The comment, "sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon" is nonsense! It harks back to Freud's comment that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." A cigar is an object. As such, it can stand for something. A political cartoon has a message. And to hide behind the statement that "sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon" is like saying that it has no meaning whatsoever. If it had no meaning, why was it published at all? Worse than the cartoon is this disgusting comment, pretending that the cartoon has no meaning! Give me a break!
Thank you, Melissa, for this blog.
One slight clarification.
When I say that as an "object" a cigar can "stand for something," I mean that it is what it is, but it can also act as a metaphor for something else. In contrast to a cartoon, which is already a metaphor. Unless you're talking lines on paper. But a bunch of lines on paper, with no meaning whatsoever, could not be called a "cartoon."
That statement burns me! It's an outrageous statement! As I said above, worse than the cartoon itself!
It would be like me making, back in the late 90's, a political cartoon depicting Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, in some lewd position, with the caption, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
Except that this NY Post cartoon didn't a) have a true link between the two ideas and b) was ten times more rude.
It was uncalled for, unappealing, so totally not funny and it made no sense other than that they might have possibly been trying to say that a chimp could've written the stimulus bill....but to use a story about a family pet being shot, and then tie the stimulus bill to it while depicting a chimp lying dead on the ground due to gunshots, was appalling.
I live in NY and have never bought the Post, and today I signed on to the Facebook group, Boycott the NY POST.
You're in good company - there were people outside their doors today, and quite likely more tomorrow. I don't think this "apology" is going to wash - it's insulting. No matter what an individual's opinion may be of the cartoon.
A non-apology, really.
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.
That's more like an upraised middle finger to anyone who finds the cartoon, or the NY Post in general, objectionable. Especially given both their record of extremism and the cartoonist's history. Still a Murdoch rag, with everything that involves.
This grouchy guy's opinion, anyway.
(My favorite commentary on them was by comic Elayne Boosler, who talked in a routine about buying Hustler magazine in order to have something to hide the Post in on the subway.)
Look, there was no offense meant. No harm. No foul.
I had no intention of running over the kid. He should not have been standing there. Six months in physical therapy and he will be good as new.
No harm no foul.
If that's an apology, it's a very insincere one. Bugger 'em.
It's obviously not an apology, at least not in the realm of reality. It's been floated that Murdoch is an Obama "fan", and put some behind-the-scenes pressure on the editors. If this is the best they could do in writing, perhaps they should just publish another cartoon ... any ideas?
That's what I like to call a Pope apology, named for the time the Pope apologized for quoting a 14th century cleric who said some derogatory stuff about Muslims by saying, in essence, I'm sorry you people are so oversensitive.
Or how about the inquisition? Heck, sometimes the rack is just a rack!
Are you looking for an explanation of their actions and an apology to those who found the images were offensive, or an admission of guilt and intent to create racist imagery? They seem to have covered their bases on the former.
I don't care much for the "I'm sorry you're offended" apology because it's not really an apology. I wasn't particularly bothered by the cartoon, but the faux surprise of the artist and the paper was rich. I think what I'd like from them is an admission that they were aware that the cartoon could possibly provoke the response it has. Because they were. It's not possible to be that stupid.
I just disagree. I think it is bananas that people take how they interpret something and demand that others view it through their lenses. I'd like to think a person looking at a monkey and not automatically jumping to black person is progress, not reason to accuse them of being racists because everyone knows monkeys are racist slurs. But instead, take a look at this thread from yesterday where people are accusing others of racism simply because they did not see the cartoon as offensive.
An apology is deserved to people who interpreted it as offensive. But knowing the intentions of the cartoonist or the editorial board is as Obama would put it above my pay grade. Reasonable people can disagree as to interpretation. The cartoon did not reference Obama directly at all (and the cartoonists argumentthat he was talking about Congress makes far more logical sense). It is an indication that the Post needs more diversity (ethnicity wise and politically) in their editorial board rooms. The fact that no one saw the possibility for misinterpretation is unfortunate.
Political cartoon writers are generally pretty astute. So, I hold to my opinion that he knew what he was doing. He may have started with the thought, "Oh, I'll draw the chimp that got killed in CT." But you can't convince me that it never once crossed his mind that it could be interpreted differently. I'm not saying he should care. His job is to be provocative. But pretending ignorance and then offering a Pope apology is silly.
