What do you see when you look at this cartoon? It can be said that they are partly referring to Travis, the Chimp that was just killed by Police earlier this week for attacking his owner's friend. However, because the cop is saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," the cartoon has taken a political turn. This statement could be interpreted in two ways: On the one hand, the cartoonist could be saying that the people who wrote the stimulus bill are a bunch of monkeys, but on the other hand the cartoon could be referring to the person who introduced the bill in general to the American public and signed it, Barack Obama. Either way the cartoon is violent and has raised a lot of questions about racism.
There is a lot of debate centered around this cartoon. Given the timing of its release, one day after Obama signed the Stimulus Bill, some say this is blatant racism on the part of The Post. On the previous page of the newspaper, there was a picture of Obama with the Stimulus Bill all around him, which further illustrates for many that the publishers definitely had Obama in mind when releasing this cartoon. Many also say that the story of Travis the chimp is a good cover for the Post publishers because like the cartoon, the chimp was actually shot. If the cartoon would have came out before the incident with the chimp they would not have had such an easy cover.
People who do not so easily see racism when looking at this cartoon argue that the cartoon was not referring to Obama because he was not the one that wrote the Stimulus. Nancy Pelosi wrote the 1000-plus pages along with help from members of Congress. If anything, the cartoon was mocking Politicians in DC that wrote the bad bill moreso than pinpointing Barack Obama himself. Supporters of the paper also argue that Bush was called a monkey for 8 years by people who didnt support him so its not so new that a monkey would be used as imagery for public figures. Still, opposers say that of course the paper would use a loose word such as needing someone else to write the next stimulus bill because they didn't want to be outright racist. This is a good cover because by saying it in another way they still get the message of bigotry out, although they are not directly stating it. Opposers look at this picture as a play on the long standing racial slur against blacks as uncivilized monkeys.
Personally, I do find the cartoon a bit questionable, but ultimately the First Amendment gives people the right to speak freely. Undoubtedly, the illustration has fostered debate, which is always good for new ideas in an open forum, but the bigger issue remains....did The New York Post go too far??
What's your take on the issue?
I agree- first amendment gives people the right to speak freely therefore the Post had every right to publish the cartoon. That being said, the protests and demands for apologies are also waranted as it is our shared right to speak out against what we find inappropriate. How convenient that the animal shot was a chimpanzee last weekend- (historically blacks have been likened to monkies!) This reveals the ignorance more so than the racism of the Post, they weren't aware of the racial implications- which is Sharpton's platform: public responsibility. Its a shame that no one at the Post recognized this as inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thing though! I am quite sure there are well educated staff at the Post that were aware of the racial implications of this cartoon. There's audacity and entitlement involved in the posting of this obviously offensive and debatable illustration. I agree, the Post needs to take responsibility for their actions, but will they?? So far there half assed apology doesn't show that they will...
ReplyDeleteThe people that work at the news papers had to know the kind of uproar that would come from this cartoon. I wouldnt be shocked if they weighed the consequences and decided that the reaction whether postive or negative from the cartoon would be worth the risk. I just dont believe people that there are people who are so ignorant of the potential backlash of this cartoon in a newspaper.
ReplyDeleteDo I think the NY POST is racist? A bit yes, but more opportunist, willing to go to great lengths to sell a paper. They had to know that the cartoon would be linked to the most high profiled individual in america right now. I dont know how many papers were sold because of that issue but I know The Post has gotten far more press lately for this incident than they have gotten in months, years even. The bottom line is they knew what would come from this incident.
One last comment: Id sure like to know how many people of color are in the room where the decisions are
You are right Randy! I too would like to know how many people of color were a part of the decision to release this illustration. When I was writing about this incident I didn't even think about that. Opportunist they are to put this cartoon in their paper regardless of the aftermath. However, it is good to keep in mind that bad press is still good press because it gets your name circulating again and makes you relevant. All public entities see negitive backlash as still good for business because the bottom line is always in mind. At the end of the day the Post was successful at increasing circulation atleast surrounding this incident which ultimately means increased revenue. Opposers of the paper still purchased to see what the hoopla was about. If you arent relevent with the times then you aren't resonating with your audience. The Post knew what they were doing so for that I have to admit that they used a smart tactic to get people talking about them again.
ReplyDelete