NY Post Owner Rupert Murdoch Apologizes for Offensive Cartoon

You make a great comment here Jordan and I can not argue with that.

The only issue I do have about the Cartoon is the double standards versus the Muslim Cartoons and what was not said about freedom of speech back then to justify them and now, well now it is whole different ball game since it is not Muslim involved but an American minority. I just want to know what is the new first amendment going to look like.

The US does accept Neo Nazi marching down the streets protesting or demonstrating under the excuse of the first amendment, wish is a great offence in Germany and can not be tolerated nor understood. And yet now that some one has put out  a cartoon that may or is racist every one goes hay wire? I do not understand the double standard nor the logic. 

"Much ado about Nothing" as Shakespeare would have said. The cartoon may have been in bad taste (my personal take) but it certainly did not merit all the hysteria, and the demands that the cartoonist resign were totally over the top.

This reaction reminds me of the Danish Allah cartoon controversy. You may not like the author's work, but demands that this kind of cartoon be withdrawn from circulation and that the creators of satire be stopped from expressing themselves are the thin edge of the wedge that may one day be used breach the protective perimeter that guarantees press freedom if we are not vigilant.

Murdoch? I may be wrong, but he seems to be pandering to his readership to protect sales, no more and no less..."Much ado about nothing" here too... ;)

I agree with Jordan's view above. Reluctantly, he had to apologize because people stopped buying the paper - the newspaper vendors in my neighborhood had stacks of unsold copies on the streets since Saturday.

When Obama made the "lipstick on a pig" comment, many thought it was directed at Palin. She had made a comment about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull being lipstick.

I could understand how some thought the Obama was referring to Palin, but I didn't think so.

What I thought he did was unfortunate because it could be misinterpreted, and I think the same here.

Any real forethought would have stopped this cartoon from being published, but I don't think that the people involved were thinking of anything other than that old saw about "chimps in a tower typing forever and coming up with Shakespeare".

What is absolutely hypocritical is that racist cartoons directed at Condeleeza Rice, where the cartoon was racist and the person being mocked was clear, there were no such protests because the newspapers were liberal newspapers and the person being mocked was a republican. You can see the cartoon on the upper left in the box.

You can't have it both ways without being a hypocrite.

I find myself agreeing with Rupert Murdoch's money. Favouring no bias on race or gender, it's always very helpful, not to mention popular and doesn't exercise it's huge power by shouting or imposing it's opinions. Leaving my to ask why do the gatekeeper's who coral and husband most of the stuff often seem like narcissistic psychopaths...?!

Assuming the veracity of the cartoonist's and Mr. Murdoch's assertions, nothing racial was meant by the cartoon, there still remains the issue of choosing to depict the shooting of a crazed animal, the violence of the act itself, indicating either, that's what should be done to whomever the authors of the stimulus bill were or the idea that the bill was written by chimpanzees, that is the problem.

Either way, the implied violence, at a time when conditions in the country are precarious, with the F.B.I., Secret Service and others, investigating plots centered around the President, with him ultimately being responsible for signing the plan into effect, the violent portrayal, no matter who or WHAT the chimpanzee represented was irresponsible.