New York Post apologizes to some for Obama cartoon
Associated Press
Published February 19, 2009 at 8:52 p.m.
Updated February 20, 2009 at 5:47 a.m.
Photo by Sean Delonas / © New York Post
This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn., after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism Wednesday on media Web sites and from civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton.
NEW YORK — After two days of protests, the New York Post apologized Thursday for a cartoon that some have interpreted as comparing President Barack Obama to a violent chimpanzee gunned down by police. But the newspaper also said its longtime antagonists exploited the image for revenge.
The qualified apology didn't mollify at least some of the cartoon's critics, who said they might continue protesting Friday.
The newspaper posted an editorial on its Web site Thursday evening saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, but "to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."
The piece was posted hours after 200 picketers chanting "Boycott the Post! Shut it down!" marched in front of the paper's office, saying the cartoon echoed racist stereotypes of blacks as monkeys.
The editorial said that "most certainly was not its intent," adding that some media and public figures who have long-standing differences with the paper saw the cartoon "as an opportunity for payback."
Calling them "opportunists," the editorial said: "To them, no apology is due."
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who helped lead the outcry over the cartoon, criticized what he called the paper's "conditional statement" of regret.
"Though we think it is the right thing for them to apologize to those they offended, they seem to want to blame the offense on those (who) raised the issue, rather than take responsibility for what they did," he said in a statement.
The tabloid, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., is known for its feisty attitude, provocative headlines and conservative outlook — a mix that has garnered hundreds of thousands of readers, but also criticism over the years.
The newspaper had stood by the cartoon, which its editor called "a clear parody" about the death of Travis, the chimp that Connecticut police killed Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner. Editor-in-chief Col Allan had said the intent was to ridicule Washington's efforts to revive the economy.
The drawing by longtime Post cartoonist Sean Delonas, published Wednesday, shows a dead chimp and two police officers, one with a smoking gun. The caption reads, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
The Post was picketed and deluged with angry calls, with some of Thursday's marchers carrying signs that said "Jail Billionaire N.Y. Post Owner Rupert Murdoch."
"We make them and we break them with our money, and we should shut it down," said protester Angela Brown, who carried a glossy photo of Obama.
Some protesters said the cartoon not only underscored racist tropes but even suggested that Obama should be shot.
"Since when can you call for the killing of the president of the United States?" demanded City Councilman Charles Barron.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
February 19, 2009
9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
NQ writes:
Rupert Murdoch, just like a lot of the people who are fleecing this great country, is not an American... They could care less what happens to this country as long as they make money off of it before it sinks. Truly sickening.
February 19, 2009
9:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
Wimps. Too scared to stand up to racial fear-mongering and an obvious ingnorance of Obama's role, or complete lack thereof, in the legislative process. This cartoon was clearly directed at the legislature. At least the Post saved some face by thumbing its nose at Sharpton et al.
In other news, the OKC police and secret service are harassing a man for having an anti-Obama sign in his car. The secret service spent 1/2 hour going through his home. A black Congressman is labeling southern governors opposed to the stimulus as racist. And on and on and on...
Why are people so obsessed with defending Obama against any and all criticism? Obama is a grown-up with a big-time job. I think he can take it.
February 19, 2009
9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
leavemealone writes:
NQ,
I'm laughing out loud!
You're truly sickening.
OK, now I'm laughing out loud again.
February 19, 2009
9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
leavemealone writes:
I think Obama is a Royal Clown!
He's laughable
February 19, 2009
9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
tbizzy writes:
People who thought that this cartoon had anything to do with President Obama are no more intelligent than Travis the Chimp.
They are sad, pathetic, attention starved individuals.
February 19, 2009
10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
leavemealone writes:
These people want it to be about Obama. Thats the sickening issue!
The truth
February 19, 2009
10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
The cartoon doesn't make any sense, and it isn't funny, ironic or even cute.
Was it a comparison of our African American President to a chimp? Did it compare all Blacks to chimps? Was it speaking to character, or was it speaking to appearance, or both, or neither?
Who the heck knows?
Probably, as they said, it was just a cheap shot joke about the revival of the economy, no race references intended.
Aside from all that, the chimp this jerk cartoonist evidently thinks is a good subject for humor, tore off a woman's face and hands and ate them in front of her.
She wouldn't find the depiction funny, I'm guessing.
The woman who owned the chimp certainly won't get a giggle out of it.
That little commentary from a spastic mind is in the poorest taste imaginable. THAT is why they should apologize. Who in their right mind wants to see that garbage? They never should have published it.
