Chimp cartoon.

[Hooper_X]

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?

Grasping at straws, are we? How pathetic. You're either being purposely disingenuous or you're a blithering idiot. Rupert Murdoch saying that, as the owner of the paper, that the buck stops with him neither means nor implies that the impetus for the content of the cartoon didn't originate with the artist.

 

[sr71plt]

Grasping at straws, are we? How pathetic. You're either being purposely disingenuous or you're a blithering idiot. Rupert Murdoch saying that, as the owner of the paper, that the buck stops with him neither means nor implies that the impetus for the content of the cartoon didn't originate with the artist.

Guess you didn't read the statement. It supports my point about how newspapers work--which you insist not to grasp.

 

[Hooper_X]

Guess you didn't read the statement. It supports my point about how newspapers work--which you insist not to grasp.

I read the statement and it did no such thing. It's merely the owner of the paper accepting ultimate responsibility for what's printed on his pages. I'm beginning to believe that you're not being purposely disingenuous.

 

[sr71plt]

I read the statement and it did no such thing. It's merely the owner of the paper accepting ultimate responsibility for what's printed on his pages. I'm beginning to believe that you're not being purposely disingenuous.

Guess you don't know how to read an official statement, then. Who, again, did he say in his statement he talked to at the paper about what got printed? The cartoonist? No. The editors who decided what sort of cartoon they were going to run. Again, it's not my problem that you don't know how newspapers work and seem so obsessed with a niggling point. The people taking reponsibility are the publisher and the editors--not the cartoonist. They are the ones who set the editorial policy on running such a cartoon.

And as I also said, this was a purposeful newspaper decision to try to be able to cartoonize this president as they've done every other one. That's my point. It's tough that you ignore it.

 

[Hooper_X]

Guess you don't know how to read an official statement, then. Who, again, did he say in his statement he talked to at the paper about what got printed? The cartoonist? No. The editors who decided what sort of cartoon they were going to run. Again, it's not my problem that you don't know how newspapers work and seem so obsessed with a niggling point. The people taking reponsibility are the publisher and the editors--not the cartoonist. They are the ones who set the editorial policy on running such a cartoon.

You're guesses carry about as much weight as your completely unsupported foisting off of your opinions as facts. Of course he talked to the editors. They are supposed to be in a position of oversight. It doesn't mean that they dictate the specific content of political cartoons to artists. You have yet to offer one shred of evidence to support that claim. All that you've been able to come up with is an article in which Rupert Murdoch make a symbolic gesture of taking responsibility. Moreover, it is you (the big newspaper man who doesn't know how to work a spellchecker) who is niggling about a trivial point. My original statement stands regardless of where the idea for the cartoon originated. To wit, that the person responsible for that cartoon is in the symbols and meanings business, and knows too much about semiotics and U.S. history to have not realized how it would be interpreted.

I only called you on your, still wholly unsupported, bullshit because it's annoying combination of pomposity and lack of evidence.

And as I also said, this was a purposeful newspaper decision to try to be able to cartoonize this president as they've done every other one. That's my point.

Here again, you're either engaging in willful deception or you're just brutally stupid. I would think that someone who claims to have worked in the newspaper industry would know that--given America's centuries long history of racist terrorism (often including the dehumanizing characterization of African Americans as great apes (other than H. s. sapiens) as a pretext for slavery, apartheid and wholesale murder)--a newspaper is not going to be able to caricaturize a black man as a chimp without significant controversy.

 

[sr71plt]

You're guesses carry about as much weight as your completely unsupported foisting off of your opinions as facts. Of course he talked to the editors. They are supposed to be in a position of oversight. It doesn't mean that they dictate the specific content of political cartoons to artists. You have yet to offer one shred of evidence to support that claim. All that you've been able to come up with is an article in which Rupert Murdoch make a symbolic gesture of taking responsibility. Moreover, it is you (the big newspaper man who doesn't know how to work a spellchecker) who is niggling about a trivial point. My original statement stands regardless of where the idea for the cartoon originated. To wit, that the person responsible for that cartoon is in the symbols and meanings business, and knows too much about semiotics and U.S. history to have not realized how it would be interpreted.

I only called you on your, still wholly unsupported, bullshit because it's annoying combination of pomposity and lack of evidence.




Here again, you're either engaging in willful deception or you're just brutally stupid. I would think that someone who claims to have worked in the newspaper industry would know that--given America's centuries long history of racist terrorism (often including the dehumanizing characterization of African Americans as great apes (other than H. s. sapiens) as a pretext for slavery, apartheid and wholesale murder)--a newspaper is not going to be able to caricaturize a black man as a chimp without significant controversy.

Sorry, you'll just have to pout on your own from here.

You apparently have a horse to flog that doesn't bother me all that much.

But I will say that OF COURSE a newspaper won't do this without significant controversy--the Post revels in controversy. it sells newspapers. And I'm not the only one who has made that point on this thread. This is all working out just fine for the Post. (shakes head)

 

[Hooper_X]

But I will say that OF COURSE a newspaper won't do this without significant controversy--the Post revels in controversy. it sells newspapers. And I'm not the only one who has made that point on this thread. This is all working out just fine for the Post. (shakes head)

In the absence of any evidence to support your initial point, you're now meandering all over the place. I am well acquainted with the New York Post. It is, of course, a rag. I never said otherwise, dummy. Furthermore, your contention that this controversy is a boon for the Post merely adds support for the point underlying everything that I've said in this thread. Namely, that the racist subtext of the cartoon was known from the very beginning. Thanks

 

[sr71plt]

Furthermore, your contention that this controversy is a boon for the Post merely adds support for the point underlying everything that I've said in this thread. Namely, that the racist subtext of the cartoon was known from the very beginning. Thanks

That's certainly arguable. Where did I argue otherwise?

 

[Hooper_X]

That's certainly arguable. Where did I argue otherwise?

And as I also said, this was a purposeful newspaper decision to try to be able to cartoonize this president as they've done every other one.

Right there.
Next question.

 

[sr71plt]

Right there.
Next question.

Seems to undermine your own argument, considering how they characterized Bush (as a chimp).

The next question is how does this make you think I argued against the cartoon being racist?