Read about the flap over an NY Post cartoon depicting a chimp?
What do you think? Was it racially insensitive? Does the fact that it gained attention outside the NY market (where far fewer people know the chimp story from which it was supposedly drawn) makes any difference? How much latitude should cartoonists get? Are they freer to be controversial?
Remember the Muhammed cartoon controversy that even hit on our own campus?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Editorial cartooning
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I think that the goal of a cartoonist is to either exaggerate or to criticize a current event or a decision taken by the government. However, I do think that it is disrespectful when the cartoonists try to compare a person with a chimpanzee or portray a negative image of a certain racial group.
For me, a cartoon is relevant when it poses an opinion that makes a clear point. But I do not think a cartoon is valuable when it does not have a fundament or strong argument. I think this is unethical and newspapers should be careful to discern between controversial and offensive because it seems they have forgotten the difference.
Public reactions to the chimp cartoon. The Post apologizes for the cartoon, but also defends it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.react/index.html
At first when I saw the picture I wasn't sure it if was racist or not. Then I thought about the racist depictions of African Americans as monkeys and the eerie comparison to Barack Obama. I think it was little racist comparing blacks with monkeys is racist and there no way around it.
Having taken Poli Sci 470 (First Amendment) last semester I see both sides of the controversy. While the cartoonist (or the staff at the Daily Illini/Badger Herald) have the right to print mostly whatever they want, there is a point where a line is crossed. Especially with the NY Post cartoon, I feel the line was crossed immensely and see the "link" with the chimp being shot previously this week as a complete cover-up. The stimulus bill and the chimp being shot have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What is evident, though, is that historically, blacks have been stereotyped and compared to monkeys. To me, there is no denying what the cartoon was really trying to say.
http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2009/02/19/1235023779_9085/539w.jpg
I don't see it as racist...
The cartoonist combined two current events into one image.
If he wanted to make the chimp resemble our president, he could have. However, he did nothing of the sort.
Also, a very good point from a blogger:
"I loved the cartoon.
I find it hilarious how the rabid, radical left is expressing so much indignation regarding it and what it supposedly implies.
They have very short memories if they can't remember the savage attacks that President Bush incurred in the name of humor and satire."
I would never condone racist remarks (verbal or nonverbal).
But I DO think that seeing this cartoon as racist takes quite the stretch and undue "watchdog" attitude.
Despite the intentions of the cartoon, it is up to the Post to assume that viewers are looking at the image, not interpreting it. When I saw that image, I immediately saw our President being shot. Even if the cartoon was not MEANT to be racist, it looks racist. The Post needs to assume that most of the public is not up on their current events, and may not know about the chimp story.
I felt that it was a racist cartoon on many levels.
The two things had no relationship on any level until they were connected by the cartoonist, so saying that nothing was implied is ridiculous.
The reaction it got may have been slightly overblown (I learned about this from watching MSNBC when they had Al Sharpton on to discuss it), but I don't think there is any way for it to not be construed as racist considering the context.
i was completely shocked when i saw the cartoon and honestly really angry. I agree with Diana in that not everyone knew about the chimp incident and could have taken the cartoon the wrong way (the way I took it and probably MANY viewers). A cartoon is meant to provoke talk, yes, but a cartoonist should really think about how everyday people will view it. i mean COME ON!
Its not racist. Bush was compared to a monkey for the past 8 years. Remember that?
I believe the issue here is how the cartoonist responded. If the cartoonist did not intend for it to be racist, then he should say so but apologize as well. The quote from the cited article made him sound bad. He should apologize to those offended and enforce the idea that he had no intention to offend anyone. It's bad PR to say "there's no friggin' way...etc."
IN RESPONSE TO THE BUSH IS A MONKEY COMMENT: Bush was compared to a monkey because of his incompetence and inability to speak correctly. If Obama is compared to a monkey, then it is racist. When criticizing politicians or anyone for that matter, there is a difference between criticizing aspects that people cannot change as easily (i.e. race, age, gender, sexual orientation) and things people can change (job, education, etc.). You can say it is ok to exercise the first amendment but it is not ok to discriminate based on race, gender, etc.
Gerald Cox, a pretty great columnist for the Badger Herald, wrote something today that I agree with.
Except I didn't laugh. I didn't think it was funny--I just don't get what the big deal is. I have other things to get pissed off about.
Do you think that the meaning of the cartoon would be any different if one of the cops was depicted as African-American?
I do!
Post a Comment