The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:26 PM UTC

jmbi wrote: post #95

trehalose wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mocking white men/Christianity doesn't create huge uproar? Hasn't there been a huge uproar about a "War on Christmas" for years where people get mad when baristas say "happy holidays"? Hard to believe that something so innocuous could generate Christian outrage but mocking Christianity couldn't.

See the thousands of conversations on Twitter that end in "it's not possible to be racist against white people."

I've never seen a conversation where that was mentioned where it didn't involve a huge uproar specifically about that claim, so i think it does the opposite of proving your claim.

Sure, that idea exists, but it (and the parallel positions on gender, religious, etc., lines) is (and are) controversial even among far left social justice advocates, rather than being some uniformly accepted position within society.

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

#102

Post by jmbi » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:28 PM UTC

mevile wrote: post #23

Political cartoons are, in my opinion, reductionist garbage that fail to take into consideration nuance and complexity and context. The caricature that inflate the size of ears and chins and lips and noses is not dignifying and doesn't add any value to whatever argument is being made, and can sometimes even be racist. There's no rebuttal to a political cartoon, there's no dialogue. They're cheap and easy to make and…

> Political cartoons are, in my opinion, reductionist garbage that fail to take into consideration nuance and complexity and context.

Ironically, so are most news publications today, fueled by blue check journalists living in the same three cities...

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

#103

Post by Rebelgecko » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

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 Jews are people that profess to follow other religions while secretly being Jewish.

Clearly there's a range of personal beliefs on this topic, but in my eyes a cartoon saying that Israel has undue influence on the US is A-OK. Even if you don't agree with the cartoon's premise, there's a reasonable debate that can be had.

A cartoon saying that the Jews have an undue influence on the US is where things get yucky.

The inclusion of apolitical religious symbols instead of national or even Zionist ones is what leads me to think that the cartoon is referring to the latter scenario. I don't think doing things like including the Star of David or using a dog as a caricature are inherently anti-Semetic, it just displays a lack of awareness or sensitivity to how those images have been used in the past. But using them in conjunction with the yarmulke leads me to think the cartoon is trying to say that Trump has somehow been infected by the virality of Jewishness, not just by Israeli interests as some of the defenders of the cartoon are saying.

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

#104

Post by njharman » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:33 PM UTC

nerpderp82 wrote: post #45

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...

Can someone explain how the cartoon is antisemetic? Calling it such doesn't make it so. If I blend Putin into a Cassowary crossed with a Peacock would it not be apropos? Cartoons are supposed to be edgy and uncomfortable. It looks like like the NYT succumbed to the mob whipped up by the Trump administration, it meerly doesn't want the criticism.

Anything that does not praise Israel is antisemetic. More accurately such will be labeled as antisemetic by various special interest groups to further their own agendas and occasionally get picked up and amplified by the rage mob.

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

#105

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:45 PM UTC

hybrids wrote: post #100

enraged_camel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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?

Putting giant labels on top of everything and making grotesque caricatures of political figures is not what I would call subtle

Yeah, those are not very good

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

#106

Post by humanrebar » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:59 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #83

stickfigure wrote: post #74

The actual cartoon, in case anyone (like me) is missing context: https://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-times-deeply-sorry-for-anti...

Thanks! Overall, this seems fairly tame to me. What am I missing? I'm honestly at a loss here.

It plays into a lot of anti-Semitic tropes. Imagine a cartoon of a black leader depicting him as a dumb violent ape with big lips.

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

#107

Post by icebraining » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

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…

> 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

Yes, an Israeli: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-that-netanyahu-cart...

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

#108

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

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.

Years ago I thought of a poke at anti-evolution types. If you religion falls apart because it turns out men evolved from monkeys then your religion is pretty flimsy.

Probably can say the same about blasphemy.

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

#109

Post by icebraining » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 12:26 AM UTC

Rebelgecko wrote: post #64

nerpderp82 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain how the cartoon is antisemetic? Calling it such doesn't make it so. If I blend Putin into a Cassowary crossed with a Peacock would it not be apropos? Cartoons are supposed to be edgy and uncomfortable. It looks like like the NYT succumbed to the mob whipped up by the Trump administration, it meerly doesn't want the criticism.

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.

Trump did wear one, when he became the first US president to visit the Western Wall: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-becomes-the-first-s...

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

#110

Post by Fjolsvith » Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 1:01 AM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #87

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'. Politicia…

> 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.

And yet, that's what you must do. If you rely on spoon-fed cruft, you will be at the mercy of those who hold the end of your nose ring rope, and not even know it.