After a lot of backlash from New Yorkers and criticism from elected officials, the NY Post, which published the controversial editorial cartoon, issued an apology. On the night of February 19th, nearly 2 days after all the opposition to the illustration, The Post posted an editorial on its Web site that read:
Wednesday’s Page Six cartoon — caricaturing Monday’s police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut — has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,” one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else — as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past — and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon — even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
If this isn't the biggest non-apology we have seen in a long time I dont know what is. Initially, it seems as though they are explaining themselves and remorseful for the misunderstanding, but then the editorial lashes out at anyone who has ever disagreed with the Post, saying this situation is being used as an opportunity for "payback." The last part of the editorial basically takes back the apology while giving it.
Of the many community leaders that accompanied Al Sharpton in his protest outside The Post, State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx also issued some words of contempt:
During Black History Month, The New York Post has depicted the first black president of the United States as a chimpanzee – to draw a twisted parallel to the chimpanzee that was recently killed. Their cartoon does nothing but promote racism against our president and encourage further racism in our society. When Fernando Ferrer ran for mayor, The New York Post ran a bigoted cartoon of Fernando Ferrer and the Rev. Al Sharpton — without much consequence. The Post’s apparent racism is still in place — as demonstrated by their ugly cartoon in yesterday’s paper — and we will not tolerate it.
The interesting point about Mr. Diaz's statement is that both the 2001 cartoon and the recent illustration were both drawn by Sean Delonas. Not only didn't The Post respond to the claim that they have a longstanding pattern of racism as shown by the earlier cartoon, but they also didn't state whether or not they would stop using Delonas in the future.
On February 24th, Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of The Post issued his own apology saying, "Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted." He also said that the Post will try to be more sensitive. However, for the NAACP this pledge wasn't good enough. Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the NAACP still called for a boycott of the Post on Saturday. Mr. Jealous said, "The offenders are still on staff and there are no measures being taken to increase diversity in its newsroom."
Given all of this, my take on the issue is a bit on edge. In light of the incident in Connecticut with chimpanzee Travis, the cartoon trivializes the tragedy a mere few days after it happened. The cartoon was undoubtedbly tasteless and insensitive from this standpoint, but is this whole fiasco protected by fair comment? As far as the non-apology I am also unsure if I would even want them to apologize. Apologies can just as well be used to mask the fact that the cartoon was still produced. If all that is needed is an apology many people can publish all kinds of controversial work that they know they can later just say sorry for and get away with. What can be done to prevent future questionable work before its worldwide publication? Is there anything at all that can be done? Questions like this still arise for me although It should also be kept in mind that the First Amendment may protect the newspaper from accountability. The first Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The most basic component of this Amendment is the right to freedom of speech which allows individuals to express themselves freely without government interference or constraint. However, if the government does feel the need to severely step in the Supreme Court requires the government to provide extensive justification. The Supreme Court also allows government prohibition if the speech causes a threat to peace and ignites violence.
Is there a difference between speech and press?
Exploration of this question and an overview of The First Amendment
Exploration of this question and an overview of The First Amendment
Should we all just learn how to take people's opinions in stride and turn the other cheek? This issue seems to be bigger than the cartoon. The First Amendment remains as new issues arise so what can be/should be done for future problems?
I've given you a lot to chew, but overall do you feel The First Amendment protects the paper from having to apologize or be held accountable??
At the end of the day The Post can publish the cartoon if they want because they have the right to do it. But just as they have the right to publish it, we have the right to critize what they publish and they shouldnt be so upset if we do.
ReplyDeleteWe are free to call for boycotts and try to hurt them were it hurts most, in circulation and advertising. Such an apology is hollow because the damage is already done and really I have never heard of an real apology that is really an attack on its critic. The only real way to make sure they learn their lesson is to hurt them in their pockets.