Note to the moron cartoonist:
If you're going to use an utterly horrific event as a topical reference for your "humor", at least be clear in what you mean, and make it funny. Otherwise, you come off like a sicko who has nothing of relevance to say, and just laughs like a loon at random horrors.
February 19, 2009
10:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
>In other news, the OKC police and secret service are harassing a man for having an anti-Obama sign in his car. The secret service spent 1/2 hour going through his home.
Yeah, I'm *sure* that's all there is to it. You'll pardon me if I'm skeptical about your account.
February 20, 2009
12:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
http://www.newsok.com/okc-officer-pul...
Somehow the word "abort" was perceived as a direct threat to President Obama. As opposed to "Whack Bush" or "Abort Bush" bumper stickers ( 2 of many) that were still available online as of yesterday.
February 20, 2009
12:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
It's reasonable to assume that the secret service is apt to be a bit more uptight with this President than the last. It's reasonable to assume we all are. Because he's black. He is. I've seen him.
Why deny that he's unique?
Why deny that it's dangerous for him to be unique?
Why wring our hands about fairnes, and compare his treatment to Bush's?
He's not a white guy, and by not recognizing the importance of that, to him and those who may hate him, you sound a bit ignorant.
There are three types of racism deniers in this country.
One wants to pretend it doesn't exist because they themselves are racist.
One wants to pretend it doesn't exist because they don't want to be mistaken for a racist.
One wants to wish it away, because it stinks and it's unfair and makes life uncomfortable for us all, including our new President, who probably ducks/is thrown to the ground whenever a car backfires.
Saying "abort" about Obama isn't the same as saying it about Bush. It just isn't. And until we get that, this bickering will go on and on.
We can't all love eachother yet. But we can try to be a little understanding about the oversensitivity, and use a little common sense and good manners.
February 20, 2009
1:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
F1RST writes:
I have no idea what was in the minds of who did the artwork, approved the piece, etc.....We have all heard, "a monkey can do that", or "monkey work" and we (i don't think) have zero racist slant on that. Wasn't there commercials that used monkeys to mean 'dumb lazy workers' not african-americans. but i get the PC thing and if it did offend a significant number of people then they have a right to be mad.
February 20, 2009
5:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
localyokal writes:
The last time there was this kind of uproar about a poitical cartoon was when a jihad was declared against Denmark. Al Sharpton is becoming less relevant by the day, himself a cartoon.
February 20, 2009
6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ditto writes:
The attitudes toward Barack Obama from those who didn’t support him are mild compared to the attitudes toward George W Bush. The right doesn’t out right hate Obama like the left did for Bush. A book about how to kill Obama, like the one that was actually written about Bush would have the left marching is the streets.
Here we have a paper apologizing for a political cartoon. Can someone show me where a similar thing took place after Bush appointed Condi Rice as Secretary of State. There wasn’t only one cartoon there many, and they were vicious. I didn’t read anything from The Reverend Al about those papers “conditional statement”. When apologies were asked for, we were told that these cartoons were protected by the second amendment.
The racism issued is just going to grow with this administration. Any criticism, jokes, or cartoons of this administration will be look at has happen for the very first time and if negative it will be considered racism. Example: Letterman had a tease for his show during an early evening show on Tuesday. The tease was for one of his writers to come up with an Obama joke. This long into a term as President and you haven’t made a joke about the person. I don’t think that would have happen had McCane won.
The hypocrisy and double standards of the left continues, and the dunces out here are lapping it up. Yes Obama is black, but Condi Rice is black and a women, isn’t that a double minority. And yet, look who’s whining, it’s the left. All I can say is grow up, things aren’t fair.
February 20, 2009
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
The police overreacted, but they corrected themselves, this is Islamobama land in the minds of the paranoid.
I am dumping friends who make the kind of offensive jokes that would be in the category of this cartoon.
Although I thought the chimp represented Nancy Pelosi who the right said wrote the Stim.
Still I sent them a letter complaining about this man type apology. "I am sorry if we offended" not "we apologize for being offensive".
Any wife knows what I mean by "left handed apology" as in I am sorry if you got your feelings hurt".
February 20, 2009
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
DeimosJB writes:
I don't see the name 'Obama' in the toon anywhere. I don't see any likeness of Obama drawn into the monkey. I don't see the toon having anything to do with Obama, other than making the point that the Stimulus bill is 1000 pages of nonsense which could have just as easily been written by a monkey...or a doorknob.
