Chimp cartoon.

[Pure]

What do you think.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/new-york-post-chimp-carto_n_167841.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/20/new-york-post-apologises

Shows a dead chimp and two police who apparently shot it, as happened in Connecticutt.

"They will have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

---
Note: Original chimp story in many places: It was domesticated for years, but attacked owner's visiting friend.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=w021763A

 

[slyc_willie]

Any involvement in an issue by Sharpton makes me roll my eyes as much as the same involvement by Limbaugh or Hannity.

My feeling is that the Post knew exactly what they were doing. The cartoon wasn't so much as racist as purporting to be so in order to garner attention. It's in bad taste, to be sure, and the application of a dead chimp that went rabid toward a stimulus bill that hasn't yet seen the results of fruition is tenuous.

Taken as a whole, the cartoon is little more than an attempt to grab readers, spark discourse, and otherwise gain a little more circulation for the Post. That's about it. The apologies were to be expected, and I sense, came very quickly and in "canned" form.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

6 months ago the Usual Suspects whooped about THE NEW YORKER cartoon. So it doesnt matter how Obama is depicted.

I like my depiction; THE ORGAN GRINDER'S MONKEY

WHAT DOES OBAMA AND AN ORGAN GRINDER'S MONKEY HAVE IN COMMON: Theyre both cute and polite, theyre both tied to white guys who call the tune, and each of them wants your money.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I don't think there was racist intent, but the cartoon was really tone deaf and didn't make a point. Its result was to make the Post look racist and trollish.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't think there was racist intent, but the cartoon was really tone deaf and didn't make a point. Its result was to make the Post look racist and trollish.

I mostly agree with Huck, that there was no racist intent. I do think the cartoon was in bad taste, with its reference to the chimp who went nuts and badly injured at least one person before being shot. The connection to Obama or his staff was extremely tenuous.

As for depicting politicians as animals, get over it. The GOP has long been portrayed as elephants and the Dems as donkeys. Besides, I have seen a lot of cartoons that showed W as a monkey. It's called The First Amendment.

Like Willie, any time Sharpton says anything, I consider the source and discount it. And I could say the same thing for Hannity or Rush, although none of those three is always wrong.

 

[DesertPirate]

So far nobody has made the other possible connection: A monkey/chimp could have written a better spendulous bill that the piece of crap we got.

 

[Liar]

I'm gonna give the cartoonist the benefit of doubt here.

It isn't racist, but it's made a published by people with broken race-dar. Someone ought to have taken a second look and said "uh guys, do you realize how this can be intepreted?"

The point it's trying to make (the one that DP is poiniting out) is made in a boorish and unfunny way, so it's a failure as a cartoon either way. But there's a difference between being a moron and being a racist. Even if they quite often correlate.

So, not racist, still sucky.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think it's any of the above. I think it was an attempt to open up the acceptability of cartooning Obama and that it was a (successful) intentional grab for attention to the paper.

 

[twysted73]

countless depictions of Bush as an inept monkey or needing assination...noone bats an eye.

And it wasn't even referencing Obama. Pilosi authored the bill.

Idiots. All of them.

 

[DesertPirate]

Now if they had Biden in a big yellow hat next to Obama ...

That might be racist.

 

[TE999]

The intended content of editorial cartoons, as beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. Using a current news item to express an opinion on a government action is a time honored tradition among political cartoonists.

With all the other problems we're facing, this is small beer.

 

[Carnevil9]

I always thought that Obama looked a lot like curious George. It's the ears. And as referenced by several posters above, GWB garnered quite a few monkey comparisons himself. Never raised any eyebrows round these parts, though......Carney

 

[Hooper_X]

I have to believe that a guy drawing/writing editorial cartoons for a major news paper knows a little too much about semiotics and U.S. history for the obvious racist interpretation not to have occurred to him.

 

[sr71plt]

I have to believe that a guy drawing/writing editorial cartoons for a major news paper knows a little too much about semiotics and U.S. history for the obvious racist interpretation not to have occurred to him.

But then you probably need to be aware that the editorial policy/parameters on what the cartoon would be was set by someone at the paper other than the cartoonist before he sat down to draw it.

