New York Times Political Cartoon

[Master Eq]

So as some of you may know, I am VERY political. Not that I belong to any one party, but I enjoy staying current on what's going on. So today on the local news, they were talking about a new cartoon published by the New York Times. In the cartoon, 2 police officers are standing over the body of a chimp that has been shot. One cop is still holding his gun, and the other says something like, "Now their going to have to find someone to write the next stimulus plan."

Now there are several groups outraged, because they see it as a racial depection of Barack Obama. So I thought I would bring this to all of you wonderful people here. My question is.....

....Was this, in your opinion, a racial remark towards the president, or rather was the artist stating that anyone could write out a stimulus plan.

[denuseri]

Sounds like both to me!

Perspective could sloce it eaither way.

Very poor taste on the writer/artist and editors parts only continuing to confirm my low regard for the media in general in its quest for advertising dollars.

[craven]

my first reaction, and this is just my personal take is that they underlying message is that the cartoonists is implying that the rescue plan could have been drawn up by a chimp, as in deriding the plan rather than attacking via the use of visual stimulus barack obama in a racial way per se,

poor taste and not too well thought out, but that is how i took the cartoon anyway.

I agree with den, shows an incredible lack of sensitivity and awareness, which is all too common in todays media

[Belgarold]

I agree, it IS very insensitive and looks racially motivated to me as well. And just to clarify, it was the New York POST, not the Times. The Times would not have run such a cartoon in my opinion.

The Post is run by Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp. Much more of a scandal sheet reputation.

[Thorne]

I see this more along the lines of, "If you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter, given enough time he'll write Hamlet," or a stimulus package. I don't see anything there referencing Obama or anyone else, except maybe those who actually did write the thing.

Don't believe for a minute that Obama actually wrote that package. It's doubtful he even read it. That stuff is done by staffers, who present (at best) briefs to their bosses laying out what they want them to believe is in there. So I don't see any criticism of Obama personally, only politically.

The cartoon strikes me as perhaps more revealing about the viewer than the cartoonist. Those who are always looking for the tiniest slight, always trying to put words into other people's mouths, or those who themselves view blacks as being at a lower level of evolution and are ashamed of their views will, I believe, tend to see this as more demeaning than it was meant to be.

People just need to stop taking themselves so seriously!

[denuseri]

As someone who has been on the recieving end of discrimination before in the past (just last week in fact) I can say that it is very hard to overlook certian visual presentations in the media as being anything other than veiled forms discriminatory evocations.

Blatant in many regards considering this very same depiction has been used so often in the past in a racist manner and is paticularly sensitive to the people aginst which it was used.

Now there is a difference as Thorne pointed out between looking for the tiniest slight and reading between the print so to speak. IMHO this is not one of those times.

If the cartoon had been made during any other Presidents administration would it have had a far different meaning? Perhaps not but it was printed during this presidents admisistration just hoping for an inflamatory response.

Ole Abe for instance was often portrayed by his detractors as a long armed babboon.

Of course the use of our less developed evolutionary cousins (all animals) in getting a point accross is commonplace.

The way its done however and the message such images portray should be thought out much more closely as they will have lasting effects in some cases on our culture.

Intelectual disconectedness aside, there is no one that could convince me that the cartoon in question was not willfully depected exactly the way it was on purpose (borderline rasict depection at best) knowing exactly how inflamatory it would be precived.

Regardless of which scource the Times or the Post (both of which in my opinion are two sides of the same evil coin in every way) the cartoon was just plain wrong.

Several people I am sure had to sign off on it before it hit the public via what is supposed to be a respected news scource. rme &smh

(On a side bar: If your wanting to pick favorite fish wrapers mine was allways the "Cristian Science Monitor", I know I know it doesnt have the magazine high gloss form but at least its not 100% biased in all of its reporting like so many of its counterparts.)

[mkemse]

Thisi s a real tough one, on one had yes it may bewrong, tastelss ect on the other hand we live in a Free Society with Freedom of the Press, ect you will never please eveyone all the time on anytning
THIS DOES NOT MAN i accept or condone the Cartoon, butthereality is unless a direct threat was made to someone, this is one advantage to living in a Society with complete (in most cases) Free of Speech and Express,
And as absolutely tastless as it is EVEN the Supreme Court ruled afew years back Buring the Amiercan Flag is Protected by The Consitution As Freedom of Speach and is NOT illegal, in a Free Society the Street goes both ways you don't have to like it, but that is reality of Freesom of Speach and Expression with the exception of 3 things NOT covered as Freedom of Speech by the UnitdStates Constitution, only 3 things that come to mind rightnow that are NOT legal to say in Pubic without fear of arrest
Enojy what we have here, very few countries do

[Belgarold]

I see this more along the lines of, "If you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter, given enough time he'll write Hamlet," or a stimulus package. I don't see anything there referencing Obama or anyone else, except maybe those who actually did write the thing.

Don't believe for a minute that Obama actually wrote that package. It's doubtful he even read it. That stuff is done by staffers, who present (at best) briefs to their bosses laying out what they want them to believe is in there. So I don't see any criticism of Obama personally, only politically.

