BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Editorial Slant

  
 
pointless and uncalled for
14:18 / 06.03.02
This cartoon was pulled from the New York Times after objections and complaints particularly from 9/11 widow's.



Full story here http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News/03/06/attacks.cartoon.ap/index.html

So what do you think about this?

Is the newspaper wrong for publishing this cartoon as a reaction to the amount of money that the government and charities are giing to the families of the victims of 9/11?

Should the newspaper and the cartoonists be allowed the latitude to push the envelope on such sensitive issues and are the widows just examples of PC madness?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:22 / 06.03.02
Don't see what it has to do with political correctness...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
14:27 / 06.03.02
It portrays a stereotype of the widows of the victims of 09/11 as money-grabbing bitches. Also only portrays women as widows.
 
 
Rev. Jesse
14:36 / 06.03.02
The New York Time is within its rights to pull the cartoon.

The NYT does not publish cartoons in its print media. It is not a newspaper that does that. Clearly, the culture at NYT is not pro-cartoon.

Given this, it is understandable that it would pull a cartoon off. If it had been a more cartoon friendly media, like the Village Voice, they probably would have kept it.

Ted Rall offends. But that is his job. If you have not been offended by a Ted Rall cartoon you are either not reading them or not paying attention.

So the NYT, not being a cartoony newspaper, has every right to pull a cartoon and I am sure that Ted got paid anyway.

In a lot of ways, artistic freedom resides in the paycheck.

-Jesse
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:38 / 06.03.02
Oh, right, I thought the widow in the second panel might be a bloke...

But I don't think that the issue of the portrayal of the widows has anything to do with political correctness - do you? I think the issue is sensitive not for reasons of political correctness or otherwise, but for reasons which are quite specific to the situation: how terrible, to say bad things about people who suffered as a result of this tragedy which is unlike anything that has gone before; it's more a result of the emotional impact of the WTC atrocity than anything to do with the widows themselves, & that's why I think the reaction is quite vigorous...

... also it's perhaps unfair to blame the widows, as this ca

oh fuck, I don't really know what I;m saying, haven't thought this through, ahve to leave office. More tomorrow.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:42 / 06.03.02
Surely that's the opposite of... oh, I'm confused now.

Portraying the families of the victims of 9/11 as shallow money-grabbers is pretty fucking atrocious whichever way you slice it - especially since as I understand it there are still many, many people who lost work or income because of what happened but have as yet received no compensation (presumably all that money has been earmarked for the 'defence' budget). Without knowing the figures, I'll still go out on a limb and bet that it's those most in need of some kind of financial support who'll find it hardest to get any...

As to whether the paper should have been "allowed" to publish the cartoon - well, yes, but the New York Times isn't a paper without a political agenda and a set of people who it has to please, and this seems to be something of a lapse in judgment as to what the response to this cartoon would be.
 
 
alas
20:12 / 06.03.02
quote: Without knowing the figures, I'll still go out on a limb and bet that it's those most in need of some kind of financial support who'll find it hardest to get any...

yeah, and they'll also be the last to be asked onto Larry King Live or any of the talk shows ...

you know what? there was NO money stipulated for the families of the Oklahoma City tragedy. None. And the fights about the charity and other money designated for the families of the victims did become ugly--especially when it became clear that the more money you had the more money you'd get ... and the "undocumented" workers families especially are getting nada nada nada .... Maybe this comic crosses some line but I can certainly understand the cynicism.

alas.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:38 / 07.03.02
quote:Originally posted by alas:
it became clear that the more money you had the more money you'd get ... and the "undocumented" workers families especially are getting nada nada nada .... Maybe this comic crosses some line but I can certainly understand the cynicism.

The first point - yeah, that's exactly what I thought. Based on a combination of reading an interview with a black, working class woman who'd lost her job after 9/11 and hasn't had any financial assistance, plus instinct and the depressing realisation that this is the way capitalism works...

But the cartoon isn't making that point, is it?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
07:38 / 07.03.02
I have no idea what I was rambling on about up there. Sorry. I agree with Fly...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:47 / 07.03.02
On a related note, I saw an interview last night with a gay man who was looking for compensation because of the loss of his partner. Although the man is living on an income that more than supports his needs, he's choosing to pursue this as a matter of principle of recognition.

It seems that the federal government is stipulating that either couples be married or they prove their relationship. He is understandably upset as legally he has is not allowed to get married and had he been able to he and his partner would have done so a number of years ago. Although he is allowed to pursue the compensation, it is uncertain whether or not his case will be considered in any depth.

He went on to describe how federal law and business practices are preventing him from getting the closure that he seeks on this relationship. He's not even allowed to do such things as close out his boyfriends bank account.
 
  
Add Your Reply