Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

chappatte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#31

Post by kristianc »

> "We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow. This requires immediate counter-measures by publishers, leaving no room for ponderation or meaningful discussions. Twitter is a place for furor, not debate. The most outraged voices tend to define the conversation, and the angry crowd follows in."

It's strange, and perhaps unfortunate, that having pinned the blame on "Twitter Mobs", the examples he chooses to give are where cartoonists have been silenced by autocratic regimes (Turkey, Venezuela, Russia). The solution in these cases is to push back and defend press freedom, not to cave in and blame faceless social media mobs.

And when it comes to 'social media' mobs, is anyone really going to come into bat for the NYT and claim that the below is not really anti-semitic or homophobic? If you need to lean on anti-Semitic or homophobic tropes let me suggest you're not as funny, incisive or subversive as you think you are. Comparing yourself to CH in such circumstances is to claim a martrydom you don't really deserve [1] [2]

[1] https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/new-york-times-antisemi...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-york-times-trump...

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#32

Post by 781 »

praneshp wrote: post #18
hestefisk wrote: post #12

This reminds me of the famous Muhammad drawings in 2005 in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP). Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East. Had it happened again today, the Puritan twittersphere would have been all over it and JP would likely have had to follow same route as NYT. Very sad.

> Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East Was this an universal viewpoint in the West? As a non-Muslim teen in India I saw it as mocking Islam (I get that others' mileage varies).

Mocking is still legal in the West. But not for long. Mocking anything but white men/Christianity creates huge uproar today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/09/1...

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#33

Post by youeseh »

colechristensen wrote: post #11
dlivingston wrote: post #7

"We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow. This requires immediate counter-measures by publishers, leaving no room for ponderation or meaningful discussions. Twitter is a place for furor, not debate. The most outraged voices tend to define the conversation, and the angry crowd follows in." This is a significant problem, not ju…

>the latest flavor of puritanical outrage For some time I have been searching for ways to express how the worst characteristics of religion people give for leaving persist widely with nonbelievers. This expresses it nicely.

Oh man, I think what you're trying to say is: You're trying to figure out how the worst characteristics of religious people also exist in nonbelievers. Is that right?

There will always be people who have varying amounts of commitment to their inherited and / or adopted value systems.

For example: I'm pretty gung ho about surfing. I'm all for property rights but turning beaches into private property... well now, shut the front door!

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#34

Post by eanzenberg »

jdoliner wrote: post #30
cm2187 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the said newsrooms are more often than not the ones that amplify and give a legitimacy to these mobs by printing their reactions as if it was somehow the reaction of the people. The NY Times itself actively participated in many of these lynchings, like the Covington kids. To me it looks more like a newsroom that likes playing with fire, got burned itself, and decides to cut its exposure so it can keep pla…

This is how I see it too, things like the Covington kids create a backlash against the newsrooms that promulgate them. And NYT gave them too perfect of an opportunity when they published a remake of a Nazi propaganda comic that could easily be portrayed as antisemitic.

Correctness literally doesn't matter in the realm of politics. Only, who is the loudest and most persuasive.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#35

Post by number_six »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #27

I think this piece is a great example of smug, establishment romanticism which grossly overvalues form over function. A political cartoon hasn't made me laugh, think deeply, or--most importantly--change my worldview in years. It's the most self-satisfied, pretentious, and outdated medium I know of. The author's notion that the loss of political cartoons is a serious loss of visual political culture is a self-absorbed…

I would recommend Bruce McKinnon - he's great https://www.artizans.com/browse.htm?artist=2

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#36

Post by hybrids »

This seems less like a case the "oh, the PC Police want to do away with political humor!" and more just shifting tides in media - i.e. that the conventional newspaper political cartoon is a form trending towards obsolescence. Political comedy is very much alive, at least in terms of its popularity and range across the political spectrum, attracting from the far left (e.g. Chapo Trap House) to liberals (e.g. most late night hosts) to all your various forms of conservatives (e.g. Crowder). To me the "political cartoon" as we once knew it seems like a dated formula, one that might be argued has already been replaced by the format of internet memes which can serve similar political function.

(Also personally I have never really cared for political cartoons, they've always seemed unfunny and too reductionist. Although I suppose the Stan Kelly Cartoons from The Onion might be an exception.)

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#37

Post by jeremyjh »

benj111 wrote: post #17
mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #8

Here's an article over the cartoon mentioned here that sparked outrage in April which led to this: https://nypost.com/2019/04/28/new-york-times-condemned-for-a...

Is it actually anti Semitic to portray a (Jewish) head of state as a (guide) dog? I'm going by the description here, rather than the actual imagery, but as described it doesn't seem to me to anti Semitic.

I haven't see the cartoon, but the link above describes it as "Netanyahu as a guide dog leading a blind President Trump in a skullcap."

If you want to make a statement that the US blindly supports Israel, that is not in itself anti-Semitic. But why put Trump in a skullcap?

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#38

Post by naasking »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #15
gfodor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist. You can, in fact, log out of Twitter and never log back in again. Most of the time doing so will have zero long term n…

> It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist. If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business. So if you just choose t…

> If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business.

But does it cause a drop seems like the pertinent question. New media isn't like the old media where bad press was big deal. Maybe it's just not anymore for exactly these reasons.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#39

Post by Bakary »

cm2187 wrote: post #29
praneshp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East Was this an universal viewpoint in the West? As a non-Muslim teen in India I saw it as mocking Islam (I get that others' mileage varies).

In the case of Charlie Hebdo the intention was clearly to mock Islam indeed. But I am mystified that we are questioning in 2019 the right to blasphemy in a modern, western, free, secular society.

If publishing a cartoon causes your death I think the mockery may well have been legitimate.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#40

Post by diydsp »

benj111 wrote: post #17
mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #8

Here's an article over the cartoon mentioned here that sparked outrage in April which led to this: https://nypost.com/2019/04/28/new-york-times-condemned-for-a...

Is it actually anti Semitic to portray a (Jewish) head of state as a (guide) dog? I'm going by the description here, rather than the actual imagery, but as described it doesn't seem to me to anti Semitic.

No. Antizionism, anti-Israel, etc is not Anti-Semitic. Israel is a politic nation-state, subject to critique just like Zimbabwe or Australia. It's not equivalent to the culture, race or religion of Judaism. Many Jews disagree with the Israeli government's actions.

But don't just take my word for it. This has been a long-debated topic. take a look at both sides: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antizionim+is+not+antisemitic&t=ff...

Post reply on HN