, it's a method used to dehumanize. It has absolutely nothing to do with physical similarities.

 

[WhoWee]

You can refrain from smoking and still be an addict.

People just need to be educated to the fact that chimps don't resemble blacks any more than any other racial group. So it's irrational to use the slur or be offended by it. And If you really analyze it, just for the sake of analyzing, you find chimps resemble whites more than blacks.

Imagine now, base on those facts, I started calling whites chimps. Should white people as a whole be racially offended? I don't know of any white person that would.

It all means nothing. You think it means something because it's "those pooor blackies, oh Esoteric have pity, be sensitive to the blackies."

You don't realize how seamlessly enmesh you are into the white supremacy way of thinking.

Let me be clear...your comments are the fuel of rage.

This is the type of dialogue that gets people injured...your attempt at "making people understand"...or whatever your idea was(?) does not help.

Your post says "I understand...I'm above it all...I can see past skin color...why can't everyone see this is ridiculous"...but your words infer that you believe you are superior and would talk down to make your point?

I assume you don't reside in the US. Here is some advice, regardless of your good intentions, do youself a favor...don't share your enlightened opinion on the streets of our major cities...unless you have adequate private health insurance.

 

[Esoteric]

But this is completely irrelevant.

When a racist calls a colored person a monkey, chimp, or macaque, they are not saying that the person exhibits stronger physiological similarities to that creature; they are essentially calling the person primitive and less than human. The length of body hairs, pigmentation of the skin, or the size of the kidneys adds nothing of relevance to the issue.

Yeah, but so what? even if the context is primitiveness and not appearance, are African Americans primitive or less than human? no. One need only travel to Appalachia if they believe otherwise. Let's not forget Bush was also depicted as a chimp with the same meaning associated with it as above.

So it's still irrational to use the slur and it's still irrational to be offended even in that context imo.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, but so what? even if the context is primitiveness and not appearance, are African Americans primitive or less than human? no. One need only travel to Appalachia if they believe otherwise. Let's not forget Bush was also depicted as a chimp and it had the same meaning as above.

So it's still irrational to use the slur and it's still irrational to be offended even in that context imo.

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how blacks have been treated and the psychological scars it caused. I get the feeling that you are trolling.

Pictures of Bush's facial expressions and chimps for a comical reason has nowhere near the implications of a comparison of a chimp to a black person as an indication of lack of intelligence. There was no farcical comparison of facial expressions here, and to claim that the two are no different is disingenious.

 

[Esoteric]

=Esotric]I know you take your black racial cues from guys like Al,

Boy are you wrong, I haven't even read what he's said.

however, the vast majority of black people aren't walking around "psychologically scarred" with a chip on their shoulder over things that happened decades ago.

I work with a lot of black people and they are very upset.

That's an older generational thing. If you ask African American people; who is most to blame for their present day ills, whites or blacks, most would tell you *gasp* blacks. But of course they're psychologically scarred, they don't know any better.9.

Sorry, but before you are allowed to post again, you are required to post legitimate mainstream sources that show this.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm not ill informed. I just fail to make the "chimp" = "black man" connection based on the facts.

So what you are saying then is that you lack empathy for the situation of others, and instead choose to judge their feelings of outrage as stupid and ill informed by your standards?

Perhaps you should allow for the fact that you don't know what others feel? That these "facts" that you choose to embrace, and use to paint your canvasses, just may be images and colors of disrespect and oppression as seen by others, and are not so easily dismissed by them as stupid, despite whatever insights you may have gotten from reading Asimov?

 

[pentazoid]

I know I am not supposed to post in this forum but I just had to give my opinion on this topic: I think it is very racist to set double standards for politicians that are members of a different race: First off , I want to say that I did not find the cartoon to be racist. Obviously , since the stimulus package bill was written in such a timely manner and some have said it was poorly written , then an animal with the intelligence of a chimpanzee must have written the bill. Why must we assume that their are racist implications when a cartoonist draws a chimpanzee politician? Other politicians have been drawn to look like chimpanzees like George w bush. If the chimpanzee drawn in the cartoon was supposed the be a caricature of a stereoptypical black person, he would have had the large pink lips, and small dark eyes , just like the black people drawn by cartoonists in the 30's and 40's Personally, I think Obama sort of resembles a chimpanzee, not because is half black , but because he sort of has the ears shaped like a chimpanzee.And so does George Bush .I bet most people would not have known that the cartoon was associated with the stimulus package, let alone the unlikely connection between the chimpanzee and obama, if it were not for a few opportunists in the media who created the racial connection between the chimpanzee and obama. I bet most people would have associated that cartoon with the chimpanzee who mauled the woman in Connecticut. Sales have dropped down to 17 percent for the New Yorker. Drawing a political cartoon with racial implications would be drawing unnecessary negative press , and lowering there audience number drastically, which no business wants.

People should be worrying about real issues that influences and affect their lives dramatically, not a silly cartoon. A cartoon cannot physically harm you. I bet most people who are boycotting the New Yorker never even read the New Yorker to begin with.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, but so what? even if the context is primitiveness and not appearance, are African Americans primitive or less than human? no. One need only travel to Appalachia if they believe otherwise. Let's not forget Bush was also depicted as a chimp with the same meaning associated with it as above.

So it's still irrational to use the slur and it's still irrational to be offended even in that context imo.

Have YOU ever been to Appalachia? What exactly do you mean?

Do you believe that people who live in Appalachia are inferior to black people or to monkeys ...or just inferior to you?

Or is it your intent to dismiss one racial slur with the introduction of a well-known slur of another group of Americans?