Political cartoon writers are generally pretty astute. So, I hold to my opinion that he knew what he was doing.
You make a generalization to prove you are correct in holding an opinion? Wow. Hard to get much lazier than that.
It's not possible to be correct about an opinion. Hers, mine - or yours.
Yep. I just gave an opinion, in fact.
Now as far as this whole reacting to cartoons goes, I distinctly remember when Muslims got upset after Danish cartoonists depicted the Prophet as a terrorist in the Jyllands-Posten.
The newspaper published the cartoons when a Danish author complained that he could find no-one to illustrate his book about Muhammad. Jyllands-Posten wondered whether there were more cases of self-censorship regarding Islam in Denmark and asked twelve illustrators to draw the prophet for them. Carsten Juste, the paper’s editor, said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.
The publication led to outrage among the Muslim immigrants living in Denmark. 5,000 of them took to the streets to protest. Muslim organisations have demanded an apology, but Juste rejects this idea: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures,” he said. The Danish imam Raed Hlayhel reacted with the statement: “This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims. Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world.”
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor at the newspaper, denied that the purpose had been to provoke Muslims. It was simply a reaction to the rising number of situations where artists and writers censored themselves out of fear of radical Islamists, he said. “Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment in a secular society,” he added. “In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.”
The West, as I recall, remained stubbornly insensitive in the name of democracy and free speech for quite some time afterward (check out all the links that follow the article I excerpted). Ultimately, apologies were made, but they didn't do much good.
Once the damage is done, there's really no rectifying it because the initial insensitivity is what's at fault.
So, while some political cartoonists may be astute, the ones who aren't get the lion's share of attention.
"Once the damage is done, there's really no rectifying it because the initial insensitivity is what's at fault."
Exactly. So why did they bother to say anything if all they said was basically "too bad, so sad"? My opinion is they want to keep the fires burning.
Just my opinion, doesn't make it correct as it is based only on my perception of the facts as I discern them.
The reason why I don't think they want to "keep the fires burning," as you say, is because I believe that not even the NY Post would deliberately depict an assassinated surrogate for the president. There's no getting around the violence of the cartoon with that particular interpretation. As vile as the Post is, I just don't think they would fan that particular flame. (Are you kidding me? All 5 boroughs would be burned to the ground if that were the intention.)
Of course it's just my opinion, but I think the NY Post bothered to apologize (however lamely) because they truly did not consider the negative associations people would have to the cartoon.
Yes, I think they are that profoundly dumb. Now that they've issued a dumb apology, they have yet to prove otherwise.
But they are not suicidal.
To Orlando from me:
This Is Complete Nonsense or Giving and Taking
You infer and I imply
Are you not to wonder why
You imply and I infer
Am I not to question (sigh)
You say hello
And I say goodby
Do you not ask why
And I say hello
And you say goodby
Am I not to wonder (sigh)
I accuse and you alibi
Do you wonder why
You accuse and I alibi
Am I not to wonder (sigh)
Thanks, DD (I think...I'm not so good at interpreting poetry).
No you see. Poetry implies and the reader infers. I entitled it nonsense. How do I prove what meaning is behind what you say?
That is all. It is nonsense.
The implier is the mover.
The accuser is the mover.
The poet (which I am not) is the mover.
So when a statement is called into question the burden is on the reader to put some intent on the part of the implier. Now you come up with evidence. Past racial bias demonstrated by the person making the statement. Past racial bias demonstrated against the publisher. blah blah blah
Maybe even a statement made after publication like this case where the publisher said, hey the chimp was Pelosi.
But now the burden has shifted to the actor, the cartoonist and the publisher.
Ah who cares. I thought I had a point. This is how you would argue to a judge and/or a jury.
I think the burden has shifted and the cartoonist and the publisher have not been able to prove their case of innocence. So I agree with you and I disagree with Dija.
They "apologized" to those that may have found the image offensive - as long as they were not those who have ever had a problem with them in the past.
The Post is a crappy paper I haven't read in years and I hate to be defending them. They apologized to the people that are open to an apology, rather than using this for political gain or points.
