News Day Tuesday: The Post Cartoon
New York State Senator Eric Adams stands in front of The New York Post building holding a cartoon that ran in The Post. (photo: Craig Ruttle / AP Photo)
A couple weeks ago, there was quite an uproar here in the city and elsewhere over an editorial cartoon that was published by The New York Post. You’ve probably heard about it, but for those who haven’t – the cartoon depicted 2 police officers and a chimpanzee. The chimpanzee was shot down by one of the officers, and the other officer said, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
According to the editors at The Post, the cartoon (which was printed on Wednesday, Feb. 18) was meant to caricature 2 recent events: 1) a chimpanzee that was shot down by police after it had attacked the neighbor of its owner (on Monday), and 2) the $787 billion stimulus bill that was signed into law by President Obama the day before (on Tuesday).
Many people were offended by the cartoon because they felt it was racist – they thought the chimpanzee was referring to President Obama. Throughout racism’s long history, people of African descent have often been depicted as primates, such as chimpanzees and apes. This practice still continues to this day, as seen by the behavior of some, shall we say, uncouth sports fans.
So, after the cartoon ran, the phone lines of The Post and the offices of government officials were lit up. People demanded that The Post apologize for running the cartoon, and protested outside the building where The Post had its offices.
The following evening, on Thursday, The Post issued an apology, and last Tuesday, Rupert Murdoch (chairman of News Corporation, which owns The Post, among other media outlets), also apologized in print. Both The Post and Murdoch expressed regret for any offense or insult the cartoon generated, but maintained that the cartoon was only meant to criticize an ineptly written stimulus bill – that the $787 billion spending plan was out-of-control, just like the chimpanzee that mauled the woman. As The Post stated in its apology, “Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon.”
And therein lies the debate. On the one hand, you could argue that The Post exercised poor judgment by running the cartoon, that the editors and related staff should have been aware of the cultural context, that they should have forseen how racial undertones of the chimpanzee image would have offended people. On the other hand, you could argue that people were hypersensitive and overreacted to the cartoon, that they read too much into it and saw racism where none was intended, that their demands for an apology only serve to stifle freedom of expression. Both of these stances raise issues related to not only racism and cultural sensitivity, but also freedom of speech and censorship.
Race is always a controversial topic, at least here in the States. So what do you think? Should The Post have run the cartoon? Did people overreact? If you were a cartoonist or a columnist who had created something expressing an opinion that you honestly did not intend to be racist, but your editor decided not to run your piece because he or she was afraid it would offend people, would you count that as censorship?
The article.
I’d like to remind people that this is meant to be a respectful and open forum. You shouldn’t be afraid to air your views here, no matter how much in the minority you think you may be. It’s hard to develop an open mind when you don’t get to hear different perspectives. So I encourage all of you speak your mind, especially if you think your opinion isn’t a popular one.
Sarynelli
March 3, 2009When I first saw the cartoon a few days ago, I thought it was really messed up. It’s really easy to misinterpret a cartoon like that now….but once I read the explanation I saw what the artist was actually trying to depict. Still, I think it was good of Rupert Murdoch to publicly apologize. He was a true professional and took responsibility for what is being printed in The Post…..good guy…..