• "Stop talking about it."
• "Obama Cartoon": It's all about the framing...
• Open Fields Doctrine
• But in here it's so delightful - thoughts on Obama and the weather
• Protectionism: Everybody stimulate yourself!
• I like the pictures
• Mandela, King, Gandhi... Blagojevich
• Shovels are so 1933
• The cutting edge is nipping at its own tail
• Funny Because It's True (yet again)
• Obligatory Gaza
• Being Reasonable--reaction from the Muslim family recently thrown off a flight by AirTrain
• Won't you be my neighbor?
• Snowzilla
• ZOMG! Radioactive coal sludge will kill us all! (updated)

• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« Open Fields Doctrine | Main | "Stop talking about it." »

"Obama Cartoon": It's all about the framing...

From the AP:
NY Post apologizes--to some--over Obama cartoon

So... the AP characterizes the cartoon in question as an "Obama cartoon"?

Yes, offense has been inferred by those who are understandably sensitive to any racist implications that may ever be displayed against Mr. Obama, but the NY Post and the cartoonist have both stated that offense was not intended, and I think the AP headline goes beyond what is reasonable in referring to the cartoon as an "Obama cartoon". The president was not directly referenced or depicted in the cartoon, and it is questionable whether the indirect reference was intended (especially given how much press coverage has been given to the fact that the stimulus bill was written not by Mr. Obama but by House Democrats).

It is not objectively an "Obama cartoon", and to call it such is to assert that the inferred racism was in intended. The AP loses credibility by making this assertion. They have framed the story instead of reporting it.

If the AP wants to say that the NY Post cartoonist and editors were (or should have been) fully aware of the implications of their choice of imagery and wording in every cartoon, then they should be held to the same standard. The AP and every other media outlet that refers to this as an "Obama cartoon", by the very argument of those offended by the cartoon, are guilty of purposely opining rather than reporting. Clearly they have to be aware of the way in which they frame this story... as journalists, they can't claim to be ignorant of the power of words and the effect they will have when used this way. It is purposely inflammatory and defamatory against the NY Post and editorial cartoonist Sean Delonas. The intent is clear, because the writer and the editor of the story are--as professional journalists--fully aware of the impact and nuance of every choice of words. Right?

For the record, it wasn't a good political cartoon. And for the record, I do think the editors at the Post should be capable of foreseeing that some would think it was a racist comment. But for the record, I don't believe that it was intended to be racist. To quote Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "I don't believe it is accurate to call the cartoon racist. Insipid, yes."

If you can't be objective as a journalist, at least have the decency to wear your ideology openly, like we bloggers do.