Open to an apology? I understand that you're not trying to defend the cartoon. But how do you only apologize to those people who are offended - if they are open to your apology? A sincere apology should be made with clarity whether it is accepted by those who were offended ... or not.
Sorry, Dija, but I agree with barefooted here.
When one apologizes, they don't mince words and say, "I'm truly sorry if I offended you for something I said, whatever it was, and although I'm not really sure why you got offended, and lots of folks probably didn't, so, hey, but whatever...."
A sincere apology is due to those with sincere hearts, who are not interested in accusing someone of racism and slandering them because it gives them some extra time in the media or because they dislike the Post. Some people will never be satisfied with an apology - they are only interested in an admission of guilt and recriminations. **cough cough Sharpton**.
There is real racism in this world and this stupid cartoon, though it was offensive to some folks, was not it.
I disagree. A sincere apology is due. Not to those with sincere hearts, not to those with insincere hearts. If I owe an apology, I owe it freely and completely. It is not for me to judge who merits it.
Perfectly said, Missy.
Sometimes people manufacture offense or seek to escalate it because they seek to gain from it politically. Should Obama have freely and completely apologized to those who were offended and felt he was referring to Palin in his "lipstick on a pig" comment or simply said that was not his intent?
Should I have freely and completely apologized to my brother when I put lipstick on him?
Let's stick to the point, and the situation at hand. The New York Post posted an editorial response that can or cannot be considered an apology. That's the whole point of my "post" - I hesitate to use the word since all I did was link to the NYP and assign it a two word title. At any rate, dijamo, my point remains the same. Either leave it alone as they usually do, no matter the outcry, or make a statement. They chose to make a statement - but they also chose to take the easy road. In my opinion, it's the cowards way out.
We disagree again. The easy, insincere way out would be to simply apologize to anyone offended and leave it at that. They apologized to anyone offended. They very clearly exempted opportunists who were trying to hype the situation to score points. That may make it an incomplete apology to you, but it is hardly cowardly or easy.
A sincere apology is an admission of doing wrong followed by an expression of regret for having done so, not for someone interpreting it incorrectly.
NY Post = FAIL.
A sincere apology can include saying that I did not mean to offend, that was not my intent. I hope that you can understand my point of view, as I am trying to appreciate yours. If your only definition of an apology is an admission of guilt and acknowledgement that the offense was intentional, then you must apologize very little or offend others rarely (but since your handle is "The Old Grouch", I am assuming that's not the case).
Before something is published, it is possible to consider the consequences of publishing. If that was not done, then they must apologize for an error in judgment, in addition to the offense of the cartoon. We've got several layers of offense, including, now, the non-apology "apology."
Take a look at the cartoonist's previous cartoons that have been OVERTLY offensive and sterotyping of gays and women. Where was this outrage then? This cartoon is open to interpretation. The editor and the cartoonist put forth a credible (and more logical) intent for the cartoon.
Most folks here were saying Hillary (and her supporters) should just stop whining about obvious outright blatant sexist cartoons like this that allow no other interpretation. I guess it is only when you are offended that they must apologize for their lack of editorial judgment. When you are not offended, those who are should shut up. There was at least an apology made for the offense caused if not intended. Accept the apology or don't, but they have at least made the effort.
Look, it's not worth arguing over. Not between you and I anyway! :)
I stand by my comment. If there is no admission of doing something wrong, there is no apology - it is the admission of having committed the transgression that is the fundamental characteristic of an apology. What you describe is merely the recognition that someone is upset while making no allowance for any cause. Putting it on them, as it were.
There is an easily discerned difference.
Sometimes I do call a spade a motherf*cking shovel, no doubt of that.
And as to your snark, there are indeed people here whose feelings I care about, and if you're gunning for promotion to that status, there are better methods.
I'm outta this one. Better things to do...
A sincere apology includes the words: "what I did was wrong."
You admit you were wrong. Then you apologize for it. Without a admission of wrong-doing, an apology becomes some kind of verbal slight of hand.
No, sometimes what you did was misconstrued or intended but still caused harm. I apologize for bumping in to someone regardless of claims of fault. Shit happens. Just because you accept responsibility for harm caused regardless of blame and apologize does not mean you were "wrong" in the first place.
