Where is the line in Political Cartoons?

[turbo]

Please remember that the Post is a tabloid, and it is not exactly aimed at the most intelligent audience. I doubt that most of its readership is aware of Congress' role in crafting the bill that (unofficially) carries Obama's name in the nightly news.

 

[Proton Soup]

First of all do you really think he played no roll? As President - all those meetings, all that out reach for bipartisan involvement? You just don't see Obama as associated with the stimulus package that is now called the Obama Stimulus Plan by many public commentators?

do you think he played the primary role? i do not.

And second of all if you would treat it in such a literal fashion do you seriously think that there is no outrage in the African American community at depictions of monkeys as stereotypes? And you would expect that at a minimum African Americans would not find such allusion as objectionable, because they would of course see things through the literal lens of your perspective and not their own experience?

sure, that guy that printed up the Curious George Obama shirts during the campaign was being a racist.

Sorry, but as a son of the south I see it as racist code that whether intentional or not should be immediately redressed, with more than the paper saying that it thinks it was justified in its inference, so anybody that thinks otherwise can stuff it. That's just rude.

i'm in the South, too. Birmingham. which is why I'm tired of this ****. and yes, I'm aware of internet sites like chimpout. and i don't think this particular cartoon is related. i do think some peoples' emotions are so involved here that they are incapable of seeing it, tho. but I'm tired of coddling them. they've got to learn not to constantly kneejerk and sometimes give people the benefit of doubt.

As to associating chimps with Bush, yes chimps share an idiom with idiot. But last I looked idiot was not a recognized minority under the Civil Rights Act. (In fact I have to wonder at times if it is not a minority at all.) But rather than idiot, if a cartoon equated Bush to say a retarded person, I would consider that an inappropriate excursion into poor taste in a similar way that this cartoon inappropriately stumbles through its own garden of racially charged imagery.

that sounds like an excellent task for you. come up with a completely non-offensive way to tell people they're retarded without offending retards. um... no offense retards. some of my best friends are retards.

 

[drankin]

I'm with PS. Unless something is intended to be racist it shouldn't be assumed. There is nothing in the cartoon that intended to be racist. That's obvious. There is a good reason you don't see racist media at a newstand, it doesn't sell. If one feels that it is racist, don't spend your money on it. It will go away.

 

[Proton Soup]

Please remember that the Post is a tabloid, and it is not exactly aimed at the most intelligent audience. I doubt that most of its readership is aware of Congress' role in crafting the bill that (unofficially) carries Obama's name in the nightly news.

and the cartoon wasn't even funny. tho funny doesn't seem to be a prereq. for political cartoons (see Doonesbury, et al.).

 

[Gokul43201]

basically I'm just sick and tired of this nonsense. I'm tired of this constant barrage of accusations of racism.

It's one thing to accuse someone of racism, and another thing to accuse them of racial insensitivity or ignorance.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's one thing to accuse someone of racism, and another thing to accuse them of racial insensitivity or ignorance.

where is the line between racism and racial insensitivity?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't understand the connection between the stimulus bill and the shooting of a chimpanzee by police. Congress wrote the stimulus bill and Obama signed it.

There was that incident where a 200 lb chimpanzee attacked a friend of the chimps owner, but I still don't see the connection with the stimulus bill. The police ended up shooting it.

Just one more reason not to read the NY Post.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[WhoWee]

If you think I would deny that Sharpton is an opportunist, then you misjudge. In fact speaking of opportunists I'm surprised Jesse Jackson hasn't waded into the scene. This kind of thing total nectar to these publicity seeking bumble bees.

But regardless of who's leading the parade, there wouldn't be a parade if there wasn't a vein of offense to be mined from the cartoon.

The more legitimate question is why hasn't Jesse shown support for Senator Burris?

 

[mgb_phys]

sure, that guy that printed up the Curious George Obama shirts during the campaign was being a racist.

That's how niave I was - I thought the curious George thing was just the ears/hair/grin.

http://kd4dcy.net/public-html/george-obama2.jpg

Anyway isn't Curious George rather a positive symbol - doesn't he teach children to read?

 

[LowlyPion]

The more legitimate question is why hasn't Jesse shown support for Senator Burris?

That one's easy.

Having an election might turn out to be an opportunity for Jr.

There is another possibility that there may be some fallout for Jr in the Blago tapes not yet released, so the Jackson clan ambitions are keeping a lower profile?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Curious George smokes.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/ster0171/socks/cg-pipe.jpg

And he huffs ether:

 

[Proton Soup]

That's how niave I was - I thought the curious George thing was just the ears/hair/grin.

http://kd4dcy.net/public-html/george-obama2.jpg

Anyway isn't Curious George rather a positive symbol - doesn't he teach children to read?

perhaps you are right and I'm just too eager to make a concession.

