« The New York Post Prints Racist Cartoon Attack Against Obama | tonnyb's Blog | He Believes Americans Can Do Anything! Bye God, We are All Republicans! »
Faced with the Threat of a National Boycott, Rupert Murdoch Apologizes
Yesterday, Julian Bond, the head of the NAACP, promised a national boycott of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, if steps were not taken to resolve the issue involving the monkey cartoon published last Wednesday. This morning, Rupert Murdoch published an apology in the NY Post, and promise to do better in the future.
As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.
Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.
Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.
We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.
Rupert is not one to offer apologies for News Corporation. This apology appears to be unprecedented for him. However, it seems to me there needs to be some accountability. What do you think should be done?
If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.
Advertisement
National boycotts. Keep flogging The New York Post. An apology is not enough. Burn an effigy of the cartoonist, or better yet the cartoonist. Or send him to Guantanomo Bay. This cartoon is the most imperative crisis facing our country ever.
February 24, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
did you just say that a cartoon "is the most imperative crisis facing our country ever."???
that's really funny!
did you get all worked up about the mohammed ones too? doesn't matter.
your call to violence is offensive.
February 24, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot step #1:
1. Turn on snark detector.
2. Respond to comment.
Can't really tell from your avatar pic - is that a Bandit?
February 24, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
er, ya missed it. the cartoon was "funny" because it was "sarcasm." only it wasnt funny, because of the violence part.
snark detected, humor rejected. see?
February 24, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do I think? Boycott by all means. But I boycott all things Rupert already.
Rupert Murdoch is a clear and present danger to democracy. No person or organization should be allowed to control as large a segment of the media as he does. There should be a law against it. In fact there is a law against it and nobody is bothering to enforce it. I bet if the SOB started to go bankrupt the government would scream that he is too big to fail and send him fifty billion to tide him over.
Oh and the idea that the cartoonist and or editors didn't know what the reaction to that piece of crap would be is pure BS. This is standard operating plausable deniability crap for right wingnut media. "You think this is racist? OMG we never thought of it THAT way. You know you are really just projecting here. You know "Barak the Magic Negro" wasn't really racist. All those liberals are just overly sensative."
February 24, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that these people are working in high positions at News Corp is a pretty good indicator of what their philosophies are. The "Gosh, we never looked at it THAT way" defense just doesn't wash.
February 24, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the old Jedi Mind-trick. "These are not the racists we're lookiing for. Move on.
February 25, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...."
Stupid question: what law prevents Murdoch from saying what he wants in his own newspapers? Yes, I agree that consolidation of ownership across media (broadcast TV, radio, and print) in a community is a problem. If we gave the FCC back its huevos to regulate the ether but took away its ability to auction off the ether to the highest bidder, and required broadcast licensees to operate according to a Fairness Doctrine in the public interest, that would help restore some accountability.
But if Murdoch wants to run offensive cartoons in his paper, the Constitution says Congress has to just deal with it.
February 24, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just suppose that a cartoonist decided to depict Obama with a noose around his neck hanging from a tree and underneath a crowd of hooded people with the caption, "We can't let these monkeys shove a stimulus package down our all-American throats." Even if considered tasteless, would such a depiction present legal problems for the cartoonist and his newspaper? My inclination would be to answer "yes." Is the freedom of speech an absolute?
February 24, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
SCOTUS has already drawn a line in the sand for speech that incites violence. I don't think you could rationally argue that the cartoon in question (not your hypothetical cartoon) does.
February 24, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A smoking gun pointed at a characterization of a government figure which is shown to be full of bullet holes doesn't invoke violence? Hunh?
February 24, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me clueless, whatever...
I did not like the cartoon because,
a) it made light of a tragic situation, the critical injuring of a human being and the shooting of a domesticated chimp that got out of control,
b) it portrayed the gun violence used to resolve the situation in a comical way, complete with splashy blood and those holes like the old Dick Tracy parodies, and
c) the cartoon took the tragic situation and made an extremely feeble attempt to tie it to current politics.
When I looked at the cartoon I did NOT see a portrayal of two white police officers shooting the President of the United States or any other black man. The chimp in the cartoon did not look like the President or any other human. Eight years of seeing Bush portrayed as a chimpanzee and referred to as "Chimpy" even and especially on these very pages, has desensitized me to any racial connotation associated with a non-caricature comic representation of a chimpanzee. The image of police shooting the chimp had very strong kairos associated with the very news story I mention above.
It was a lame, unfunny, and tasteless cartoon, poorly thought-out, and publishing it was a dumb idea. I can see how some people could interpret it in other ways.
As far as I am concerned, though, it remains a tempest in a teapot.
February 25, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The facial features of white presidents like Bush's are not historically compared to the facial features of monkeys in an attempt at racial stereotyping so it's not surprising that no one is racially offended by the comparison. However, blacks HAVE been and it's very offensive.
Maybe Little Black Sambo/Mumbo/Jumbo should make a comeback since they don't "really" look human either.
