Obama Photo Preceded Cartoon Of Gunned Down Chimp

In the page preceding a New York Post cartoon that depicts drafters of the stimulus legislation as a gun-downed chimpanzee, the paper published a large photo of Barack Obama signing that very piece of legislation.

The succession of the story and cartoon creates a rather jarring visualization for some readers. One person who pointed out the layout to the Huffington Post expressed bewilderment that anyone "would think that this is okay."

Indeed, reading through the paper one finds a spread image of Barack Obama signing the stimulus gracing the top of Page 11. The accompanying graphics breaks down the contents of the recovery package. The article details the new demands of the auto-industry for more government assistance.

Flipping over to Page 12, there is the now-infamous cartoon with two befuddled looking policeman standing over a shot-dead, crazed chimpanzee. The caption reads: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus."

The New York Post has defended the publication of the cartoon by Sean Delonas, saying that it "is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy."

Inside the paper, however, the mood is much less defiant. An employee of the paper told the Huffington Post that the phones have been ringing incessantly with complaints from readers and the general public. "As they f---ing should be," said the employee.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that "many Post staff members were dismayed by the cartoon."

Comments

[MoeB]

01:33 PM on 02/24/2009

Ok people. We can argue all day about whether the chimp represents racism against Obama (I kinda think it does, but that's just my opinion). Honestly, to me, that's not the biggest problem with the cartoon. My problem is, regardless of WHO the chimp represents (Obama, Congress, Pelosi), the chimp has been SHOT DEAD. THAT is the problem. If you don't like the stimulus, fine, that's perfectly ok. But to in any way imply that whomever WROTE the stimulus bill be shot dead is WAY beyond the pale of satirical humor.

[TivoliEclipse]

09:51 PM on 02/23/2009

Marketing 101... The subliminal suggestion is blatant. The Editor underestimated his audience or he was too dim to care.

[farseer]

03:16 AM on 02/22/2009

If a chimp had not been shot and someone wrote this cartoon, that would be one thing I would then think the cartoon was suggesting violence. But the chimp was actually already short - it was a historical fact. So it could not have been a suggestion to do anything. rather it was a commentary on what already happened. And to me it seems a leap to connect the dead chimp, with the president. Especially since, as many have pointed out, the bill was written not by the president but by the congress in a very long, public, drawn-out process. Seeing the cartoon I would think the cartoonist is lampooning the process of writing the bill and the many authors of the bill, and not specifically Obama.

[farseer]

03:20 AM on 02/22/2009

That said, I still wouldn't have written the cartoon like that, because it was an invitation to controversy. Somebody was sure to say the cartoon was a racist attack on Obama. So i think the cartoonist was certainly taking a chance in writing it.

[Bruupo]

02:36 PM on 02/23/2009

Without the racist joke there is no joke there, just a callous reference to a horrific news event.

Having to explain a political cartoon for a single second means that said cartoon is a complete failure- the entire point of its existence is to be understood at a glance, in a single second. It would be charitable to simply call this cartoon a failure, since its malice is so apparent.

Hearing the wingnuts yap about congress authoring the bill, a bunch of white-guys authoring the bill, all the other garbage...none of them believe a word they are saying in its defense- they just think that the same rules apply to any of the multitude of times they fetal-up into their warm, victimhood womb and claim FALSE umbrage, where it only matters what they CAN SAY, not how they sincerely feel-

Sincerity matters here. Did you happen to notice that there is ONE CHIMP, that the text refers to "someone else"- in the singular- to refer to the "author" (who was also signing the bill in the picture opposite)? A single figure in a political cartoon meant to represent a group or concept usually come with a label ascribed.

But then, that's an argument to have with someone sincere. Can you look in a mirror and tell yourself that the first time you saw that cartoon, you honestly thought the chimp represented congress?

Honestly?

If so, was it funny, at all?

[AngryMonkey1977]

06:53 PM on 02/21/2009

Now, when a chimpanzee attacks a woman and puts her in the hospital. Is that a statement about how violent black people are? No. And when a satirist uses that incident to point out how ignorant the stimulus bill is (a bill that assumes giving Americans an extra $13 per paycheck will stimulate the economy) it is also not racist. Monkeys are ignorant. So are the politicians (white, black and Hispanic) who wrote the stimulus bill.
You know who else is ignorant? Anyone who thinks Sean Delonas’s comic could possibly be about Obama. I am amazed that politicians and reporters could completely gloss over the fact that Obama is NOT ALLOWED to write the stimulus bill. Our constitution gives legislative power (writing and passing laws and bills) to Congress. It gives executive power to the president. He can sign it into law and he can stop it from becoming law but he can’t write it. If the caption said “sign” instead of “write” you would have a case for racism, but as it is, the argument is just plain stupid. I voted for Obama and I hate racism. But I also hate “racism hawks” and their equally bigoted hate mongering. Every white man that mentions a monkey isn’t racist. Get over it!

[Rich Fritsky]

10:29 AM on 02/22/2009

You're right. How could anyone come to the conclusion that this cartoon was about Obama?

The only way they could conclude that is if they read the article showing Obama signing the stimulus bill, then turned to the next page to see the cartoon of a slaughtered chimpanzee with reference to the same bill.