Ok, but that's not the case here. There are editors. Decisions were made. They need to admit they were wrong to go to print with this.
"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.
How stupid do they think we are? How does someone else = ineptly written bill?
And if you intend to mock "writing" - then do a cartoon that mocks "writing" - not a cartoon that incites violence!
The whole thing makes me sick. It is a sign of the continuing attack by repubs on language and logic itself. It is an undermining of common speech. An effort to attack via confusion, like using a smoke screen to hide wrong-doing, while claiming that the smokescreen makes it clear no wrong was done!
I am so tired, so outraged by these language wars!
Hey, but who else would have come up with "HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR"? (OK, the NY Daily News, maybe. Two screaming daily tabloids...is this a great town or what?)
Everybody should know what to expect from the Post, including this crappy excuse for an apology.
But wait, what's on Page Six?
There are a number of possibilities.
--The cartoonist was being overtly racist and violent towards the President of the United States.
--The cartoonist wasn't.
--The cartoonist intended to be provocative--in a low-brow conservative kinda way--by using the recent event with the chimp and disappointment with the writers of the stimulus bill (congress by the way, not the president)-- and...
--maybe someone approached him to say "Hey, this might come across as racially insensitive dude!" And he may have said, "Well fuck them, I don't mean it that way, that was not even on my mind, so I say run it!"
--He may have really not thought about it. Not aware it might offend. It's possible. It is possible that he was "that stupid." As hard to believe as that may be for people like Orlando... but that may just be the case. Look at his other work. To say the least, he gives the impression that he's not too terribly enlightened.
Believe what you want, but bottom line, we can't know what his intent was.
You want to be outraged? His cartoon about the guy and the sheep was much worse than this one. Very little wiggle room with that one. Allowing homosexuals to marry will inexorably lead to bestiality! Where was your outrage then?
Or... maybe that's what all this is about? Pay backs for all his (and the Post's) past transgressions/insensitivities? Hmmm. Interesting.
You're right. There are insensitive, ugly, racist, sexist, annoying and horrible things said, done, satirized and spread to the masses every day.
Does that mean the lack of outcry over many (even most) of them negates the validity of the notice of one? Irregardless of intent, etc., why bother to publish a response at all if it's just going to embellish the original perceived insult?
Or ... maybe that's what all this is about? Hmmm. Interesting.
Yes, I think selective outrage is interesting.
As are selective "apologies".
There is no such thing as "bad publicity"? Go with the horrendous because it gets people talking?
That is how Murdoch made his millions; gossip, raunch and outrage sell.
This part of the "apology" is pretty funny, actually:
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.
Thanks to the Post's inability to resist sniping at Sharpton, they end up rescinding the apology in the last paragraph.
Perhaps that's barefooted's real complaint. But don't expect anything more than that from the Post. Case closed, as far as they're concerned.
Nail on the head, gasket.
What they have really done is allow people to question the motivation of any person about their offense. What is disturbing is that they are also putting some kind of moderator on how people express offense, or how much they concede people are allowed to have. It's a dictatorial position. I do not agree that the apology was sincere because it is qualified.
Let's put this in simpler terms, if you were offended and joined Al Sharpton's group, screw you. If you were just a little offended and maybe just wrote an e-mail to them, then you are okay because we kept our little secret in the closet. It is astonishing how insidious their agenda can be. They have actually remained intransigent in their position, while throwing a bone to the weak that could not bring themselves to express their anger more publicly. Again, this apoligy is a whisper to those who remain anonymous.
That's an interesting take on it, Gregor. Well put. I have a problem with that idea as well - if you've ever spoken against them in the past or are doing so now with the camera's eye - your offence carries no weight?
Thank you for saying so. :-{)>
The Post's bread and butter is reflecting and feeding anger about race (AAs), feminists, gays, political correctness, liberals, etc., etc. Their cartoonist hits their sweet spot. Of COURSE there were racial overtones here; it was a twofer -- Dems and blacks. "Racist" or not doesn't matter that much to me. It's in the ballpark, so to speak.
Like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity, you know racial provocation/racism/or whatever when you see it. You can feel it in the gut. Maybe you like it; your gut will be happy. But don't tell me that this is a simple matter of interpretation or other niceties of perceptual psychology. To so state is to downplay the skill of the cartoonist and the intelligence of the editorial board. They know what they are doing. Get as close to the line as possible, maybe move the line, in catering to their audience.
So this time they may have miscalculated the location of this particular, is all.
The comment, "sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon" is nonsense! It harks back to Freud's comment that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." A cigar is an object. As such, it can stand for something. A political cartoon has a message. And to hide behind the statement that "sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon" is like saying that it has no meaning whatsoever. If it had no meaning, why was it published at all? Worse than the cartoon is this disgusting comment, pretending that the cartoon has no meaning! Give me a break!
Thank you, Melissa, for this blog.
February 19, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One slight clarification.
When I say that as an "object" a cigar can "stand for something," I mean that it is what it is, but it can also act as a metaphor for something else. In contrast to a cartoon, which is already a metaphor. Unless you're talking lines on paper. But a bunch of lines on paper, with no meaning whatsoever, could not be called a "cartoon."
That statement burns me! It's an outrageous statement! As I said above, worse than the cartoon itself!
February 19, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be like me making, back in the late 90's, a political cartoon depicting Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, in some lewd position, with the caption, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
Except that this NY Post cartoon didn't a) have a true link between the two ideas and b) was ten times more rude.
It was uncalled for, unappealing, so totally not funny and it made no sense other than that they might have possibly been trying to say that a chimp could've written the stimulus bill....but to use a story about a family pet being shot, and then tie the stimulus bill to it while depicting a chimp lying dead on the ground due to gunshots, was appalling.
I live in NY and have never bought the Post, and today I signed on to the Facebook group, Boycott the NY POST.
February 20, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're in good company - there were people outside their doors today, and quite likely more tomorrow. I don't think this "apology" is going to wash - it's insulting. No matter what an individual's opinion may be of the cartoon.
February 20, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
A non-apology, really.
That's more like an upraised middle finger to anyone who finds the cartoon, or the NY Post in general, objectionable. Especially given both their record of extremism and the cartoonist's history. Still a Murdoch rag, with everything that involves.
This grouchy guy's opinion, anyway.
(My favorite commentary on them was by comic Elayne Boosler, who talked in a routine about buying Hustler magazine in order to have something to hide the Post in on the subway.)
February 19, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, there was no offense meant. No harm. No foul.
I had no intention of running over the kid. He should not have been standing there. Six months in physical therapy and he will be good as new.
No harm no foul.
February 19, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's an apology, it's a very insincere one. Bugger 'em.
February 19, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously not an apology, at least not in the realm of reality. It's been floated that Murdoch is an Obama "fan", and put some behind-the-scenes pressure on the editors. If this is the best they could do in writing, perhaps they should just publish another cartoon ... any ideas?
February 19, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I like to call a Pope apology, named for the time the Pope apologized for quoting a 14th century cleric who said some derogatory stuff about Muslims by saying, in essence, I'm sorry you people are so oversensitive.
February 19, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or how about the inquisition? Heck, sometimes the rack is just a rack!
February 20, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you looking for an explanation of their actions and an apology to those who found the images were offensive, or an admission of guilt and intent to create racist imagery? They seem to have covered their bases on the former.
February 19, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care much for the "I'm sorry you're offended" apology because it's not really an apology. I wasn't particularly bothered by the cartoon, but the faux surprise of the artist and the paper was rich. I think what I'd like from them is an admission that they were aware that the cartoon could possibly provoke the response it has. Because they were. It's not possible to be that stupid.
February 19, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just disagree. I think it is bananas that people take how they interpret something and demand that others view it through their lenses. I'd like to think a person looking at a monkey and not automatically jumping to black person is progress, not reason to accuse them of being racists because everyone knows monkeys are racist slurs. But instead, take a look at this thread from yesterday where people are accusing others of racism simply because they did not see the cartoon as offensive.
An apology is deserved to people who interpreted it as offensive. But knowing the intentions of the cartoonist or the editorial board is as Obama would put it above my pay grade. Reasonable people can disagree as to interpretation. The cartoon did not reference Obama directly at all (and the cartoonists argumentthat he was talking about Congress makes far more logical sense). It is an indication that the Post needs more diversity (ethnicity wise and politically) in their editorial board rooms. The fact that no one saw the possibility for misinterpretation is unfortunate.
