Here we go again: struggling publications using unspoken racist images to boost profile and sales. By now, most of you have seen the cartoon in the New York Post, the take-off of the chimp attack in Connecticut. Of course Al Sharpton has begun to speak out, and I've heard the anger from friends and colleagues across the Web. I can't say I'm surprised that a cartoon like that was drawn, though I can say I was shocked that a mainstream New York paper like the Post (a conservative rag, I know) would print it. I am only used to their racially-insensitive headlines and coverage. And, wow, the image of cops standing over the dead chimp who's supposed to be Pres. Obama. No doubt, it was enough to get the blood hot. Then I read a response on Rightpundits.com in response to the hoopla over the cartoon, and I had to go hmm. Particularly this argument:
Is the monkey Obama? That is probably what Sean Delonas intended but the beauty of good editorial cartoons is you do not get a road-map.
The next question is should the left by so vehemently outraged by identifying our president as a chimp. One suspects there are short memories at work here and tiresome partisan shouting. A frequent pastime of our liberal friends was to call Bush “chimp.” What is the difference? None. Is the New York Post cartoon racist?
What do you think? Can we say a double standard is being laid out about Bush being portrayed as a chimp and President Obama being referred to as a chimp?