 

[Hooper_X]

But then you probably need to be aware that the editorial policy/parameters on what the cartoon would be was set by someone at the paper other than the cartoonist before he sat down to draw it.

Policy and parameters are broad concepts. If you are saying that someone other than Sean Delonas was responsible for the specific content of the cartoon in question, then please cite your sources.

 

[sr71plt]

Policy and parameters are broad concepts. If you are saying that someone other than Sean Delonas was responsible for the specific content of the cartoon in question, then please cite your sources.

Can only say that this is how newspapers work with on-staff cartoonists. You have evidence that the Post works differently?

Have you worked for major papers? (I have.)

It would be ludicrous, I think, to assert that such a cartoon got published without editorial control. I haven't heard of anyone who knows anything about newspaper work asserting that.

Like I've already posted, the media is just itching to be able to "cartoonize" Obama just like any other president--and have been estopped so far because of his race and that little public halo he's had around him since forever. The Post most likely just wanted to be the paper that broke the barrier--a very intentional editorial decision. In that decision, the specific cartoonist is pretty much tertiary.

 

[Hooper_X]

Can only say that this is how newspapers work with on-staff cartoonists. You have evidence that the Post works differently?

Have you worked for major papers? (I have.)

It would be ludicrous, I think, to assert that such a cartoon got published without editorial control. I haven't heard of anyone who knows anything about newspaper work asserting that.

So, in other words, you don't have any credible sources. And I never said that he didn't have editorial guidelines and/or oversight. That doesn't preclude the artist being the sole creator of the cartoon. I think that you know that. In any event, the comment would stand no matter who at The Post was ultimately responsible for its content. Artist or editor, they knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[sr71plt]

So, in other words, you don't have any credible sources. And I never said that he didn't have editorial guidelines and/or oversight. That doesn't preclude the artist being the sole creator of the cartoon. I think that you know that. In any event, the comment would stand no matter who at The Post was ultimately responsible for its content. Artist or editor, they knew exactly what they were doing.

I added to my post while you were posting. I don't need any citation. It's editorial policy for anything this explosive--if it's their own cartoonist, they feed him the scenario. If it's a syndicated cartoonist, they've gone looking for a cartoon that meets their editorial decision.

Don't have to prove it to you, because you can believe what you like.

 

[Hooper_X]

Don't have to prove it to you, because you can believe what you like.

In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary (which surely would have been mentioned in one of the many articles I've read about this incident) I shall do just that.

 

[sr71plt]

In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary (which surely would have been mentioned in one of the many articles I've read about this incident) I shall do just that.

Fine. I'm sure the world will survive.

 

[Hooper_X]

Fine. I'm sure the world will survive.

Indeed it will. And, thank you for your unsolicited and, notwithstanding their authoritative air, wholly unsupported pronouncements.

 

[jomar]

Of course it's racist and deliberately inflammatory.

The fact that the author and the post were able to base the cartoon on a tragedy (in which an inept white security guard shot and killed a black man) and spin it as even a monkey could write the stimulus package better does not make it less racist. Same goes for if there was no intent for it to be racist.

Everywhere you look it's called Obama's stimulus package - it is identified most strongly with him. And the monkey image has been used forever to insult and mock blacks. It's just not the same when they make Bush a cartoon monkey.

But I think the Post and the author (who has a history of offensive cartoons), knew exactly what they were doing and it succeeded quite well.

 

[sr71plt]

But I think the Post and the author (who has a history of offensive cartoons), knew exactly what they were doing and it succeeded quite well.

Right. That was my point too. Thanks. Again, the media is itching to be able to cartoonize Obama just like they have every other president. The race issue is making that very, very difficult.

 

[Pure]

Murdoch has apologized.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/rupert-apologizes-for-car_n_169386.html

 

[sr71plt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/rupert-apologizes-for-car_n_169386.html

Ah, yes, and in his statement he said he spoke to the editors involved (not to the cartoonist) concerning the issue. So that's clearly where he pinned the decisionmaking responsibility for the cartoon. But I suppose Hooper_X needs to have how newspapers work--who does what and is responsible for decisions on what to print--written in crayon?