And it's not that you are clueless, you are just wearing blinders in an attempt to NOT see the whole picture. The stimulus package is referred to as "Obama's" in the media nationwide...please don't tell me you believe the monkey represents Congress.
February 25, 2009 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of oversimplification, let's ignore the fact that chimps and humans are compared for legitimate reasons.
February 25, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The poster was saying there should be a law against any one person or organization owning too much of the media. In fact, there are/were laws that Republicans weakened over the last several years.
I'm not an expert and I'm too lazy to look it up so I may have some of the details wrong, but there was an FTC rule that prevented someone from owning both newspapers and TV stations in the same city. Murdoch was granted an exemption in the New York market.
Sharpton is now leading a campaign to get Murdoch's exemption removed. I suspect that's what motivated the Aussie's apology more than anything else.
February 24, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, you are right - the original comment made that point. I made a weak attempt to draw the topic back to the commenter's umbrage with the cartoon. The fact that Murdoch has too much power over media has no relevance to the protected speech of the cartoon (which was the topic of the blog entry), and regulating Murdoch's media empire should not be done because he makes protected political statements in his own newspaper. It should be done regardless of the politics of the owner, because it is in the best interest of the public in that community. If, by some fantastical scenario, a market was dominated by some liberal mogul, the same rule should apply.
By the way, anybody know how the NYC exemption for Murdoch that Debbie referenced was justified?
February 24, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch Debbiedoesnothing.
February 24, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money talks!
February 24, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I am floored. Really. I never saw this coming. These kind of moguls never apologize for anything. This model for the evil communications emperor in one of the James Bond flicks, is pure dirt to me.
Fox news just sucks. I have never read such trash in the WSJ, not with this new frequency.
But I got to give the guy credit. Yes. I give him credit for this one.
February 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give him credit for apologizing?
February 24, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not at this point.
But this shows we've got clout and can use it!
February 24, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this is like Scrooge giving some potatoes to a person starving on one of the streets in Dickens.
I have repeatedly said that I believe in Einstein. Everything is relative.
Can you imagine dicky c. apologizing for this war thing?
Or rush saying, you know I made a mistake about minorities being able to be quarterbacks and coaches and stuff like that?
Do not get me wrong. I despise the guy.
February 24, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point. I will give him credit when someone is held accountable.
February 24, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You call that an apology?
He left out the whole "IF" part of the "offended anybody" clause. I mean he actually thinks saying the buck stops with him and he made a mistake is a fulsome apology. He thinks saying he understands the hurt this caused belongs in an apology.
I think Mr. Murdoch needs to review the apologies tenured by Sen. Richard Shelby or Rep. Jim Bunning or even Don Imus to see how this thing is done.
I mean, how am I supposed to sustain my outrage at the Post with this kind of thing floating around? It won't be easy, but I think I can do it.
February 24, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He thinks it is. It's more like an expression of regret. I get that any apology from Murdoch would be like pulling teeth. I give him credit for trying and am anticipating his final catharsis. Money can be a wonderful thing, or lack of it.
February 24, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you need more grist, just remember the assassination angle. Murdoch didn't exactly apologize for that.
"It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such."
So we can infer that the assassination angle was intentional.
February 24, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
His apology in the face of economic boycott pressure is insincere and badly timed. Too little too late. Sure, w was portrayed as a chimp, but I do not recall any of the cartoons showing a gun or a dead chimp or a beware of dog sign. All three well recognized over the civil rights struggles as threats and to characterise Blacks insultingly.
It cost me 400 bucks to cancel Rupert's cable company several months ago. Money well spent.
February 24, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, there is accountability. You quoted Murdoch saying:
That's accountability. Murdoch is taking responsibility for what appears in his paper. He is saying to blame him.
If you want more of a say in how Murdoch runs his company, buy him out.
February 24, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Its not enough.
February 24, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're clueless. Murdoch has many other concerns these days. Boycotts are the least of them.
February 25, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words "I'm sorry if you misinterpreted an image of a monkey shot by police as racist... an interpretation which never occurred to me or to any of the members of the NY Post staff. After all, no one has ever compared a monkey to a black man, nor is being shot at by police something that blacks have ever had to worry about. It is truly unfortunate that you were offended by these off-the-wall interpretations of yours, and to the extent that I bear some responsibility for setting off you off, I apologize, sorta."
February 24, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember back in the day when Howard Cosell was shamed into quitting his job as a MAJOR sports commentator for calling a black player a little monkey? There's no way this was an accident...
February 24, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good times, those. We used to shame players who cheated or were porr sports. Now they are heroes. Whazzup with that?
February 25, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am rather surprised that the focus is on the race issue (and THAT is offensive) when I am really freaked about the violence of the whole thing. Shooting and killing the person that wrote the stimulus package? If the monkey is supposed to represent the president, what is the cartoon saying - kill the president? Doesn't Secret Service slam people around for this kind of stuff? If I sent an email around saying kill the president should I expect a call from the Secret Service? Or is just flipping open season?
February 24, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever, its a cynical statement from a man who's hemmoraging cash. He needs whatever publicity he can get.
February 24, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink