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

81–90 of 196 posts

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

#81

Post by dbcurtis »

ikeyany wrote: post #76
Rebelgecko wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Showing a non-Jewish world leader in a yarmulke put it a bit over the top for me. I think the star of David was fair game because it's a symbol of Israel as a country, but depicting Trump as some sort of crypto-Jew felt like imagery you'd see in Nazi propaganda or an illustrated version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The idea is that Trump is working for Israel. What in the world is a crypto-Jew? Does it use a blockchain?

> What in the world is a crypto-Jew?

LMGTFY:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism

Staying out of sight to stay alive, basically.

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

#82

Post by NE2z2T9qi »

enraged_camel wrote: post #47
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 It's the most self-satisfied, pretentious, and outdated medium I know of.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…

>>A political cartoon hasn't made me laugh or think deeply in years. This probably says more about you than about political cartoons as a medium. Is it possible that you have become so used to over-the-top memes and shallow animated shows with instant-gratification "satire" that you have lost the ability (and/or patience) to pause and ponder the subtler, many-layered messages underneath traditional cartoons?

Yes, it must be the subtlety and witty nuance that throws me off. https://www.chappatte.com/en/images/trump-overdose/

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

#84

Post by Bakary »

enraged_camel wrote: post #47
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 It's the most self-satisfied, pretentious, and outdated medium I know of.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…

>>A political cartoon hasn't made me laugh or think deeply in years. This probably says more about you than about political cartoons as a medium. Is it possible that you have become so used to over-the-top memes and shallow animated shows with instant-gratification "satire" that you have lost the ability (and/or patience) to pause and ponder the subtler, many-layered messages underneath traditional cartoons?

The traditional cartoons aren't subtler and multi-layered though for the most part. The commentary usually defaults to some tautogical theme along the lines of "wouldn't it better if world had more of peace or some other good quality and less of war or some other bad quality".

It's then interspersed with some self-referential pieces about their own profession where characters have pencils replacing weapons or whichever object you'd expect instead. They all too often have to label the elements in the picture to make it comprehensible, which ruins its impact.

Some of the funniest cartoons tend instead to have a cynical or absurdist take on things, which is not too far off from a high-quality meme.

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

#85

Post by ikeyany »

dbcurtis wrote: post #81
ikeyany wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that Trump is working for Israel. What in the world is a crypto-Jew? Does it use a blockchain?

> What in the world is a crypto-Jew? LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism Staying out of sight to stay alive, basically.

Oh...I don't think anyone relevant seriously thinks he's a crypto-Jew. People just think he's spineless and is easily manipulatable by Putin/Kim/Netanyahu.

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

#86

Post by Bakary »

starik36 wrote: post #2

The decision to no longer have political cartoons reminds me of something from earlier days. Someone at the multinational I worked at did a prod a deployment and it went pretty badly. There was downtime of about 15-20 minutes. So immediately an edict comes from up high - we shall never have deployment during hours of x to y. Just massive CYA. The guy isn't wrong about twitter mobs mowing down everything in their path…

I don't think people can be blamed for only having an interest in things when affected by it. There's only so much time and energy available to each of us.

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

#87

Post by sonnyblarney »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #41
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…

If anything, that's the thing I hate most about Twitter. A journalist who wants to write a story with a particular angle can easily find tons of supporting viewpoints on Twitter, and usually at least a few of these are somewhat clever or snarky. So the journalist writes the article and then uses these examples from Twitter to show that "the masses" agree, or are equally outraged as the author. Since when do we start…

This might be the worst trick used by media outlets to portend there's a 'movement afoot' or 'what most people' think when neither are true.

"People are saying XYZ" - because some random person on Twitter said it.

"People believe this" - again, some random Tweet in support.

They're creating narrative, which is definitely the opposite of news, and it's way beyond 'Editorial' i.e. 'the opinion of the author'.

Politicians do this, and the 'politician in Chief' does this in I think some nefarious ways, but that shouldn't give cover for ostensibly respectable outlets to do the same.

Almost all of the major voices in the press are guilty of this.

The wierdest pardox of the 'Fake News' line (which is usually used in a very cynical, nefarious way to shut down real news) ... is that there is actually a lot of 'Fake News' being created.

I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism, and of having to look up references and facts because I don't quite trust ostensibly trustworthy people.

I read the news these days not for 'news', but rather to see where various groups are trying to 'focus the narrative', which is really cynical.

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

#88

Post by OJFord »

ikeyany wrote: post #76
Rebelgecko wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Showing a non-Jewish world leader in a yarmulke put it a bit over the top for me. I think the star of David was fair game because it's a symbol of Israel as a country, but depicting Trump as some sort of crypto-Jew felt like imagery you'd see in Nazi propaganda or an illustrated version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The idea is that Trump is working for Israel. What in the world is a crypto-Jew? Does it use a blockchain?

'Crypto' as a prefix means that is done in secret.

Wikipedia lists some common ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Crypto

It's like neo- (new) or proto- (earliest form of).

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

#89

Post by programmarchy »

praneshp wrote: post #71
cm2187 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To clarify, I'm not questioning the right to blasphemy. I just wanted to see how it was perceived in the West. Although, having lived in the West for the better part of a decade, I don't see what progress we have made as society that you are so confident that right to blasphemy is no big deal. I am not saying we live in medieval England, but speech with zero consequence is not a thing yet.

And who decides what is blasphemy?

Furthermore, what progress have non-Western societies made to be confident in the right to determine what is blasphemous, and then to murder so-called blasphemers?

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

#90

Post by legostormtroopr »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #57
kristianc wrote: post #31

> "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 unfortuna…

> https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/new-york-times-antisemi... Criticising Israel and pro-Israel policy != antisemitism > https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-york-times-trump... I don't see how it's homophobic. The cartoon portrays Trump and Putin as lovers, supposedly to mock their alleged closeness. It doesn't attack homosexual people. If the cartoon were portraying e.g. Merkel and Putin, in similar role…

> The cartoon portrays Trump and Putin as lovers, supposedly to mock their alleged closeness. It doesn't attack homosexual people.

It does attack homosexual people. You can't use "gay" as a slur or as a punchline to a joke anymore. The punchline of the joke isn't "they're close", its "they're so close they're gay".

That makes "being gay" an active of derision or humour, which is an attack on gay people.

Post reply on HN