http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.apology/index.html#cnnSTCText
The NY Times is being criticized for publishing a cartoon in its paper. The newspaper apologizes for the misinterpretatitions, but still defends the cartoon.
"The drawing is a reference to the mauling of a woman by a pet chimpanzee, which was then killed by police. In the cartoon, one of the officers tells the other, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
The Post said the cartoon was meant to mock what it called an "ineptly written" stimulus bill.
"But it has been taken as something else -- as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism," reads the statement. "This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize." "
Many readers felt the chimpanzee was intended to depict President Obama. They also felt that it was a racist reference to the past.
The decision made by the NY Times to publish this cartoon is a good example of critical thinking gone wrong. The appear to have not considered other interpretations of the cartoon. If someone had thought of the ways some might view this cartoon, they probably would not have published it and therefore would not have been in this position.
Summer Frenzy
16 years ago
Hi Rachel,
ReplyDeleteYou are right in that the comic published in the New York Times can be interpreted in many ways. Historically, US political cartoons have portrayed African-Americans as primates as opposed to human beings, and I seriously doubt that the cartoonist has never seen such cartoons and the sadness and anger that they elicit.
Last year, there was a Danish newspaper cartoonist whose controversial cartoon comparing the Prophet Muhammad to a terrorist by placing a bomb in his turban enraged Muslims around the world. People seem to forget that newspapers now have a global audience, as most newspapers now have an online version which can be read by people anywhere on the planet. The cartoon angered so many people that they decided to boycott Danish products.
Something similar happened on this campus within the past two weeks. The group who organized the Gaza Panel advertised their event using pictures of the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto alongside pictures of the suffering caused by the Gaza invasion. The use of Holocaust photos in this poster was considered extremely offensive and distasteful by our campus rabbi, who protested and then gave a presentation (complete with Q+A and discusion with the audience) on why the poster was offensive. It was interesting how different people reacted to the poster as well. Many people did not view it as offensive, but that does not mean it isn't.
The following point could be argued: is freedom of speech limited by restricting the use of particular images and stereotypes in order to make a point? What do you think?
R. Wexelbaum
I think it should be restricted, unless the "speaker" is ready to pay the consequences. I think the cartoon was not at all necessary, and I thought it was pretty absurd that they didn't think it would be interpreted that way. I know I think the editors of NY Times are a little crazy for letting that be published, and they have kind of lost my vote. I just really think people should be respectful, especially if they are publishing something for a large audience, and the NY Times was not respectful in publishing that cartoon.
ReplyDelete