I guess if the newspaper wants to draw a picture of a monkey, then it has to label the monkey "Pres. Bush". I mean, honestly, type "bush monkey" into google images and see what comes up. I guess it is only offensive if it is about Obama.
February 20, 2009
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
WOW (the username also covers my exasperation at your post), you must be in the race-bait business, right? You a politician? Lawyer? Writer? Black? To assume we are all racist and\or ignorant is a cop out. Defend your point based on the validity of your idea NOT by denouncing anyone who disagrees with you as a racist or ignorant.
So let me get this straight, Obama deserves to be treated differently because he's black? He deserves to be handled with special care because he's black? Your answer is yes - that is racist. I think blacks can take care of themselves, and I don't think Obama needs you making excuses for preferential treatment because he's black. In fact, he told me so in his own words.
Last, and most obvious point, Obama had a white mother and a black father. His white mother and white grandparents raised him in Hawaii and Kansas far removed from a black community. His black father was entirely absent. I'm glad the white people in his life stepped up and took care of him throughout his childhood. Like most of us in this country, he is a proud member of a melting pot. Stop making his presidency a racial issue.
February 20, 2009
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
LOL!
Frankly this cartoon is halirious! I see where those who want to play up the race card and demand submission from the rest of human life on earth could use this to back up their 'victom' status claim.
Few things:
Candi Rice is African American. Countlessly cruel, evil, immature and outright unethical cartoons have been done on her.
Here's the kicker: She's a woman. Some people in here may be too stupid to realize that WOMEN have been oppressed as far back as human existance goes. So playing the 'race' and 'victom' card here about Obama being African American (Not completely, btw) and not doing so with Candi, despite her being both a woman and an African American, is very one sided and unfair.
Its sad that African's were victomized but they also victomized whites and themselves. They were carried as slaves for a while but women were little more than slaves until only about...oh? Say about 50 or so years ago? so, a few hundred years or five thousand plus years of written history.....Which one has bigger claim to victom status?
You left can't hold up the rational argument here when it comes to the other party. If your not fair with both your nothing. It's like claiming you should be vegan when your stuffing down a 16 oz Porterhouse!
Get a life you guys.
I.
February 20, 2009
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tolteckid writes:
The Chimps family is sueing for 2 trillion dollars.
February 20, 2009
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tolteckid writes:
Suing
February 20, 2009
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
To assume we are all racist and\or ignorant is a cop out. Defend your point based on the validity of your idea NOT by denouncing anyone who disagrees with you as a racist or ignorant.---olsonmnt
Think your reading comprehension could use some work. Deniers of racism were the topic of what I wrote, and your misunderstanding of that is a perfect example of the knee jerk reaction that deniers typically have.
And you assume I'm a "race baiter"? Then move straight into what race or profession you guess I might be? LOL....re-read what I said, and try to figure out if you fall into one of those three categories, because you really just don't get it.
February 20, 2009
5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Wow,
Isn't comparing reverse racism (white vs black) itself indicative that you yourself are inherently being prejudice? (Against whites?)
I hate when an African American says he 'hates the white man' without giving anything except "we was' slaves man!' So that being the case perhaps 'we' means 'someone other than myself' and 'slaves' being a period they neither lived in nor were directly effected by except by themselves keeping it 'real?'
It's funny actually. Let me explain before you claim me to be racist ok? The white man is the most demeaned, discriminated and hated group of race on earth today. They are also the largest racial group on earth and the single most important racial group from a historical basis as well. Particularly when you talk about 'gender equality, equality of men (races, creeds, religion, etc), development of rationality, human rights (the western one, not the one Islamic countries are trying to force through as 'acceptable*). Let's not talk about the sciences now either.
Everyone is a minority now, but in 60 years from now the 'white man' will be the second largest group in the United States....At that point are you going to come to the poor minority group’s defense? Just wondering!
BTW, I'm Mexican American. So I'm not defending but pointing out the obvious double standard 'people' like you use to defend issues. If only you would put that passion in women's rights, children's rights, and animal rights. They’re the most neglected (especially among the 'minorities') here.
Here's a cute question: Guess what particular race decided to end slavery? I'll give you a hint...it's the same one your hating on.
Here's another cute one: Guess what race created gender equality?
One more: Which race created equality of the religions?
Another: Guess what racial group currently is leading the world in human rights? Including rights in Human Dignity? Which one pays money to poor defenseless and unprotected 'minority' groups? Or who gives refuge too minority groups when those SAME minority groups wage civil war on themselves? (See Recent History of Africa)
Can you point out any other race that has given so much away and taken so much negativity in return? Here's a hint: Islam allows slavery and is actively in-slaving and trading Africans right now in eleven nations on Earth. They are Arab and also African btw.