 

[WhoWee]

That one's easy.

Having an election might turn out to be an opportunity for Jr.

There is another possibility that there may be some fallout for Jr in the Blago tapes not yet released, so the Jackson clan ambitions are keeping a lower profile?

I assume everyone is aware of this?

http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-2905-burris-attorney-senate-seat-denial-lsagainst-the-law-of-this-landrs.html an excerpt:

On October 24, 2008, Burris and five others were the first people to be named “Distinguished Alumni of Centralia High School” in downstate Centralia where he graduated in 1955. He was born and raised in Centralia and attended Southern Illinois University in Carbondale where he earned a bachelor's degree in political science. As an exchange student, he studied International Law at the University of Hamburg in Germany before earning his law degree in 1963 from the Howard University School of Law in Washington, D.C.

His corporate experience is as long and distinguished as his political career. After graduating from law school, he became the first Black examiner for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for the U.S. Treasury Department. From 1964 to 1973, he worked as a tax accountant and vice president for Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company (now Bank of America). While there, he headed a commercial group that covered government guaranteed loans and minority business banking.

By 1973, his banking expertise led to his being appointed director of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services by former Gov. Dan Walker.

Burris held the post until 1977.

From there he would become the national executive director and chief operating officer for Operation PUSH (now Rainbow/PUSH Coalition) from January to October 1977 where he worked closely with the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Accordingly, keep an eye on this:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-burris-stroud-09-feb09,0,247374.story

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1397821,burris-president-obama-012908.article Now, to get back onto point...nobody had a problem with this:

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

""Cagle Cartoons

 

[Bystander]

Legitimate political commentary?

Or latent racism?

http://www.nypost.com/delonas/delonas.htm

I'm with Al Sharpton on this one. "...troubling ..." he is quoted as saying.

You'd think that there would by now be a little more sensitivity to racial issues on the part of the NY Post

There is no "line" for people on center stage. That said, the cartoon is a pretty unambiguous stab at congress --- people wanta go through all the contortions and effort to find it offensive? "Good on 'em."

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm seeing on MSNBC now (Kieth Olbermann) that the editor Col Allan - the editor who was responsible for the cartoon approval and who issued the refusal to apologize - may be in trouble at News Corp and may be quietly sent back to Australia. There is apparently some internal dissent over the affair within News Corp. An Associate Editor at the Post has made internal demurs about the cartoon and its handling.

 

[skeptic2]

So where is the line or where should it be? On which side of the line was publishing the political cartoons of Muhammed? Should publication be withheld because it might offend someone?

 

[WhoWee]

So where is the line or where should it be? On which side of the line was publishing the political cartoons of Muhammed? Should publication be withheld because it might offend someone?

The 1st Amendment says no...a publication needs to police itself. However, when they don't a damages verdict may say otherwise.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread has moved pretty fast, but...

where is the line between racism and racial insensitivity?

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.

But intentionally using such imagry to parody a black person - even if it isn't intentionally racist - is insensitive and not a good idea. Yes, there is a double standard in this country (call me a "cracker" and I really don't care), but I'm willing to let that go in the interest of being conciliatory regarding history.

But this cartoon is on the other side of the line. The writer/paper confirmed that it was a shot at congress, not Obama, so to be offended by it, one needs to misinterpret it twice, and I'm not willing to give people a pass for that. It's taking PC too far to have to go to such lengths.

Now does this mean that the Post didn't know it might be interpreted this way? Not necessarily. I can see someone in the editorial staff pointing out the possibility and an internal discussion deciding it was far enough on the right side of the line that if a furor erupted, it would just be free advertising, not an "oops". Not sure how much forethought that required, though...

 

[russ_watters]

Would it be cynical to think that a certain religious/political figure feels that he isn't getting enough media attention since Obama took centre stage?

Perhaps his PR people and the Post's PR people should have arranged everything to fit in with a slow news day. It's much better than just letting these major newsworthy events happen at random.

Yeah, it's a little cynical, but I wouldn't put some variations of that theme beyond either of them. Sharpton's a buffoon and overplayed his hand on this one, but for the Post, this has no doubt been great press.

 

[LowlyPion]

Here is their apology.

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

But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

That much is good.

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

However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.

If no one had spoken up I think we can be sure that their insensitive commentary would have gone unredressed.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

but i think it may say something about how we primates choose leaders.

By the size of the ears?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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...

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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!

 

[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.