| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Profiles in Cowardice: Rupert Murdoch
In what has to be one of the most shameful capitulations to the forces of political correctness I've ever seen, Rupert Murdoch has apologized for this hilarious cartoon:
As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.
Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.
Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, 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.
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.
This is so disapointing on so many levels.
1) In Context, this cartoon was obviously about Economic Policy, not Race -- Much like Ronald Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, this cartoon was about economic policy, not race. The monkey referered to the intellectual content, or lack thereof, in the bill.
2) This will embolden Rupert Murdoch's Enemies -- Does anyone think this craven act of appeasement will endear Rupert Murdoch to the left? Of course it won't. The left will always hate Rupert Murdoch because (along with Rush), he broke up their monopoly on public information. Rupert Murdoch's cravenly callow capitulation is blood in the water to those who already want to destroy him.
document.write('<\/script>');
3) This gives the Race Industry New Life -- I can't remember the last time these people scored a victory this big. They just humiliated one of the most successful businessmen in human history. How can this possibly help?
4) The First Amendement -- While, technically, there aren't any first amendment issues here, let's not kid ourselves. THIS was the perfect issue on which to make a stand on principle. The New York Post didn't do anything wrong; why should they apologize? Shouldn't the liberals apologize for wasting our money?
Shameful...absoluely shameful.
That is all.
Cahnman out.


Comments
Murdoch is the Henry Ford of the new Millenium
eom
How does a monkey
Refer to lack of intellectual content? Heck, the same 'joke' would work if they showed that NASA shuttle crashing into the ocean with the same caption.
(Now, if they showed a comic of the NASA shuttle crashing and then made a comparison with the people that built that, to the people who came with the stimulus, maybe you'd be getting somewhere.)
I'm sorry but the comic wasn't funny in the first place, and the editors should have realized there could be some controversy.
Edit: Additionally, the government is not forcing Rupert Murdoch to apologize, so this is not a First Amendment issue. This is marketplace economics at works. Murdoch knows if he doesn't apologize he will most likely lose business. So he's choosing to apologize. He's not being forced to do it by anyone but the market.
Promotion of violence
Think about the chimp incident: a crazed beast who savaged a person allegedly close to the beast; beast is shot by officers who have no choice but to kill it to stop the attack.
I can understand those who object most to what they see as the racial connotations of this supposed 'joke' but what angers me the most is its promotion of violence against elected officials as a solution: the 'beast' who is 'savaging' its 'friends' and ergo, should be 'shot' to end the 'attack.' It isn't a big stretch to think some low-intelligence fringe whackjob, agitated by a steady diet of wingnut hysteria, could take that as encouragement to 'do his duty' to 'save us' by shooting those they disagree with politically.
I'd pull my business from the paper if I were advertising there. I wouldn't want to be part of enabling a publication that thinks we should see the 'humor' in promoting assasination of the president or others who share his political views. You can talk about BDS but I don't ever recall a major newspaper publishing something promoting his assasination.