the NY Post lives down to its reputation

[redbird]

It took Rupert Murdoch's New York Post about a month to go from putting the oath of office on the front page of the paper to publishing a stupid, racist cartoon about President Obama. I'm not linking to it here, because it's ugly, offensive, and not remotely funny. I can't boycott the post, because I stopped reading it years ago for reasons only partly political. (When I was growing up, before the Murdoch days, my parents got it as well as the NY Times, because the Post had late sports results and cartoons.)

I was reminded of this by a friend who posted, comments disabled, but with a link to a story that included the cartoon. She expressed surprise that it wasn't all over her friends list; I suspect this is a combination of people figuring it's been mentioned in the regular press and doesn't need to be discussed here, and a weary "yes, it's run by obnoxious right-wingers, big surprise." The president's press secretary settled for a remark to the effect that the NY Post isn't very newsworthy.

Comments

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

That's not "settling", that's a brilliant and withering remark. Hee!

(I'd heard the story - it was on CNN International and the English-language radio station - but not the response.)

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Also, I haven't seen the actual cartoon, but when I first heard the story, I confess my immediate reaction was "Well, just because Al Sharpton says something is racist doesn't mean it is!" And then they described the cartoon, and, well, yeah, if the description is accurate (and I assume it is) it doesn't sound to me like the Rev. Al is overreacting in the slightest.

[redbird]

I saw it. Just because Al Sharpton is one of the people on an issue doesn't mean it's trivial.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

No, but the first time I heard the story they made it sound like he *was* the main person reacting. (Obviously this could be inadequate reporting rather than fact.) When I wrote, "My first thought was..." I meant "For 20 seconds, until they described the actual content." Every news story I've heard so far has described it in a way that makes it pretty shocking that anyone *wouldn't* consider the cartoon racist

Sharpton, for me, is one of the people who if he's fussing and no one else is (clearly not the case this time) it usually means that either he's looking for trouble or he's being a canary in a coal mine, reacting first to something that's about to explode. It may not be fair that I tend to assume the former, but as long as I listen carefully to the rest of the story to make my own decision I don't think my bias is harming my judgement. (There are a few public figures I class in that group; some of them are in groups I belong to, most work for causes I support. It's just an individual reaction.)

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

No, but the first time I heard the story they made it sound like he *was* the main person reacting.

That's the way it's being played some places: "Oh, there goes Al Sharpton again."

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Disappointing - CNN's usually reasonable. Not that it matters; if I want TV news they're the only game in town. At least this time, they did give a good description of the cartoon including the caption, enough info to let me make up my own mind.

However I did like their report on the Atty. General's comments about the segregation remaining in America: "Conservative bloggers have called his words reprehensible, but the facts say that he's correct."