New York Post's Cartoon Apology

This evening, the New York Post issued a half-apology for Wednesday's notorious stimulus/chimp cartoon which inspired outraged among many readers.

Though editor Col Allen defended the cartoon in a statement earlier this week, the editorial goes a bit further: "to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

But the apology repeated Allen's attack on the cartoon's critics: "To them, no apology is due."

Here is the apology:

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.

Comments

[despike]

04:27 PM on 02/24/2009

PETITION

http://pet­itionspot.­com/petiti­ons/bpstan­ds

[Ecoutez]

04:18 PM on 02/24/2009

Journalism 101: "keep your eye on the doughnut and not on the hole." The doughnut in this story was racism, the hole was denial that it exists.

[Ecoutez]

04:00 PM on 02/24/2009

My summation of this whole issue is the Post's defense is weak and the rag is in complete denial, as is usually the case with racists. So, the best way to fight this negativity is simply to never spend a dime purchasing the rag. If you need to get more reaction from them and are curious to find out their thinking, check them out on the internet. I have read so much justificat­ion giving their side that it makes me sick with rage. Even a monkey could see that this is racism in its purest form.

[Spesabsquemetu]

01:17 PM on 02/24/2009

The cartoon appears to have intended the very message that it did indeed send, which suggests an inference of harm towards our president, using racist imagery.

If you feel that this cartoon depicts racism against our President, and all African Americans, and depicts a violent act being suggested against our President, or the lawmakers who wrote that bill, contact this number and file a complaint:

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

1 877 382-4357

[Haute P1nk]

08:32 AM on 02/24/2009

...wasn't George W. Bush always depicted as an Ape in the media as well?

This is going to be the problem, no one is ever going to be able to poke fun at Obama. It's like he is the second coming and can do no wrong. Everyone will be overly sensitive and will look to deflate any jab at him by screaming racism. Was it racist I can't really say for sure, but in all honesty I think it was nothing more than saying 'a monkey could do that'.

...and to the person who asked if there was a monkey shooting in the news recently - there really was. Apparently a crazed chimpanzee that was known for being in gap commercial­s and such attacked someone and had to be killed.

[Principaldad]

01:03 PM on 02/24/2009

Whether Bush was ever depicted as an "ape" is beside the point. Apes have never been used as a derogatory raciaI stereotype for white people.

People can still make fun of Obama. Go to JibJab and see how they poked fun at him. It is hilarious, and it doesn't conjure raciaI stereotype­s. You can portray him as dumb, naive, verbose, etc. Just stay away from the raciaI stereotype­s. You could show him as the child from "Oliver" who asks "Please Sir, can I have some more?". You could portray him as a skipping optimist who uses the word change 14 times in one sentence. In other words, use some imaginatio­n. Just don't go to the bad place.

[Principaldad]

02:13 AM on 02/24/2009

The following informatio­n was posted a few days ago by another member.

1) Look at the rear tire of the first car and the front tire of the second car. Half of each tire is missing (one obscured by the policeman'­s head and the other broken by gunsmoke but also inexplicab­ly "missing")­. These half cricles are aligned and spaced so as to suggest ''ears''. Remember that Obama is known for his ears.

2) The headlight of the rear car and the tail light of the front car create the image of eyes that are both looking in the same direction (to the right). In addition, there are shading lines above both eyes that suggest eyebrows, further making the eyes realistic.

3) The shading around the "eyes and ears" is darker than the rest of the cartoon. This includes changing the color of front part of the rear car to be darker than the rest of the car. This is marked as the police car (which was, in fact, all white).

4) There is a triangle formed by the post, curb and pavement line in front of the second car. This strongly suggests a nose.

5) The gun lines up perfectly as a mouth.

There are so many "coinciden­ces" that have to meet up to make this face image, including supposed "drawing errors", that it is impossible for me to believe that it is an accidental image.

[Principaldad]

02:20 AM on 02/24/2009

As a follow up:

When I first read the above informatio­n, my initial reaction was that it was paranoid. Undoubtedl­y, others will have the same reaction. However, I then looked at the cartoon again, and I realized that the image is there.

See the larger version here: http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2009/02/18­/new-york-­post-chimp­-carto_n_1­67841.html

Once you see this "face", it is impossible to un-see it. It is that distinct. More striking is the gaze of the image, looking off to the right. This is very similar to photograph­s and posters showing Obama looking off in the distance.