What is your point?

 

[Alfi]

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

Another Non-American here.
I first and only thought of the Infinite Monkey Theorem when I saw the cartoon. and giggled.
Not until I started reading posts on various sites I didn't even know people were making it controversial over a race issue.
I live in multicultural Toronto and never caught the connection.

 

[Evo]

Another Non-American here.
I first and only thought of the Infinite Monkey Theorem when I saw the cartoon. and giggled.
Not until I started reading posts on various sites I didn't even know people were making it controversial over a race issue.
I live in multicultural Toronto and never caught the connection.

That's understandable.

 

[mheslep]

Quoting Sharpton:

The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling, at best, given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.

That's one take. A more relevant and recent quote might have been:

"Today's comment by Sharpton is troubling, at best, given the historic, well documented, and blatant abuse of race by the likes of Sharpton in thinly disguised shake downs for political power."

Here's the real thing couple days ago, requiring no speculation on symbolism: Clyburn's comments on some states that might refrain from accepting Federal money:

"...these four states are in the heart of the black belt... That's why I called this an insult. That's why I said this is a slap in the face; because a majority of these counties are, in fact, inhabited by African-Americans."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/914106.html

I suggest that Clyburn cooly calculates the timing of an outrageous slanders such as this to be effective given the finger pointing over last weeks Post cartoon.

 

[LowlyPion]

I suggest that Clyburn cooly calculates the timing of an outrageous slanders such as this to be effective given the finger pointing over last weeks Post cartoon.

I don't see the connection.

If you want to find a connection between Republican Governors and their potentially vindictive funding obstructions against the minorities in their states that Federal funds are intended to assist, then that sounds like a good topic for another thread.

As to the cartoon itself, there is no doubt that not everyone goes to a Rodeo for the same reason. And is Sharpton a self promoter, who has made a career of advocating against racial discrimination? I'd say that this is how he interprets his mission as a Minister. So sure. He pops out of the woodwork when The Post makes an egregious public statement that awakens the public debate on race baiting. What did they expect?

I think if the Post doesn't want the public excoriation, or to feel as you would put it, "shaken down", then perhaps they should pursue a more enlightened approach and exercise a little more editorial sensitivity and discretion? Perhaps they could even show some real humanity and actual respect for those they clearly offended and actually apologize in a more unqualified way than to say sorry unless you are speaking out against it, then stuff it?

 

[mheslep]

...As to the cartoon itself, there is no doubt that not everyone goes to a Rodeo for the same reason. And is Sharpton a self promoter, who has made a career of advocating against racial discrimination? I'd say that this is how he interprets his mission as a Minister. So sure.

Please. Against what he claims to be racial discrimination, and after the Tawana Brawley fraud that will always be in serious doubt.

 

[LowlyPion]

Please. Against what he claims to be racial discrimination, and after the Tawana Brawley fraud that will always be in serious doubt.

Merely because Tawana Brawley was found to have been involved in an apparent fraud, it was not a fraud of Sharpton's making. And while he may have been found to have libeled one of her alleged attackers, mythical or not, in the heat of the moment, that serves at least to demonstrate his past history of passionate advocacy.

And even all of that taken into account, his advocacy in speaking out against the presentation of what many apparently think is salacious racial content in the cartoon, does nothing to cleanse the fact of the cartoon or any action that the Post would have taken in seeking to shirk accountability or disrespect any who have complained.

 

[LowlyPion]

Finally

STATEMENT FROM RUPERT MURDOCH

February 24, 2009

As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02242009/news/regionalnews/statement_from_rupert_murdoch_156676.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

OK. Sharpton lost me. Give it up Al. The apology is all you can expect, and thinking they will force more blacks on to the staff of the Post looks like the wrong response now. Racial hiring quotas has nothing at all to do with the offense of the cartoon.

Apology not accepted: Sharpton not satisfied with Murdoch's statement on controversial Post cartoon

BY Adam Lisberg and Christina Boyle
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Tuesday, February 24th 2009, 8:14 PM

The Rev. Al Sharpton was still not satisfied Tuesday after New York Post owner Rupert Murdoch issued an unprecedented personal apology over a controversial cartoon that was branded racist.

... He also demanded that the billionaire businessman explain how he will ensure that a similar gaffe will not occur in the future.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/24/2009-02-24_apology_not_accepted_sharpton_not_satisf.html

Sharpton would make a lousy salesman. Any salesman knows that when the customer has been sold, that's the time to shut up and book the order and not to keep talking.

 

[Proton Soup]

OK. Sharpton lost me. Give it up Al. The apology is all you can expect, and thinking they will force more blacks on to the staff of the Post looks like the wrong response now. Racial hiring quotas has nothing at all to do with the offense of the cartoon.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/24/2009-02-24_apology_not_accepted_sharpton_not_satisf.html

Sharpton would make a lousy salesman. Any salesman knows that when the customer has been sold, that's the time to shut up and book the order and not to keep talking.

maybe he operates like Jesse Jackson and isn't going to go away until they show the money. the book "Shakedown" was a real eye-opener wrt to JJ.

 

[LowlyPion]

At this point if I were Murdoch, I would tell him to stuff it.

 

[mheslep]

Finally

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02242009/news/regionalnews/statement_from_rupert_murdoch_156676.htm

Classy apology by Murdoch. Was given in a manner appropriate to answer any unintended, but none the less insensitive, offense. Had none of the 'we really, really like minorities, and have lots of minority friends, see?' sophistry of the past.

 

[mheslep]

At this point if I were Murdoch, I would tell him to stuff it.

Bravo.