I figure an offensive cartoon warrants an offensive title.
When I first saw the New York Post's cartoon my reaction was, "well this will end poorly..."
I wonder why Sean Delonas, the cartoonist, or Col Allan, the Post's editor-in-chief, didn't see it coming?
Allan told CNN, "[The cartoon] is a clear parody of a current news event." Delonas' cartoon made reference to the February 16 attack by a "pet" chimpanzee. Police shot and killed the chimp after it viciously mauled his owner, and her friend.
Al Sharpton, the National Association of Black Journalists and others didn't see it that way. Critics argue the cartoon appears to compare President Obama to a chimpanzee--a racist commentary on his recently approved economic stimulus package.
And sure, Obama may not have been the one writing the bill, or directly attempting to push it through congress--that was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's job. But media outlets referred to it as "Obama's stimulus plan." So, I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination for readers to view the cartoon as:
a.) Attacking Obama for the stimulus plan
b.) Making reference to Obama as a chimp
c.) Thereby making reference to African Americans as chimps
To make matters worse, the Post's halfhearted apology was worse than none at all. Stick to your guns, defend Delonas, and say it was in not intended to be racist. Or come out and say it was tasteless and apologize to everyone whom it offended.
Don't apologize and then add a caveat, like the Post did in its ANONYMOUS February 20th apology.
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the Post, finally got it right a few days later...
Had Delonas or Allan offer such an apology early on--without a ghost author or sniping at detractors--the newspaper could have saved itself days of embarrassing coverage.
When I first saw the New York Post's cartoon my reaction was, "well this will end poorly..."
I wonder why Sean Delonas, the cartoonist, or Col Allan, the Post's editor-in-chief, didn't see it coming?
Allan told CNN, "[The cartoon] is a clear parody of a current news event." Delonas' cartoon made reference to the February 16 attack by a "pet" chimpanzee. Police shot and killed the chimp after it viciously mauled his owner, and her friend.
Al Sharpton, the National Association of Black Journalists and others didn't see it that way. Critics argue the cartoon appears to compare President Obama to a chimpanzee--a racist commentary on his recently approved economic stimulus package.
And sure, Obama may not have been the one writing the bill, or directly attempting to push it through congress--that was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's job. But media outlets referred to it as "Obama's stimulus plan." So, I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination for readers to view the cartoon as:
a.) Attacking Obama for the stimulus plan
b.) Making reference to Obama as a chimp
c.) Thereby making reference to African Americans as chimps
To make matters worse, the Post's halfhearted apology was worse than none at all. Stick to your guns, defend Delonas, and say it was in not intended to be racist. Or come out and say it was tasteless and apologize to everyone whom it offended.
Don't apologize and then add a caveat, like the Post did in its ANONYMOUS February 20th apology.
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the Post, finally got it right a few days later...
Had Delonas or Allan offer such an apology early on--without a ghost author or sniping at detractors--the newspaper could have saved itself days of embarrassing coverage.
Leave a comment