The cartoon strikes me as perhaps more revealing about the viewer than the cartoonist. Those who are always looking for the tiniest slight, always trying to put words into other people's mouths, or those who themselves view blacks as being at a lower level of evolution and are ashamed of their views will, I believe, tend to see this as more demeaning than it was meant to be.

People just need to stop taking themselves so seriously!

Obama did NOT write the stimulus package, Congress did, and he HAS read it, I am sure. But that is not the point. Obama has note complained about the cartoon, the public has.

And as denu pointed out this is not a case of "the tiniest slight." It is a common depiction used in rascist circles. And even if you take away the rascist element. It is inciting a violent act, a killing, to get a point across.

I am appalled by the sore losers out there that are inciting all sorts of acts because they disagree with the President and his administration.

Jim Adkiison shot up a Knoxville, Tenn. Unitarian church because he wanted to "kill liberals" a few weeks back.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...42570771_x.htm

And Alan Keyes just this weekend said that Obama was not President (using bogus claims to justify his wild accusations) and basically said that Obama needs to be done away with.

Tiny slights, I don't think so. I believe the cartoon IS rascist and there seems to be many that think that way. But even if the Post can support the claim that it is NOT rascist, it is still proposing killing to support one's viewpoint. Which is disgusting.

[mkemse]

Obama did NOT write the stimulus package, Congress did, and he HAS read it, I am sure. But that is not the point. Obama has note complained about the cartoon, the public has.

And as denu pointed out this is not a case of "the tiniest slight." It is a common depiction used in rascist circles. And even if you take away the rascist element. It is inciting a violent act, a killing, to get a point across.

I am appalled by the sore losers out there that are inciting all sorts of acts because they disagree with the President and his administration.

Jim Adkiison shot up a Knoxville, Tenn. Unitarian church because he wanted to "kill liberals" a few weeks back.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...42570771_x.htm

And Alan Keyes just this weekend said that Obama was not President (using bogus claims to justify his wild accusations) and basically said that Obama needs to be done away with.

Tiny slights, I don't think so. I believe the cartoon IS rascist and there seems to be many that think that way. But even if the Post can support the claim that it is NOT rascist, it is still proposing killing to support one's viewpoint. Which is disgusting.

True but Congress is Controlled by the Democrats, all Obama did wastell them what he wanted and needed and he must of liked it or he would have vetoed it, but the Deomcrats Control Congress, as 1 Republican who supported it said "No it is NOT perfect, but something right now is better then nothing right now"
I think the Repbilcans are "angry" or "Upset" because they no longer Control Congress like they did before the last 2 Elections

[mkemse]

True but Congress is Controlled by the Democrats, all Obama did wastell them what he wanted and needed and he must of liked it or he would have vetoed it, but the Deomcrats Control Congress, as 1 Republican who supported it said "No it is NOT perfect, but something right now is better then nothing right now"
I think the Repbilcans are "angry" or "Upset" because they no longer Control Congress like they did before the last 2 Elections

Alan Keys has less to offer Ameircans then anyone else I can think of with the possiblity of Rush Limbough, who is a case study in himself but he seems to like Oxicondin alot
Alan Keys Ran for the Senate In Illinos a few years back and sufferd the worst shlacking of any race in Illinois History, he then movedo n to Arizona and planned to run there only to be disquialified because he was to new to the stae, so he keeps moving from one state to another

[mkemse]

Sorry, did not mean to quote myself,I pressed the wrong key

[Master Eq]

This is what I enjoy, a civilized conversation on a topic that has been blown out of proportion by many organizations. Ok, here is my take on the issue...

I think that the artist was not intending the cartoon to be taken as "racest" but rather he/she was trying to combine 2 news stories in a comical fashon. What the cartoon depicted was wrong, no doubt about that, but as said earlier it is his right under the first amendment. That being said, the editor who allowed that cartoon to be published should have had enough sense not to publish it. Maybe something that has not been said, perhaps the editor saw this as an oppurtunity to increase the papers sales. I know that I will be keeping a closer eye on it.

Thanx to everyone for your opinions.

[Thorne]

I understand other people's viewpoints and I can, and do, see how this could be taken as a racist statement. But my feeling is that it's all in the eye of the beholder. While I am intellectually familiar with the idea of equating some races with monkeys, when I looked at that cartoon I didn't see a racist depiction. It's not until other people screamed about racism that the idea ever even occurred to me.

Like Master Eq, I see the cartoonist combining two recent news stories in a supposedly humorous way to bring attention to both. Was he trying to be racist? I don't know, and no one but the cartoonist knows, either. And what if the cartoonist is black himself? Does that still make the cartoon racist?

And why isn't anyone making disparaging comments about the two cruel police officers who killed a helpless animal? Couldn't we view this as an animal rights issue?

C'mon, people. You can read into that thing almost anything you want to read into it. And it isn't until somebody starts making a lot of noise about what they perceive is wrong that most people will pay attention. If nobody had made any comments about this cartoon, who would have even noticed it? Just a relative handful of New York readers, and it would have died a natural death.

