Rupert Murdoch -- Yes, Rupert Murdoch -- Apologizes for Accidentally Racist Cartoon at The New York Post

by Damozel | Truthfully?  I don't believe for a second that the cartoon was inspired by any racist animus or that the dead chimp portrayed as the author of the stimulus package was meant to be Barack Obama.  I think it was unfunny and even slightly ewww (because: violently dead chimp) and in poor taste and on the whole reflective of a certain unawareness to areas of sensitivity, but... intentional?

Who in these enlightened days would deliberately draw -- or publish -- racist cartoons?  Oh, er...um.  Okay, maybe people aren't overreacting as much as I first assumed (speaking of things that make you go ewwww).

The New York Times explained the cartoon as follows, in case you missed the first round of outrage last week:

[The dead chimp] appeared in a grotesque cartoon that ran last week in The New York Post. This was after a real chimp had viciously attacked a woman in Connecticut, and was then shot to death by police officers. The Post’s illustration by Sean Delonas shows a bullet-riddled chimp lying dead. Two officers stand over him. One holds a smoking gun while the other says, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

At a minimum, the drawing was thoroughly vulgar, even for an illustrator whose work is often synonymous with vulgarity....

Vile comparisons of blacks to chimpanzees and monkeys are as old as the republic. This chimp, in...critics’ view, clearly represented our first African-American president, the leading figure behind the new economic stimulus program. Worse, some protesters charge, the newspaper in effect said that Mr. Obama should be shot....

Ultimately the piece comes down on the side of the "sacred" right to offend.   The author cites an erstwhile Supreme Court case in support of this point:

“One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures — and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.” It is an American right, Frankfurter went on, to express “silly or even sinister-sounding views.”

But if there is a "right to offend," it doesn't rule out the right of offended people to be offended, does it?  And offended people have a right to complain and to encourage offended others to speak with their wallets.  We're not talking prior restraints here. We're talking about people exercising their first amendment right to object to The Post's exercise of its. 

As to whether this is an overreaction, we're not talking about an offense with no basis in history, specifically the history of indignities imposed upon, and slurs against, African Americans in this country.

Finally, intent -- or conscious intent --- ain't the issue either.  Intent or no intent, non-deliberate racist humor is still a problem.  The problem with unintentionally racist imagery is the people who intentionally laugh at it for the wrong reasons and feel confirmed and strengthened in their stupidity. So yeah, Darryl Cagle, cartoonists (who get their living by manipulating symbols) really do need to understand something about racial symbolism so they don't inadvertently do what the Post just --oh, all right -- inadvertently did.  

But anything that forces Rupert Murdoch to apologize publicly must ultimately add to the sum of human happiness. 

The Great Man writes:

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

Bless the man, you've got to love him for the ingenuousness that required him to make "a number" of inquiries to learn how this cartoon offended some people.  I wonder how many and who and what they said to convince him.

Ben Smith writes:

Rupert Murdoch's apology -- the first I can recall him making, for anything -- for printing a cartoon that offended many is a seismic event at the New York Post...That apology, along with a pledge to be "more attuned to the sensitivities of our community," is a huge departure for the combative tabloid. It seems...generally...a rare sign of weakness, a hint that the strongest company in the conservative news media is having a hard time adjusting to the Obama era.

Alan Colmes says at Liberaland:

As someone who was critical of this cartoon and the initial Post reaction (and, yes, as an employee of Mr. Murdoch, so sue me), it is refreshing to see this kind of corporate responsibility.

Now that's comedy. 

Gawker gets the last word (and you have the right to be offended):

Sean Delonas' New York Post cartoon said, essentially, "Screw you, monkeys."

The Post itself said, "Screw you if you didn't like it."...

Rupert has issued what we must admit is a very civil and human-sounding apology! A day after Al Sharpton and the NAACP vowed to keep on protesting this issue until it hit News Corp in the wallet, the head of News Corp appears...to sincerely apologize.

Ha, this officially makes the New York Post a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys!

More at Memeorandum....

RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

Army Charity Fails to Help as Many Soldiers as it Could've?

Profiles in American Courage: A Pragmatic Obama Says, "Hang on Tight"; Bill Clinton Says, "Put on a Happy Face!"; Meanwhile, NYT Columnist Maureen Dowd Says: "The Only Thing to Fear is...Everything"

Wall Street Journal Goes Decades Back to Find Dirt on Bill Moyers

UBS Settlement: is Swiss "Right Wing" as Corrupt as American "Right Wing"?

Obama Admin Says US Due Process Rights Inapplicable to Detainees at Bagram AFB; Pentagon Defends Guantanamo

Republicans Who Couldn't Bring Themselves to Vote for the Stimulus Seeing the Benefits for Their Own States

Kerry and Other Dems to "Unclench Fists" and Open Diplomatic Discussions with Syria

Obama Extends Bush's "Covert" War Within Pakistan (Commentary Round-Up)

Republican Senators Paying Big Bucks for Coleman's Seat to Remain Empty

Did Forensic Doctor and Dentist Create Evidence of Guilt?

Comments

[Streaksandteaks]

Race in America is like a married couple. The woman comes off as a nag and the guy is completely clueless. It's not about laws or intentions. Of course you can say anything you want. But these conversations remind me of those moments when you're in the mall and you notice your husband looking at another woman's ass - again. You scream out, "that's offensive!" and he says, "whhhhat? I was looking at the label on her jeans. I need a new pair and I like that brand." I believe the cartoon wasn't intentional. I believe hubby when he says he was just looking at the label on that other woman's jeans. Really. I believe it. They're clueless. They're actually not thinking of anything else except whatever is on their mind at that precise time (which might very well be the label).

The fact that blacks might be sensitive about a depiction that in the past has led to some really painful consequences offers very little as to why a cartoon showing a police shooting chimps might pop up in our cartoonist's mind as offensive, especially if he's just thinking about the stimulus package. I just really believe the cartoonist wasn't thinking race at all. Blacks come off like women trying to get a guy to admit he was getting off on staring at another woman, but the truth is, these publishers (like most men) aren't seriously thinking about it (or you). Its exasperating because everything you know indicates that its just impossible for it to go unnoticed, for it to be anything other than an insult, given that you've talked about it, cried together about it, bled together over it, died together over it. But, Blacks, like women, have to know that the best you can do is sigh and know its not really about you at all. Never was.

[Ron Russell]

I think by the time Obama leaves office the race card will have been played so many times it will no longer be affective as a Democratic foiling tool. I'm one American who is really sick of it. Stay on issues, American are tired of being called racist. Please quit kicking the dead horse of racism. It took years and years for the old Rebublican party to quit waving the "bloody shirt" after the Civil War", but eventually they wore it out. Its time for all the racism charges to go, past time. If Obama, were the leader many on the left thinks he is, he would help put this to rest, but lets face it--he is not that man.