Where a Free Press and Poor Taste Collide

by Kayalyn Kibbe

On February 18th, while Bronxville Students enjoyed their mid- winter break, the New York Post printed an editorial cartoon that shocked and angered many in the general public. The cartoon depicted a dead chimpanzee with bullet holes in its chest and two police officers, one of whom is holding a smoking gun. The caption of the cartoon reads, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” After the controversial cartoon was published, there was an immediate uproar from civil rights groups, and, most notably, Reverend Al Sharpton. Sharpton called for companies to pull their advertisements from the Post, calling the cartoon “racially charged” and “troubling”. The Post responded to the outrage by explaining that the cartoon was in reference to the killing of Travis, a pet chimp who was shot to death the day before the cartoon was published for brutally attacking a houseguest in Connecticut. Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allen stated, “The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.”

Rev. Sharpton responded to Allen’s statement, saying, “Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory for President Barack Obama [the first African-American President] and has become synonymous with him, it is not a reach to wonder whether the Post cartoonist is inferring that a monkey wrote it.”

The cartoonist, Sean Delonas, is known for his controversial, and for the most part very conservative, political cartoons. Delonas has not issued an official statement about his cartoon, but in an Opinion piece titled “That Cartoon” on February 20th, the Post stated, “Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.”

Bronxville Senior Emilie George was asked what she thought of the cartoon when she first saw it, saying, “I am confused as to how that cartoon was allowed to be published. Not only does it have racist connotations, but it is generally offensive to the obviously grieving owner of the chimpanzee that was killed. How did no one notice the offensive nature of the cartoon?

Throughout the history of this country, “monkey” has been an epithet used to attack and demean African Americans. Many civil rights groups believe that this was the intended message of the cartoon- calling President Obama a monkey. At its most benign, the cartoon suggests that the stimulus bill is so bad that a monkey must have written it, although this interpretation is hard to defend.

Many of you may remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy of 2005, in which 12 editorial cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Most of the 12 cartoons contained images of the Islamic prophet Mohammad, and were supposedly were an attempt to contribute to a discussion about self-censorship and the criticism of Islam. The cartoons sparked wide-spread outrage across the Muslim world. Protests around the world often became violent, and 100 people were killed over all throughout the protests. Some argued that the cartoons were racist or “Islamophobic”, even blasphemous to those of the Muslim faith. The cartoons are another example of when a free press can take a subject that is not necessarily that funny, and take it too far. Like the Post, Jyllands- Posten quickly issued an official apology, stating “In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.”

So when does a free press have to be monitored by common sense? Bronxville Senior Meghan Rossini was asked whether or not the Post should have published the cartoon. She responded, saying, “I think that the Post has the absolute right to publish the cartoon- I fully believe in the freedom of speech in our country. I do, however, think that before they print something that is offensive, they need to know what the consequences could be. The freedom of the press does not mean they can print whatever they want without some sort of consequence.”

In response to Rev. Sharpton and other leader’s outcries for an official apology from or ramifications for Sean Delonas, New York Post Chairman Rupert Murdoch issued a formal apology on February 24th, stating, “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.”

Rev. Sharpton and others who opposed the cartoon feel that The New York Post was well within their right to freedom of speech in printing the cartoon, but within the confines of common sense and good taste, the Post was way out of line. No matter what the intended message of the cartoon, someone at the Post should have thought about America’s history of racism, the use of the word “monkey” as a racial slur, and the feelings of the woman who owned the chimp they were mocking. For the time being it is safe to say that the New York Post is truly where a free press and poor taste collide.