In fact, just as a point of interest, how many people here actually saw that cartoon when it was initially published, and how many didn't see it until after all the noise started and the accusations of racism were thrown around?

[mkemse]

And if the Monkey incident had not happened all would be quiet on the Western Front

[damyanti]

Now there are several groups outraged, because they see it as a racial depection of Barack Obama. So I thought I would bring this to all of you wonderful people here. My question is.....

....Was this, in your opinion, a racial remark towards the president, or rather was the artist stating that anyone could write out a stimulus plan.

It was a critic of a stimulus plan....done in an extremely poor taste...or to put it bluntly, its a disgusting, poorly veiled racial slur. Is the person who did it a manevolant racist? Probably not, but he/she is very juvenile, irresponsible and mindfuckingly stupid jerk....who (together with his editor) has no business working in a newspaper. Journalistic integrity really seems to have reached rock bottom.

On the other hand, I have very little patience or understanding for groups whose whole purpose is to be "outraged" and who blow things out of proportion and use it to instigate people and promote their agenda.

Whatever happened to civil dialogue?

[damyanti]

Was he trying to be racist? I don't know, and no one but the cartoonist knows, either. And what if the cartoonist is black himself? Does that still make the cartoon racist?

Was he trying to be racist? I answered that in a post above. But being a racist/holding prejudices is not exclusive to the "white" and holding negative racist prejudices towards "one's own" is scarily common.

In fact, just as a point of interest, how many people here actually saw that cartoon when it was initially published, and how many didn't see it until after all the noise started and the accusations of racism were thrown around?

I saw it before "accusations of racism were thrown around" and it was pretty clear to me.

[MMI]

I have not seen the cartoon, and I rely upon the description given. The following opinion is given while I was unaware of the "accusations" that have been thrown about.

I agree that the cartoon was meant to imply that the stimulus plan could be written by a monkey ... that it is a trivial endeavour.

I do not believe the cartoonist, or the editor of the Post, or anyone else who was involved - of whatever hue - could possibly have been unaware of the racist undertones, or of the personal implications regarding Obama, and they published anyway.

[DuncanONeil]

Why is there even any complaint at all? Over the past eight years the media has often depicted the President as a chimp, and there was narry a single word of protest. So why now????

[DuncanONeil]

By the way there is no rescue in the plan, if one can even call it that. Before the election we were treated to the fact that the deficit & debt was disasterous and mortgaging our children's future. Now doubling the defict in one year and tripleing the debt is a good thing. How is that even possible?

[DuncanONeil]

But the Times has run cartoons of the President depicted as a chimp. Just look it up.

[DuncanONeil]

Because you choose to see it that way!

[damyanti]

Why there was no protest when the former president was compered to a chimp?

Reason number one: Chimps don't have an "outraged" lobby group.

Reason number two: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/...2c7b7d.jpg?v=0

[DuncanONeil]

Obama did not read it!

There is an open question regarding Obama's ability to run. No one is willing to take the time to track down the truth of the questions. The evidence presented to settle the issue is not convincing. Were this on the other side the clamor for an investigation would be unending, much like the 2008 campaign for President that has not yet ended

[DuncanONeil]

The animal was not helpless, in fact it was attacking people. The people that lived with it and loved it!

[DuncanONeil]

Neither is this outrage from any lobby group. Rather from a group that seeks things to be outraged about. Blowing to great proportions the slightest thing.

[Master Eq]

Why there was no protest when the former president was compered to a chimp?

Reason number one: Chimps don't have an "outraged" lobby group.

Reason number two: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/...2c7b7d.jpg?v=0

absolutly 100% agree with you (and love the pic of bush)

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

[B][COLOR="magenta"]
I saw it before "accusations of racism were thrown around" and it was pretty clear to me.

Ditto, I saw it and the very 1st thought I had was "that's going too far even for the Post".

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Why is there even any complaint at all? Over the past eight years the media has often depicted the President as a chimp, and there was narry a single word of protest. So why now????

There have been some internet bullies that have made the Bush facial expressions equate to chimps but never the "media" if that can actually be defined. If I'm wrong about that please show me a link or a quote from a main-stream media source please.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

But the Times has run cartoons of the President depicted as a chimp. Just look it up.

I tried but couldn't find any NY Times or Washington Post political cartoons depicting Bush as a chimp/monkey. I did find them on About.com but not as political cartoons, just offensive anti-Bush pictures not really trying t make any particular political point.

You've apparently seen them? Maybe you can give me a link?

[damyanti]

The "chimp" part isnt the problem. When I first saw it, the incredulity at what I was seeing caused a small gasp. It was depicting "cops shooting just another n*****", suggesting Obama would be that easy to get rid off. To do so when there have already been arrests of not too bright individuals who owned guns and plotted to kill the President...

They knew what they were doing. Political satyr is one thing, and Obama shouldnt be given a special exemption from it, but this wasnt it. This wasnt a critical commentary, at best it was a disgusting and hypocritical abuse of the freedom of speech.