Can you please take your 'sword of justice (!!!)' over there and explain about discrimination and/or racism to them please? Oh, and also, can you ask them (politely, they might kill you) if they could maybe, please, pretty please with a cherry on top, let other religions exist without persecution? Oh oh oh! Also, can they stop killing gays openly and stoning woman to death for the sake of male 'honor'?
Since you’re on a ‘crusade (!!!)' of justice I mean.
Thanks for the convo.
I.
February 20, 2009
5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
PS: "create" means created laws that dictate it. The laws themselves should be inherently protected to begin with, but you know laws these days! Everything needs to be written! Please see current western (White man) nations governing principles to understand what I mean. Here in America we have something called the constitution (also written by filthy, scary, and evil white man!) just to help you out on your research.
February 20, 2009
9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sundog writes:
Did Obama write the Stimulus Bill?
Yes or No.
February 20, 2009
9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sundog writes:
NotUrFriend: That was most eloquent.
February 20, 2009
9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sundog writes:
If Al Sharpton wants to combat racism, he should check out some of these:
http://www.blackpeoplemeet.com/sign_u...
http://www.bet.com/
February 21, 2009
1:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Noturfriend----
You are so totally off base in your assessment of what I said, I don't even know where to start. All I can say to you is, you have absolutely no idea what I was talking about. I don't think I can state my opinions any more clearly than I did, and if you can't comprehend what was said, I can't help. Sorry you didn't get it.
And hateful?
You need to adjust your tone, sir, before you toss that phrase into the ring in regard to what I wrote. Please, also re-read your diatribe, and then tell me I said anything remotely hateful.
Further, how dare you assume my ethnicity, and project your fears and insecurities onto me.
Not that it's your business, sir, but I am white...and female. I thoroughly enjoy both. No guilt or self loathing here, whatsoever.
I am fairly well educated, and have life experiences under my belt that you don't fathom. My opinions are based in this world and its realities as I have experienced them, and as I have witnessed the experiences of others.
Now, you wrongly accused me of being hateful?
When I'm "hateful", it looks like this...
I happen to know from previous conversations with you, that you are quite the dog lover. I think that would be because you can't cut it with human beings. With dogs you need neither reading comprehension, critical thinking, nor social skills, and they find you brilliant now matter how big a buffoon you are.
Now, that is how I do "hateful".
You might want to bear it in mind next time you feel the need to jump to conclusions about something.
February 22, 2009
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
'WoW',
LOL....That was amusing. That doggy 'hateful' really made me smile, it really did. I'm just so happy for your 'life experiences' and how you 'see the reality' of the world around you. Thank heavans those dreadful 'white masters' brought common sense and foundmental ethical treatment of woman (equal gender rights) in our prejudice and racial country.
Now if you'll excuse me for the late reply but I eas skiiing with my girlfriend (the human one you said I couldn't cut it with?) this friday and saturday. Oh btw, I also took along the dogs....For emotional suppert. I do after all need their endless worship of my 'brillance.'
After all, being a big dumn baffun guy I am, I need all the support I can muster!
have a good weekend, I'm afraid this foolish unexperience, uneducated, lacking world 'experience' and outside 'reality' outlook on life guy must get back to studying. Pleasure first, class second. Im a bad student, as you pointed out!
;)
I.
February 22, 2009
10:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Wow,
I must apologize now I'm afraid while I was enjoying a good laugh over your response I neglected some obvious grammar oversights there. I must confess I was away from a computer at that moment using my Palm Treo and the screen was a tad to small to read the response in its entirety.
I thought I'd come back off the amusement a bit and give you a more serious and thoughtful response to your rebuttal of my initial post. I'd like to first off point out your right: I am a very big dog lover.
Let me explain a few reasons why. Dogs are naturally trusting of humans due to the substantial exposure and damage done over the past four or five thousand years of recorded history. They've become our scapegoats, our easy targets of frustration of insecurities and power trips. Does this sound like child abuse? If it does, it means your a bit smarter than I gave you credit for! Congradualations! Give yourself a nice, hearty pat on the back!
Its actually been heavily and very effectively documented over numerous studies done through multiple Universities that stretch far beyond our borders here and extend far into Europe, Latin America, and places such as Japan and Australia relating to Animal abuse. Dog's particularly as they are in the most direct and constant contact with man. Dogs, like children, can easily become outlets of unethical anger and cruelty. Dogs, like children, often are unable to escape this terrible state and are often killed and 'swept' under the rug.
It's been well noted by others, perhaps no where near as knowledgable nor as skilled in social affairs as yourself but do posses a few MBA's or such, have noted the aggressive progression that will move onward from dogs (animals) onto other vulnerable creatures: Children. The difference is children have strong laws and strong backers throughout communities (and they should have MORE!) who happily step in. Forcible if necessary. Dog's have some laws that are often never put into force. Rather, their tormentors and murderers (yes, murderers*) instead receive a 'bad boy!' remark and possibly a fine of a few dozen dollars or a few hundred at most.
This does not correct the behavior, rather, teaches the individual to be more hush hush about it. So essentially does nothing in the end but merely 'sweeps' the unpleasant thing under the rug. This is, in my opinion, completely unacceptable. I refuse to say otherwise.
You needn't write a ten thousand word essay on the subject explaining why it's wrong because others already have. For your average person they inherently KNOW its WRONG. I doubt strongly your too self rightous to disagree but I'll hold that opinion until you prove otherwise.
February 22, 2009
10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
In closing on that particular subject I just wanted to point out that I do not need them for 'emotional' support, nor for their praise of my 'brilliance.' Instead I want them there because they always remind me to show compassion, to be patient, to be understanding of mistakes and to show me that I can be better than what I believe I am right now. In the end, I guess your right: I do need their emotional support, but not the way you implied.
I don't think I can explain it to you.
That's all I'll say on that subject. Now, onward to your sarcastically implied sense of 'superior' understand of the world at large compared to my 'feeble male brain.' Forgive me for laughing a tad bit. May I ask? How much of the world have you seen? I sense strongly you've grown up in a very sheltered and controlled lifestyle to believe you have the naturally born power to dictate the functions of life to others. Let me explain why I dare to do such a terrible thing!
First off I've been around. Literally. I've been across this vast nation of ours, from California to New York and many of the southern states. I've witness true racism. Not the cute kind that draws petty and funny cartoons but the type that cuts your throat and leaves you to die horribly. I doubt strongly you understand, in a first person perspective, what I'm saying. Rather I believe very strongly you've learned of it only in school, through books, through well acted movies and/or tv. Perhaps you watched speech's by the passionate legends of yesteryear? I've seen it. In person. It's something you can't explain, its something you see and live and hate. I don't think you can be explained it.
Second off, I've been far beyond our borders during my enlisted period defending our country, yours and mine. I've been to Kosovo, Africa, area's of the Middle East I suspect you know very well thanks to Bush's expiring legacy. I've seen ethnic discrimination and religious persecution on a scale your liberal papers wouldn't really let you believe. I've watched men being hung for having the 'disgrace' of following they're heart rather than his Qur'an by being able to love another man. I've seen the bodies of woman executed for daring to show the courage to demand human dignity for their genders. I've seen courage where strong people died in the dim and unlikely hope that others may live in better days ahead.
February 22, 2009
10:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Thats courage. May I ask how many limbs you've recently lost defending your profound courage? I am guessing none as you seem capable of typing up a wonderfully distasteful and sarcastic post for any foolish enough to defy you. Correct me if I'm wrong, and if so, I beg your forgiveness for this transgression.
It's interesting the types of things you learn when you live it, breath it, and touch it....This life thing we're discussing. It really is. Isn't it?
One moment you've lost passion even to love another, let alone yourself and withen a moment it all changes. Watching men and women die when a plane rams suicidally into a building, as an example. I dare say WoW that I've lived a life that only so many others have. Perhaps you're life was far more brutally 'real' than mine, but I doubt it.
I hope you understand that you have not, and will likely not, have changed my opinion. I have no passion to change yours. This is America and here you've every right to speak your mind. As much as you may dislike or hate it, so do I. Should I not have that right?
Have a good night Ma'am.
I.
February 23, 2009
4:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
LOL.....You didn't think I was actually going to read that ridiculously long screed. Did you?
Jeeze.
February 23, 2009
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Wow,
Not really. It took me about five minutes to type it up and you didn't strike me as someone with the attention span (patients) to read five minutes worth of blabber. Benefits of having two abused dogs is you learn to be patient and flexible with time. The slightest increase in tone or a simple mistep taken as aggression can set back your building bond with the animal.
"Take it easy, breath, and man up to the situation" ~ as my girlfriend says.
Hope you had a good weekend, nice talking to you.
I.