February 19, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political cartoon writers are generally pretty astute. So, I hold to my opinion that he knew what he was doing. He may have started with the thought, "Oh, I'll draw the chimp that got killed in CT." But you can't convince me that it never once crossed his mind that it could be interpreted differently. I'm not saying he should care. His job is to be provocative. But pretending ignorance and then offering a Pope apology is silly.
February 20, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a generalization to prove you are correct in holding an opinion? Wow. Hard to get much lazier than that.
February 20, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not possible to be correct about an opinion. Hers, mine - or yours.
February 20, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I just gave an opinion, in fact.
Now as far as this whole reacting to cartoons goes, I distinctly remember when Muslims got upset after Danish cartoonists depicted the Prophet as a terrorist in the Jyllands-Posten.
Here's a little reminder of the incident:
The West, as I recall, remained stubbornly insensitive in the name of democracy and free speech for quite some time afterward (check out all the links that follow the article I excerpted). Ultimately, apologies were made, but they didn't do much good.
Once the damage is done, there's really no rectifying it because the initial insensitivity is what's at fault.
So, while some political cartoonists may be astute, the ones who aren't get the lion's share of attention.
February 20, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Once the damage is done, there's really no rectifying it because the initial insensitivity is what's at fault."
Exactly. So why did they bother to say anything if all they said was basically "too bad, so sad"? My opinion is they want to keep the fires burning.
Just my opinion, doesn't make it correct as it is based only on my perception of the facts as I discern them.
February 20, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason why I don't think they want to "keep the fires burning," as you say, is because I believe that not even the NY Post would deliberately depict an assassinated surrogate for the president. There's no getting around the violence of the cartoon with that particular interpretation. As vile as the Post is, I just don't think they would fan that particular flame. (Are you kidding me? All 5 boroughs would be burned to the ground if that were the intention.)
Of course it's just my opinion, but I think the NY Post bothered to apologize (however lamely) because they truly did not consider the negative associations people would have to the cartoon.
Yes, I think they are that profoundly dumb. Now that they've issued a dumb apology, they have yet to prove otherwise.
But they are not suicidal.
February 20, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Orlando from me:
This Is Complete Nonsense or Giving and Taking
You infer and I imply
Are you not to wonder why
You imply and I infer
Am I not to question (sigh)
You say hello
And I say goodby
Do you not ask why
And I say hello
And you say goodby
Am I not to wonder (sigh)
I accuse and you alibi
Do you wonder why
You accuse and I alibi
Am I not to wonder (sigh)
February 19, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, DD (I think...I'm not so good at interpreting poetry).
February 20, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
No you see. Poetry implies and the reader infers. I entitled it nonsense. How do I prove what meaning is behind what you say?
That is all. It is nonsense.
The implier is the mover.
The accuser is the mover.
The poet (which I am not) is the mover.
So when a statement is called into question the burden is on the reader to put some intent on the part of the implier. Now you come up with evidence. Past racial bias demonstrated by the person making the statement. Past racial bias demonstrated against the publisher. blah blah blah
Maybe even a statement made after publication like this case where the publisher said, hey the chimp was Pelosi.
But now the burden has shifted to the actor, the cartoonist and the publisher.
Ah who cares. I thought I had a point. This is how you would argue to a judge and/or a jury.
I think the burden has shifted and the cartoonist and the publisher have not been able to prove their case of innocence. So I agree with you and I disagree with Dija.
February 20, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
They "apologized" to those that may have found the image offensive - as long as they were not those who have ever had a problem with them in the past.
February 20, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Post is a crappy paper I haven't read in years and I hate to be defending them. They apologized to the people that are open to an apology, rather than using this for political gain or points.
February 20, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Open to an apology? I understand that you're not trying to defend the cartoon. But how do you only apologize to those people who are offended - if they are open to your apology? A sincere apology should be made with clarity whether it is accepted by those who were offended ... or not.
February 20, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Dija, but I agree with barefooted here.
When one apologizes, they don't mince words and say, "I'm truly sorry if I offended you for something I said, whatever it was, and although I'm not really sure why you got offended, and lots of folks probably didn't, so, hey, but whatever...."