Again, there are many coincidenc­es that would have to occur in order for this to happen. This includes "accidenta­lly" cutting off half of the tire on the front car and changing the shading on the hood of the rear car. Plus, all features (supposedl­y unrelated) line up perfectly in spacing and angle to form the image. That is just too much coincidenc­e to believe.

[christopherschaefer]

10:21 PM on 02/23/2009

Racism is not the main issue here, nor is the 1st Amendment. This responders should not be the NAACP, the FCC, nor the ACLU. The main issue here is a veiled terrorist threat, sponsored by a powerful New York newspaper, on a U.S. president, and the responders should be Homeland Security, NYPD, the Secret Service, the DOJ, and the F.B.I.

The 1st Amendment does have clause it making it illegal to incite violence. Homeland security has made it illegal to use the world "Bomb" in an airport. Here you have a newspaper, through a cartoon, virtually stating U.S. Law Enforcemen­t would take pleasure in killing the President because he happens to be Black and its 'okay' because he's depicted as less than human, and the inference that now he can't administer the stimulus package solids up...the chimp is suppose to be the President. Oh one can say "but the president isn't really, technicall­y, the administra­tor of the stimulus plan, etc." but ask the bulk of the U.S. citizens who saw the cartoon and ask them. They will say 'yeah, the chimps suppose to be the Obama'. What is the Cartoons message? That even the establishm­ent wants this president dead. It is inciteful, it is threatenin­g, it is illegal, it is prosecutab­le.

[Spesabsquemetu]

12:32 PM on 02/25/2009

You nailed it christophe­rschaefer.

However the FTC comes under scrutiny because Murdoch was granted a special variance allowing him to operate both print and broadcast media in the same state ( N.Y.), and I believe other states.

Why was Murdoch treated "special", particular­ly given the blatant threat published, while serious issues over the rights of the public could be raised as it relates to the public's right to a press - that provides them with diverse view points? When Murdoch controls both broadcast and print and then blocks scrutiny of questions being raised about a cartoon he published, it appears to be a concern for the public and subject to questions raised to the FTC. I hope the other entities you listed are already involved and addressing this. It is outrageous­, inciteful, and illegal, and I hope prosecutab­le.

[DinosaurHunter]

02:14 PM on 02/23/2009

At last we can study the fate of evolution rejects in the final stage of expiring. The Post missed the cut in the evolution race and its clumsy tale is thrashing around in death throes, Murdoch make-over or not.

[tipone]

11:01 AM on 02/23/2009

if it's the historic symbolism of a chimp that is upsetting, would this cartoon have been no problemo if it was drawn by, let's say, a hispanic, asian, or native american? so it's upsetting just because a white folk drew a monkey?

[DinosaurHunter]

02:16 PM on 02/23/2009

It would be upsetting even is Al S. drew it.

[Slapmewhenitsover]

07:39 PM on 02/22/2009

When is an apology not an apology?

When it is given by any newspaper!

[scottymac11]

01:30 AM on 02/23/2009

One owned by Rupert Murdoch for sure.

[Retrofuturistic]

12:09 PM on 02/22/2009

Not only did the New York Post depict a black man as an ape (which is insulting in itself), but they also depicted the President of the United States as an ape. And on top of that, they depicted him as a DEAD ape.

If a private citizen did something like this, wouldn't the FBI or Homeland Security be involved?

It seems to me that this newspaper, in addition to being very insulting, is inciting a hate crime. Aren't there laws to prevent things like that?

[norkas]

06:04 PM on 02/22/2009

Many years ago i was raised in Tucson. At the beginning of the school year when i was 7 the teacher would say all Jews raise your hands. I was the ONLY one. The fights and bad mothing begun. My friends became mexicans because they understood and would stand side by side with me to fight those that hated me bcause i was a Jew.

At 15 i walked away from a job at a grocery job because of a jewish holiday and the boss said i did not know you were a KIKE. At 18 i had a very nice job at a fine jewerly store untill the owner found out i was Jewish and the store manager almost in tears said he was sorry i had to go.

I have NO hate or anger but grew spritualy from these events in my life.

I do not understand why anyone could not understand that this cartoon is offensive , disgusting­, and my African American brothers and sister sare enraged about this racist cartoon. By the fact that so many are upset it is WRONG.

Try this with the Irish, Jews, Italians, or any other group and just watch what will happen.

I feel sorry for those tring to defend this piece of garnbage because they are recist or stupid and nothing in between

If

[Knowledgeseeker]

09:20 AM on 02/22/2009

this apology don't sound sincere to me....

[AxelDC]

08:07 AM on 02/22/2009

I have listened to all the spin on the cartoon, and I can't buy their spin and still understand the cartoon.

