Rupert, You Poor Son Of A Bitch

I can buy the idea that the original intent of this idea was to simply mock the stimulus bill and that the guy who drew it didn't intend for it to be a thinly veiled racist statement. But how many people saw this thing before it hit the fucking paper? Because when I say that it's a "thinly veiled" statement, that's the understatement of the year. Is there no one in the editing room at the Post who was thinking about this offending people?



And I have to admit, the intent of this cartoon was originally lost on me. I had to think for a moment why someone was shooting monkeys in the street before remembering about the chimp that went crazy. For me that made it simply a racist type statement with absolutely no irony whatsoever. What bothers me most is that this just lends another forum to Al Sharpton to get up and grandstand with his bad hair weave.

Here's an apology from Rupert himself printed in the Post yesterday:

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.

The notion that the Post holds its readers in high regard is pretty funny to me. And why did it take a couple of days of discussion to understand why this might offend people? And I like how the apology still mocks the legislation, thus implicitly endorsing the cartoon.