The Murdoch Non-Apology
The day the New York Post sleazed its op-ed section with the vile, vicious, and veiled urge to violence cartoon against President Barack Obama this writer demanded that Post boss Rupert Murdoch issue this statement.
The News Corporation pledges that the Post's offensive cartoon will not be circulated, or reprinted, or syndicated. Further, we have zero tolerance toward racially insensitive and inflammatory cartoons or editorial depictions of African-Americans and other ethnic groups. Finally, we apologize for the Obama cartoon and pledge in the future that the Post and other Murdoch entities will hold to the highest standard of editorial sensitivity in our cartoons.
Though it took a firestorm week of massive demonstrations, threats of a boycott, and an FCC license challenge (the Murdoch owned Fox Network), and a Mt. Everest sized stack of emails, letters, and faxes demanding the firing of Post management, Murdoch pretty much issued a statement that came close to what this writer demanded.
But that by no means closes the book on the sorry Post-Murdoch-Fox saga. It can, and probably will happen again. Start with Murdoch's apology. There were three escape clauses buried in it. One is the self-serving, lame Post defense that the cartoon was just fun and games spoofery of Obama's stimulus plan. The other is a rehash of the other Post editor's fall back line that the cartoon was not meant to be racist. Murdoch's final give the paper a pass defense was his declaration that the cartoon was "interpreted" as racist by "others."
That's not a whole heck of a lot better than the non-apology, apology Post editors issued a day after their public shellacking.
But even if Murdoch had made a sincere bare-the-chest heartfelt apology it wouldn't amount to much. That's the standard ploy that shock jocks, GOP big wigs, and assorted public personalities employ when they get caught with their racial pants down.
On a few occasions the offenders have been reprimanded, suspended, and even dumped. That won't happen with the Post editors, or the offending cartoonist, and Murdoch gave absolutely no hint that anyone would be disciplined for the racial slander. There are two reasons why. They tell much about why the Post, Murdoch's media empire, and shock jocks can get away with demeaning gays, blacks, Latinos Asians, Muslims, and women and skip away with a caressing hand slap.
One is that these guys ramp up ratings and that make media syndicates such as Fox and the Post's cash registers jingle.
The other reason is that it's virtually impossible to effectively muzzle cartoonists such as Sean Delonas and others that draw or talk race trash is the sphinx like silence of top politicians, broadcast industry leaders, and corporate sponsors.
Sharpton, Spike Lee, and a handful of local New York politicians led the charge against the Post, but that's pretty much where it ended. The problem of the silence or perfunctory belated criticism by higher ups to racial taunts surfaced a few years ago following then Senate Majority leader designate Trent Lott's veiled tout of segregation. It touched off a furor, and ultimately Lott stepped down from the post, but it took nearly a week for Bush to make a stumbling, and weak sounding disavowal of him. The silence from top politicians and industry leaders to public racism was even more deafening a few of years ago when former Reagan Secretary of Education William Bennett made his weird taunt that aborting black babies could reduce crime. Even as calls were made from the usual circles almost always blacks and liberal Democrats for an apology, or his firing from his syndicated national radio show, neither Bush or any other top GOP leader said a mumbling word about Bennett.
There's another reason for their silence. The last two decades many Americans have become much too comfortable using code language to bash and denigrate blacks. In the 1970s, the vocabulary of covert racially loaded terms included terms such as "law and order," "crime in the streets," "permissive society," "welfare cheats," "subculture of violence," "subculture of poverty," "culturally deprived" and "lack of family values" seeped into the American lexicon about blacks. Some politicians seeking to exploit white racial fears routinely tossed about these terms.
In the 1980s new terms such as "crime prone," "war zone," "gang infested," "crack plagued," "drug turfs," "drug zombies," "violence scarred," "ghetto outcasts" and "ghetto poverty syndrome" were shoved into public discourse. These were covert racial code terms for blacks and they further reinforced the negative image of young black males as dope dealers, drive by shooters, and educational cripples. And the image of young black women as a dysfunctional collection of B's and "hos," welfare queens, and baby makers.
Obama is hardly exempt from this irresponsible race tinged character assault. The non-stop whisper and slander campaign against President Obama by packs of bloggers, talk jocks, and even a senator on the legitimacy of his US citizenship is a case in point.
The loud demands will continue that Murdoch back up his kind of sort of apology with real action. But he won't. There's simply too much money in racial trash talk (and cartooning), and too much silence from the higher ups that send a tacit signal condoning it. That silence is Murdoch's ultimate trump card.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am a white woman, by the way, and think Hazellily and others who insist there was no racial intent have obviously never lived in the South or seen movies depicting racism. "Porch monkey" is only one racial epithet that I have heard among many with that connotation -- living in New Orleans for 6 years is quite an education. Also, has anyone seen Monster's Ball?