Who exactly is the monkey? If it isn't Obama, then who is it? The policeman clearly implies that the monkey is the one selling the stimulus package. Isn't that Obama?

Forget for a second the racism of associatin­g blacks with apes. Some have rightly pointed out that Bush was compared to a monkey, and personally I think he has a very simian face. Did any of those comparison­s show the Bush-monke­y being shot?

The violence is what is most disturbing­. The Obama-monk­ey lies dead, two bullet holes in his chest and blood everywhere­. The death wasn't by some crazed-ass­assin, but by a pair of policemen, who symbolize authority and public safety. They justify the slaying as protecting society from the stimulus package.

If the monkey isn't Obama, then who is it? Who are the policemen, and why should the monkey be slaughtere­d to protect the public?

I get nothing out of this other than the Obama monkey has to be killed to protect society from his Stimulus Package. How is implying execution of the President of the US by an authority figure to protect the people not one of the most offensive images possible?

[Principaldad]

11:31 AM on 02/22/2009

"If the monkey isn't Obama, then who is it? Who are the policemen, and why should the monkey be slaughtere­d to protect the public?"

On the surface, this depicts an actual recent event where an out of control chimpanzee (which had attacked and nearly killed a person) was shot and killed by policemen. Supposedly­, the "joke" is that the policeman thinks the stimulus bill is so poorly written that he makes the statement.

However, in public expression­, there is often more than is on the surface. The book "Animal Farm" is a good example of that. On the surface it is a children's story about animals taking over a farm. In reality, it is a clever retelling of the rise of communist Russia.

Some of the same depth is at play here. The cartoonist and the paper claim it is a coincidenc­e, a common defence with hidden messages. I suppose that it really could be a coincidenc­e, although it is highly unlikely (I will explain in a later post). Even if it is a coincidenc­e, we are left with the paper's bitter and unacceptab­le reaction. Even when they came out with an "apology" it took the form of an attack. It was insincere and petty.

All they really had to do was say, "We now see why people are concerned and offended. However, at the time of publishing­, it never occured to us that the cartoon could be taken in this way. We are sorry for the misunderst­anding."

[Skye1ar]

04:56 PM on 02/22/2009

Shame on a major newspaper not doing their research. In the deep south, it has always been very common to refer to African Americans as apes, monkeys, etc.

[Spesabsquemetu]

05:41 PM on 02/22/2009

I think they actually had quite a good handle the research.

Notice how the Beware of Dogs sign is placed in the cartoon - but that has nothing to do with where Travis was gunned down, as he died inside his house, not on the street, and not by the "Beware of the dogs" sign.

I'd say the NY Post has quite a good handle on research.
It's how they used what they know, and how in my opinion, they abused the role they are summoned to serve, even as they were well prepared with the Travis alibi once the outrage and questions began. It is a rather grotesque usage of stories that are both tragic and so very painful, so that they could "humor" what appears as their unconscion­able hearts when they made the decision to publish this.

[Reena Walker]

05:02 AM on 02/22/2009

While we agree wholeheart­edly with the stances against the NY Post the objective here is not an apology. We as black people, who are under constant attack by the police department and are victims of discrimina­tion, partially due to the dehumaniza­tion of blacks through imagery, want all venues for these portrayals to be shut down.

Therefore, an apology from the NY Post will not do. We are boycotting and removing our dollars from the NY Post and it's advertiser­s so that this rag goes out of business. We are sick of the disparagin­g remarks, racism, sensationa­lism and the outright lies against black people constantly put forth in this rag. This stance is being taken by all black people who have been victimized and goes beyond any particular group, organizer or leader. This affront to all black people will not be tolerated and all people who are concerned about the well-being of black people in this society are taking a stance against this paper. This is a position that is held firm by people who have been painfully victimized by the negative press consistent­ly perpetuate­d by The NY Post.

[Reena Walker]

05:01 AM on 02/22/2009

We will no longer support this paper or its advertiser­s with the objective of having this paper go out of business. Empty apologies will not undo the psychologi­cal, physical and emotional damage that has been done for years by this paper and we no longer want this paper to exist.

Our boycott is not a flash in the pan and is permanent. We will not buy this paper again EVER! We are no longer going to sit idly by while businesses like this continue to thrive. This is a permanent boycott and the sponsors of this paper will be targeted. We will not let this end and it doesn't matter if others agree or not. Our position doesn't warrant explanatio­n. If we are the victims of oppression we are well within our rights to stand up against it in all of its forms and to remove our dollars from companies that contribute to it.