Editorial cartoons are meant to evoke and provoke. They should have some spice. They should have impact. They also should measure up ethically. The
New York Post editorial cartoon published Feb. 18 depicting the authors of the federal financial stimulus bill as a chimpanzee fails the ethics standard.
The cartoonist, Sean Delonas, denies that he was targeting President Barack Obama and says he did not mean to imply that the nation's first African-American President is a monkey.
CNN reports:
Delonas, the cartoonist, said to CNN, "It's absolutely friggin ridiculous. Do you really think I'm saying Obama should be shot? I didn't see that in the cartoon. The chimpanzee was a major story in the Post. Every paper in New York, except The New York Times, covered the chimpanzee story. It's just ridiculous. It's about the economic stimulus bill. If you're going to make that about anybody, it would be [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, which it's not."
The New York Post defends running the cartoon as a parody of a current news event (the shooting of a chimpanzee that attacked and mauled a Connecticut woman). The cartoon's goal, according to a
Post spokeswoman, was mocking government officials in their financial rescue efforts.
Not only was this visual depiction and story line a bad idea (
the blending of the two totally unrelated news stories) and poorly executed, the cartoon was bound to have significant negative consequences. It is unfair, stereotypical and harmful to African Americans. The cartoonist and the
Post's editors have fought back from a defensive crouch. They should be much more reflective. They should reveal more about why they did what they did, what ethical values were guiding them, and how they made their decisions.
What ethical issues and standards did Sean Delonas consider as he conceived and drew this cartoon? Did he discuss it with anyone? Did he recognize his ethical obligations to specific stakeholders who could be harmed? Did
Post editors have internal discussions about this cartoon before it was published? Did they weigh their ethical duty to be fair? Did they weigh the ethical obligation to be accurate? Did they consider the consequences, the potential for harm that could occur if they published this cartoon?
The
Post and Delonas may have evoked emotion and provoked response with the chimpanzee cartoon. But I'm seeing no evidence they had a justifiable ethical decision-making process or that they applied core ethical values to their actions.
The only problem with your "analysis," Bob, is that the...