I agree with other folks who cite the other examples of racist cartoons this artist has used in the past -- nothing anyone can say will convince me that he didn't understand the racism he portrayed. I appreciate that Murdoch apologized, but I don't think he can speak for anyone other than himself when he says that there was no intentional racism in the cartoon. Perhaps he hasn't been to the South, but I also think those who create publications or produce the content have an obligation to be more educated about traditional racist portrayals. Either Murdoch and Delonas are woefully ignorant or disgustingly racist. How sad.
How did this get so ridiculous and out of control?
The only person that should be offended is the white woman laying in a hospital fighting for life as she knew it because she got her hands and face ripped off. Are you kidding me? Why do ppl want to create problems where there aren't any?
Why are Blacks equating themselves to a Chimpanzee!!! I never considered that once. It was obvious to me that this cartoon was based on the Chimp attack and The Chimp was equated to the Stimulus Bill. Why would anybody think that Obama was portrayed by the Chimp in the cartoon?
Sharpton and Lee need to sit down....th
Please educate yourself.
I am a 'white' woman and I can tell you that comparisons to apes, monkeys, etc. have long been and are still used against Blacks. It is a fact of life they must live with day in and day out.
If you are so insensitive to the plight of your fellow humans, I feel sorry for you. That you find it necessary to display it so blatantly is a mystery to me.
I agree with others who suggest that we BOYCOTT ALL FOX BROADCASTING NETWORKS. That will send the message to even Murdoch that his lack of apology X2 is unacceptable in the USA. It may work in Australi, but not here!
I agree as that cartoon deeply offended me.
Back in the 1970's there was a worldwide boycott against the Nestle Corporation for their use of racism to sell their baby formula. It had to go on for several years, I think, before they finally stopped the offensive practices and, of course, they made several feeble excuses and minor changes in policy before they finally realized that only definitive action would halt the boycott.
We need to stand up and be heard again. Boycotts do work-- but it takes long, hard, slogging work before they are effective.
One thing that may be useful is: rather than simply not watching FOX or reading Rupert's papers, take a look at them and begin writing letters to their sponsors stating that you will boycott THEM unless they pull their advertising. Then, follow through with the boycotts until you no longer see those ads on FOX.
A lack of advertisers will hit them in the pocketbook much more quickly and effectively than simply not watching their programming.
Forget the racial aspects of the cartoon. You still have a call for the assassination of the President. To those who believe the author of the stimulus bill and, by extension therefore, the dead chip portrayed in the cartoon is actually Speaker Pelosi, I have to ask: Does that mean it is acceptable to call for the assassination of the Speaker of the House?
No, no, no... you are STILL not getting it. The dead chimp is Travis, who was actually shot and killed by police in Connecticut a day or two before. Travis, nobody else. Here, allow me to explain the point of the cartoon, using parentheses:
"They'll (Congress) have to get somebody else to write the next stimulus bill (since we just killed the crazy Connecticut chimp they hired to write the first one)."
The use of an ape as a stand in for the writer of the stimulus bill only works well if the writer is interpreted as black.
If the President were white people would be scratching their heads at this cartoon.
Before you put out that ridiculous cleansing of the cartoons intent, take a look at the cartoonists prior works. His penchant for using racial stereotypes speaks for itself. Don't try to clean that crap up.
JimR
I spent time in the Middle East where the Arabs have a great saying: "Only the poet knows what the poet means!" It is a fantastic guide to ensuring clear communications in business.
It applies here. Lets, for the sake of argument give the cartoonists the benefit of the doubt (although I am far from convinced of that) that what you write actually WAS the intention of the cartoon. They still failed in what should be a routine professional duty to run it by other people to check what other interpretations may be out there. They should be fired for that, if nothing else!
I am sorry but I think the nastier interpretations are correct. If they wanted to make the point that the Chimp was Travis it needed to be made far more clear. How about him holding a book entitled "The Inspired Writings of Travis" while being shot. While still in poor taste, at least it would have been easier to understand!
Who hired a chimpanzee named Travis to write the stimulus bill? Even the cartoonist could not go that far? And if someone else is hired and the results are unsatisfactory to some, what will they do, shoot the next writer? They'll keep shooting till they get it right?
You advocate an untenable position. Since when is anyone shot for writing a bad bill. If that were the case, we'd hardly have any government. So do you advocate this sort of violence toward those who wrote the stimulus package? Do you find this satisfactory, that kind of violence? Did you find it funny?
You find no problem with the suggestion of violence against a Congressperson who authors a potential solution? Does that strike you as appropriate behavior? In other words, in your world, it should be an ape that writes legislation and if the legislation is bad, then the ape should be shot?
Do you sleep with rifles under your bed?
BLOCK THE FOX NETWORK AND YOUR HOME LIFE IMPROVES.
STOP THAT FOX DUMBING DOWN PROCESS ON YOUR FAMILY.