February 20, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
A sincere apology is due to those with sincere hearts, who are not interested in accusing someone of racism and slandering them because it gives them some extra time in the media or because they dislike the Post. Some people will never be satisfied with an apology - they are only interested in an admission of guilt and recriminations. **cough cough Sharpton**.
There is real racism in this world and this stupid cartoon, though it was offensive to some folks, was not it.
February 20, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. A sincere apology is due. Not to those with sincere hearts, not to those with insincere hearts. If I owe an apology, I owe it freely and completely. It is not for me to judge who merits it.
February 20, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfectly said, Missy.
February 20, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes people manufacture offense or seek to escalate it because they seek to gain from it politically. Should Obama have freely and completely apologized to those who were offended and felt he was referring to Palin in his "lipstick on a pig" comment or simply said that was not his intent?
February 20, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should I have freely and completely apologized to my brother when I put lipstick on him?
Let's stick to the point, and the situation at hand. The New York Post posted an editorial response that can or cannot be considered an apology. That's the whole point of my "post" - I hesitate to use the word since all I did was link to the NYP and assign it a two word title. At any rate, dijamo, my point remains the same. Either leave it alone as they usually do, no matter the outcry, or make a statement. They chose to make a statement - but they also chose to take the easy road. In my opinion, it's the cowards way out.
February 20, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
We disagree again. The easy, insincere way out would be to simply apologize to anyone offended and leave it at that. They apologized to anyone offended. They very clearly exempted opportunists who were trying to hype the situation to score points. That may make it an incomplete apology to you, but it is hardly cowardly or easy.
February 20, 2009 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
A sincere apology is an admission of doing wrong followed by an expression of regret for having done so, not for someone interpreting it incorrectly.
NY Post = FAIL.
February 20, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A sincere apology can include saying that I did not mean to offend, that was not my intent. I hope that you can understand my point of view, as I am trying to appreciate yours. If your only definition of an apology is an admission of guilt and acknowledgement that the offense was intentional, then you must apologize very little or offend others rarely (but since your handle is "The Old Grouch", I am assuming that's not the case).
February 20, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before something is published, it is possible to consider the consequences of publishing. If that was not done, then they must apologize for an error in judgment, in addition to the offense of the cartoon. We've got several layers of offense, including, now, the non-apology "apology."
February 20, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the cartoonist's previous cartoons that have been OVERTLY offensive and sterotyping of gays and women. Where was this outrage then? This cartoon is open to interpretation. The editor and the cartoonist put forth a credible (and more logical) intent for the cartoon.
Most folks here were saying Hillary (and her supporters) should just stop whining about obvious outright blatant sexist cartoons like this that allow no other interpretation. I guess it is only when you are offended that they must apologize for their lack of editorial judgment. When you are not offended, those who are should shut up. There was at least an apology made for the offense caused if not intended. Accept the apology or don't, but they have at least made the effort.
February 20, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, it's not worth arguing over. Not between you and I anyway! :)
February 20, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand by my comment. If there is no admission of doing something wrong, there is no apology - it is the admission of having committed the transgression that is the fundamental characteristic of an apology. What you describe is merely the recognition that someone is upset while making no allowance for any cause. Putting it on them, as it were.
There is an easily discerned difference.
Sometimes I do call a spade a motherf*cking shovel, no doubt of that.
And as to your snark, there are indeed people here whose feelings I care about, and if you're gunning for promotion to that status, there are better methods.
I'm outta this one. Better things to do...
February 20, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A sincere apology includes the words: "what I did was wrong."
You admit you were wrong. Then you apologize for it. Without a admission of wrong-doing, an apology becomes some kind of verbal slight of hand.
February 20, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, sometimes what you did was misconstrued or intended but still caused harm. I apologize for bumping in to someone regardless of claims of fault. Shit happens. Just because you accept responsibility for harm caused regardless of blame and apologize does not mean you were "wrong" in the first place.
February 20, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, but that's not the case here. There are editors. Decisions were made. They need to admit they were wrong to go to print with this.
February 20, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How stupid do they think we are? How does someone else = ineptly written bill?
February 20, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if you intend to mock "writing" - then do a cartoon that mocks "writing" - not a cartoon that incites violence!