Do you think that the Post editors who are normally meticulous in their layout, didn't see the connection?

If an individual who did not work for a national newspaper posted a picture of a chimp being shot just below a picture of the President on a webpage, do you think the secret service would have that person investigated?

[bluedov69]

09:38 PM on 02/23/2009

POST READER:

YOU NEED TO STOP AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO CALL THE FCC ON THE CARTOONIST AND THE EDITOR

STOP PRETENDING THAT AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE A HISTORY OF ASSINATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO BLACK LEADERS

I wouldnt be surprised if they have already paid them a visit ! WHAT WAS ON HIS MIND ?

[billsmile]

08:12 PM on 02/20/2009

Nice going Sam. This is the way it really went down for readers of the Post.

By isolating the cartoon most commentaries missed the more obvious bigger picture(s).

[Yalegirl03]

09:21 AM on 02/21/2009

Yeah, looking at the cartoon alone it wasn't so clear to me that they meant to equate Obama with the monkey. Showing the cartoon in context makes that a bit clearer to me.

[deeloo]

06:45 PM on 02/20/2009

Maybe they should have made the cartoon of police shooting a puppet, since that is what Obama is for Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, and Reid.
That is not an assassination attempt, but just symbolic in that Obama needs to grow some and stop being a puppet for the spend crazy Democrats.

The stimulus bill should not spend beyond 2012. That would have cut the cost of it and would have narrowed the spending to just items that stimulate the economy and cut out the pork. If we need more spending after 2012, then there can be another stimulus bill!

[bluedov69]

09:39 PM on 02/23/2009

So youre advocating a threat to the president? Am I hearing you correctly?

[daedalus43]

02:30 PM on 02/20/2009

Wow!!! It gets worse and worse! Isn't promoting Presidential assasination illegal?

[fairwinds]

11:36 AM on 02/20/2009

This is totally unacceptable and racist. It is unfathomable to think in this day and age your paper feels empowered to print trash such as this. We are about change and support President Obama to the fullest extent. If you think it is a joke, perhaps a boycott of your paper resulting in lost revenues would be a wake up call for you. We are no longer living back in the day when people such as yourself (white) thought it was funny to depicted us a monkey's or baboons. You should be run out of business!

[Yarrr]

10:14 AM on 02/20/2009

Ah yes, I forgot about this. I think this is the most damning piece of evidence as the cartoon does seem to make a legit commentary about the bill. But I don't think this was coincidence at all. This is the work of the editor, or whoever.

I'm anti-censorship and pro free speech, but I don't think that extends to assassination implications.

[mebble]

11:34 PM on 02/19/2009

This is character assassination.

McCain, Palin, Clinton, Giuliani, Libermann (sic), Limbaugh and Hannity, to name the ugliest, are are guilty of it. All more or less played the race card against President Obama, questioning his patriotism, doubting his background and talents, or suggesting he might meet a violent fate.

The pamphleteers in Paris performed the same sort of character assassination against Marie-Antoinette in the years leading up the the French Revolution. This is race baiting, this is demagoguery, this is essentially criminal and treasonous behavior, because it threatens a man's and people's lives, and safety of our leaders and the very fabric of our nation, and in a time of great turmoil at that.

I'm all for Freedom of Speech but abusing it to incite hate crimes is intolerable. All of these attacks should be investigated and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law to dissuade those that these scurrilous dogs seek to incite to hate crimes.

[lynnn]

11:28 PM on 02/19/2009

Not surprised, but again, it was the violence that is really uncalled for, even if you believe that the chimp represents congress.

[Lahonda]

10:29 PM on 02/19/2009

America the beautiful?

[Patricia Curtis]

06:19 PM on 02/19/2009

What has this world come to when, media can threaten the life of the us president for the whole world to see, and people take it as a joke? I think the paper and those responsible should be brought up on charges...

[lynnn]

11:39 PM on 02/19/2009

Yes and no. If the chimp is congress, it is still wrong (and congress has secret service protection as well). Now under Lincoln, this cartoon would be a no -go. Probably under Bush as well (and his laws are still around) I think you could be bought into questioning, however, presidents usually don't do that.

[wingnutslayer]

04:26 PM on 02/19/2009

This cartoon (and the rag it rode in on) establishes that there is one group in existence that can justifiably deny the theory of evolution: monkeys. Give it another thousand years or so and monkeys will be studying the failed experiment that was the human race. Make that five hundred years, I think we've back-stepped up the pace a bit after this simian-level attempt at humor.

[joyce628]

02:42 PM on 02/19/2009

This cartoon is a subtle incitement to the crazy right wing racist rednecks to assessinate the sitting president of the USA - President Obama. There is no excuse for this deliberate disrespect of the office of the presidency. The FBI needs to look into this violent cartoon depicting the death of the president seriously. At the Sarah Palin rallies, there were people who shouted death to President Obama. The FBI needs to question Sean Delonas and the editor of the NY Post for this terrorist threat to the setting president of the USA. They have assessinated two Kennedys before and it only takes one bullet to take out a person, therefore this violent cartoon with the caption "They will have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill" after the chimp was shot to death should be investigated to the nth degree. Free speech does have consequences.