I fail to see the racism in that cartoon.
It would be different if Obama had writen the porkulus bill, but he didn't did he.
No it was Nacy Pelosi who wrote it so she is the monkey.
The only people who see racism in eveything are the people on the left.
You guys are tyhe ones who always see racism when there is none.
"The only people who see racism in everything are the people on the left."
The only people who don't see racism in ANYTHING are the people on the right, and I think that's a much bigger problem!
We all know that racism in America is alive and well, and it's shown just how healthy it is since President Obama's campaign and election. The racist connotations in the cartoon were blatant, and the only way one can see it otherwise is to read into the cartoon what was NOT in it all, such as seeing two or more people in one monkey! The skilled experienced politically-astute cartoonist could have very easily drawn two monkeys instead of one, if it was his intention to make that inference!
I think those who see the racism, that we all know exists, are much more in reality than those who don't. In fact, I'm beginning to think that those who don't see it or choose not to see it simply don't want to it, maybe because they don't want to see themselves.
I disagree, the only way to see racist connotations in the cartoon is to read into the cartoon what is not in it at all.
They see it bc they perceive it coming from the right. I can see where it could be mistaken or taken racially in context; but not to the extent it is. I know a few AAs that agree.
Its all perception.
An AA woman has an excellent blog about this issue on this site called Brown vs. Monkey or something.
Mike.
You fail to understand history and how sick racists compared African Americans to apes--that's why you don't get it. That's the problem--people are insensitive as they don't know the damn history.
But let's just try on your argument for size and say it was meant for Pelosi-- that is sick too and it's celebrating violence.T
Good grief!!!!
The operative phrase here is "I fail". At that point, you should just have stopped.
I consider the War on Fox & Others similar to the War on Drugs!
Unfortunately, it is our fellow citizens that apparently like what they see hear and do. This is America and unfortunately we have become less educated and more infatuated with fantasy than reality.
Is this not clear enough that our world ranking in education is 26-32? (depends on what data)
What more do we need ? Do we just continue as usual; because we are in such great shape as a country. Do we continue to pretend all is ok except for the 'government'?
Our nation's foundation is cracked and almost in shatters?
What gets me is the nerve of the Republicans to speak as if they know how to fix what they have done.
The Republican that is a Rhodes Scholar will challenge the less than one month old Presiedent and tell him what he needs to do. Do they think the NOVEMBER ELECTIONS meant NOTHING?
Terrific commentary, Earl. I wished Murdoch reprimanded someone or gave a better worded apology at least. Still, it was a concession. And It would be foolish of Murdoch to overplay the race card. Some things matter more than money.
His product appeals to the lowest common denominator. What do you expect?
Just don't purchase the paper. No need to protest, shout, or demand firing, just don't buy the paper. It's really easy to display your anger in a capitalist society. As for Ofari, as Blacks, we do have some responsibility for some of those terms used to describe our community. Our communities our often times, the most violent ant that's reality, not racism. You know the truth, you live it everyday.
It's one thing for the cartoonist to submit the cartoon - it's another for the editor to approve and print it. There will always be provocative cartoonists that push the envelope and are down right racist, mysoginistic, homophobic, bigots. That doesn't mean these people have to be published. I still say we should boycott these organizations because the bottom line is green.
It does no good to boycott something you would never buy anyway. The advertisers need to be pushed to pull.
It is absolutely obscene that the editor let this through... of all the submission
I noticed Chris Matthews when he took up the subject it was obvious he agreed with the cartoonist
He doesn"t need to apologize, everyone knows Obama did not write the stimulus bill, the Dems in Congress did. Stop making stuff up just to piss people off!!!
Everyone knows this bill is Obamas' baby and it is he who has the most at stake, politically. And everybody knows that they put a picture of him, pen in hand, right next to the "drawing".
I have two points. One, according to Michael Wolfe, the editor is about o get his head handed to him.
http://www
The second is the silver lining. Unlike OJ, Jeremiah Wright & other incidents, there is no misunderstanding between Blacks and Whites about this. Everybody with a brain understood that the cartoon was unfunny, disturbing and had a racist code built into it. At least that is a step in the right direction.
BS, everyone who is intellectually responsible and not so in the tank for Obama they are blinded and offended by everything, knows that the bill was written by Congress, not Obama.
Granted Congress wrote the bill, but it was President Obama's brainchild and Pres. Obama was the face of the bill. I don't see what a crazed chimp who attacked a woman has to do with the stimulus bill. The only thing I got from the "cartoon" was that Delonas was calling President Obama a chimp, which is racist and was calling for him to be shot, which is treasonous. So I guess in your eyes I'm not intellectually responsible huh?
It's not a matter of who WROTE the bill but of who the bill is linked with in the minds of the public. No matter what apologists for the Post and the cartoonist say, everyone knows the bill is considered to be Obama's bill.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