The whole thing makes me sick. It is a sign of the continuing attack by repubs on language and logic itself. It is an undermining of common speech. An effort to attack via confusion, like using a smoke screen to hide wrong-doing, while claiming that the smokescreen makes it clear no wrong was done!
I am so tired, so outraged by these language wars!
February 20, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, but who else would have come up with "HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR"? (OK, the NY Daily News, maybe. Two screaming daily tabloids...is this a great town or what?)
Everybody should know what to expect from the Post, including this crappy excuse for an apology.
But wait, what's on Page Six?
February 20, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are a number of possibilities.
--The cartoonist was being overtly racist and violent towards the President of the United States.
--The cartoonist wasn't.
--The cartoonist intended to be provocative--in a low-brow conservative kinda way--by using the recent event with the chimp and disappointment with the writers of the stimulus bill (congress by the way, not the president)-- and...
--maybe someone approached him to say "Hey, this might come across as racially insensitive dude!" And he may have said, "Well fuck them, I don't mean it that way, that was not even on my mind, so I say run it!"
--He may have really not thought about it. Not aware it might offend. It's possible. It is possible that he was "that stupid." As hard to believe as that may be for people like Orlando... but that may just be the case. Look at his other work. To say the least, he gives the impression that he's not too terribly enlightened.
Believe what you want, but bottom line, we can't know what his intent was.
You want to be outraged? His cartoon about the guy and the sheep was much worse than this one. Very little wiggle room with that one. Allowing homosexuals to marry will inexorably lead to bestiality! Where was your outrage then?
Or... maybe that's what all this is about? Pay backs for all his (and the Post's) past transgressions/insensitivities? Hmmm. Interesting.
February 20, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. There are insensitive, ugly, racist, sexist, annoying and horrible things said, done, satirized and spread to the masses every day.
Does that mean the lack of outcry over many (even most) of them negates the validity of the notice of one? Irregardless of intent, etc., why bother to publish a response at all if it's just going to embellish the original perceived insult?
Or ... maybe that's what all this is about? Hmmm. Interesting.
February 20, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think selective outrage is interesting.
February 20, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As are selective "apologies".
February 20, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no such thing as "bad publicity"? Go with the horrendous because it gets people talking?
That is how Murdoch made his millions; gossip, raunch and outrage sell.
February 20, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This part of the "apology" is pretty funny, actually:
Thanks to the Post's inability to resist sniping at Sharpton, they end up rescinding the apology in the last paragraph.
Perhaps that's barefooted's real complaint. But don't expect anything more than that from the Post. Case closed, as far as they're concerned.
February 20, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nail on the head, gasket.
February 20, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What they have really done is allow people to question the motivation of any person about their offense. What is disturbing is that they are also putting some kind of moderator on how people express offense, or how much they concede people are allowed to have. It's a dictatorial position. I do not agree that the apology was sincere because it is qualified.
Let's put this in simpler terms, if you were offended and joined Al Sharpton's group, screw you. If you were just a little offended and maybe just wrote an e-mail to them, then you are okay because we kept our little secret in the closet. It is astonishing how insidious their agenda can be. They have actually remained intransigent in their position, while throwing a bone to the weak that could not bring themselves to express their anger more publicly. Again, this apoligy is a whisper to those who remain anonymous.
February 20, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting take on it, Gregor. Well put. I have a problem with that idea as well - if you've ever spoken against them in the past or are doing so now with the camera's eye - your offence carries no weight?
February 20, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for saying so. :-{)>
February 20, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Post's bread and butter is reflecting and feeding anger about race (AAs), feminists, gays, political correctness, liberals, etc., etc. Their cartoonist hits their sweet spot. Of COURSE there were racial overtones here; it was a twofer -- Dems and blacks. "Racist" or not doesn't matter that much to me. It's in the ballpark, so to speak.
Like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity, you know racial provocation/racism/or whatever when you see it. You can feel it in the gut. Maybe you like it; your gut will be happy. But don't tell me that this is a simple matter of interpretation or other niceties of perceptual psychology. To so state is to downplay the skill of the cartoonist and the intelligence of the editorial board. They know what they are doing. Get as close to the line as possible, maybe move the line, in catering to their audience.
So this time they may have miscalculated the location of this particular, is all.
February 20, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink