«  
  »

Dan Wallace is Angry

By Henry Neufeld

… about the New York Post “chimp” cartoon. While he and I wouldn’t see eye to eye on many things (though his Greek Grammar beyond the Basics is brilliant!) I particularly appreciate this coming from him.

I don’t regard printing this cartoon as responsible, but I want to make sure to note that I think newspapers have the right to be irresponsible, just as the rest of us have the right (and one might say duty) to call them on it.

Be Sociable, Share!
February 19th, 2009 | Tags: , , | Category: Media, Politics

Comments Closed

Dan Wallace is Angry

  • Mark Olson
    February 19, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    What do you find objectionable about the cartoon? Some think this has some connection to racism and Mr Obama. I think that’s a stretch. For:

    * a pet chimp was shot recently (in New York I think)
    * Mr Obama is not the author of the bill.
    * The chimp looks nothing like him.
    * Mr Bush was frequently portrayed as chimplike, so clearly portraying the President qua POTUS is not out of bounds.
    * If you object to the stimulus … you might want to portray is it being a very stupidly written bill.

    So … why is this “irresponsible?

    • Henry Neufeld
      February 20, 2009 at 3:19 pm

      Mark – I disagree with you often, but based both on this comment and on your trackbacks, I have rarely disagreed with you as much as this.

      First, I do think the racist background of the imagery is clear and obvious, and I have a hard time believing that most people don’t recognize that element. Nonetheless that is not, for me, the major issue.

      Second, while presidents have been represented in many insulting ways, I have never done so, even when I disagree. I will get quite vehement in describing policies, actions, and even the whole record. I have been hearing the complaints from the right about how the left has treated Bush for 8 years. I’m now on notice, obviously that the many on the right have a bit of a blind spot on their own actions.

      But finally, here’s the real thing. It’s having the cops shoting the chimp. I don’t think the imagery is a good idea. I would not purchase a paper that regularly published such material.

      Why did I particularly respond to this one? Because a conservative writer responded in what I thought was a responsible and thoughtful manner to an attack on a liberal president. I’ve always respected Dan Wallace. Now I respect him more.

  • Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Friday Highlights
    February 20, 2009 at 9:54 am

    [...] That cartoon two views allow and censure. [...]

  • Mark Olson
    February 21, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    Henry,
    What in the image causes you to connect the image with Obama? I didn’t make that connection, and it wouldn’t have occurred to me absent the discussions.

    Nazi propaganda represented Jews as rats or dogs. Should we (or German papers) never ever show a rat or a dog in a cartoon because at one time that had a particular meaning? Given the recent event (in Connecticut not New York, but close by in space and time nevertheless) the use of a chimp image seems to me not racial.

    The Post did apologize to those who might have taken offense by the way.

    But, it seems to me that political cartoons as a genre would offend your sensibilities in this regard on a regular basis from either the left, the right, or from (even worse) papers from past centuries.

    • Henry Neufeld
      February 21, 2009 at 10:51 pm

      Given the recent event (in Connecticut not New York, but close by in space and time nevertheless) the use of a chimp image seems to me not racial.

      Well, we’ll simply have to disagree on that. As I’ve said, I think the connection is obvious. I think your illustration serves more to support my point than yours.

      The Post did apologize to those who might have taken offense by the way.

      And a very poor apology it was.

      But, it seems to me that political cartoons as a genre would offend your sensibilities in this regard on a regular basis from either the left, the right, or from (even worse) papers from past centuries.

      In fact, there are quite a number of political cartoons that I do not like, though only a small percentage that would cross the line where I would decide not to buy the paper that printed them. Normally I just don’t bother to look.

      In this case, I find the combination of violence and a racially suggestive image goes over the line for me.

      Note that I remain an extreme advocate of free speech, including for cartoons such as this. Personal approval is another matter.