World

NY Post Owner Rupert Murdoch Apologizes for Offensive Cartoon

by Karen Hatter | February 24, 2009 at 06:15 am

536 views | 61 Recommendations | 7 comments

In a tone decidedly different from the tone in the initial apology issued after many raised their voices in outrage at the New York Post cartoon that appeared in the newspaper on February 18, 2009, depicting a dead chimpanzee, with the caption referencing the stimulus bill that was being promoted by President Obama, the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, issued a personal apology saying, in part:

"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."

Click here to read the original article.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Jordan Yerman

at 06:29 on February 24th, 2009

It sounds as if he's grudgingly kowtowing to some fringe element here, rather than acknowledging what appears (at least to me) to be self-evident.

While I didn't think "racist" when I first saw the cartoon, it was my second thought, which occurred in, like, .000002 seconds.

If someone's going to poke a stick in the beehive like that, it better be for a brilliant cartoon, whose larger point will make the controversy worth it. While no J. Jonah Jameson, I gotta say that the chimp cartoon comes nowhere near that criteria, and just looks cheap, mean and opportunistic.

harringtola

at 07:00 on February 24th, 2009

Jordan, how do you measure brilliance? I think that is why the first amendment is what it is. There is no way to do that. One person's brilliance is another person's %$#&*^$^.

Uwe Paschen

at 06:52 on February 24th, 2009

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.

Fripouille

at 08:16 on February 24th, 2009

"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... ;)

A. Tran

at 07:14 on February 24th, 2009

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.

Daro (not verified)

at 12:31 on February 24th, 2009

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...?!

Karen Hatter

at 13:13 on February 24th, 2009

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.