A Crass Cartoon, Al Sharpton, and the Imaginary Idea of Objective Journalism

Yesterday, craving a selection of cheap, dollar menu items, I walked into a McDonald’s on W. 4th Street with the New York Post tucked under my arm. As I made my way to the counter, the cashier mellifluously berated me for buying the Post.

Her gentle fervor and distaste for my favorite tabloid rag was a recent revelation, and a byproduct of the above cartoon. By this point, most of you have probably seen this questionable attempt at political commentary. For those of you that haven’t, take a long hard look. The drawing, from famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, is rife with violent imagery and racial undertones. In it, two befuddled-looking police officers holding guns look over the dead and bleeding chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Stamford, Connecticut.

The debate that has raged over the last two days, accuses the Post of publishing a cartoon that likens President Barack Obama to an unruly chimp. Al Sharpton, opportunist that he is, immediately jumped to action – organizing a protest and boycott of the Ruppert Murdoch owned paper.

While I whole-heartedly agree and support the cause, I wish someone else would seize the reins. I can’t take anymore of Reverend Al. It just seems like he’s always looking for an excuse to get on camera. Already, this debate has become more about his relationship with the Post, than about the detestable cartoon they published. Weezy once said that Sharpton “gets off on getting on other people,” and I couldn’t agree more. Sharpton needs his name in the paper -- that’s how he stays relevant, and that’s how he makes money off of other people’s plights. Dude is just “another Don King with a perm” (thanks for the punchline Weezy F.).

As for the Post, the paper issued a qualified apology on its editorial page that read, "To those who were offended by the image, we apologize," but quickly attached an unspecified caveat. "However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback," the editorial continued. "To them, no apology is due." It was the sorriest excuse for a mea culpa I’ve ever read – the paper didn’t really acknowledge they were at fault.

I wasn’t shocked that the Post was so blasé about the whole thing. I mean, this is a paper that routinely lambastes accused criminals by referring to them as “Thugs,” “Pervs,” “Fiends,” or “Sickos.” While, in the end, these declarations might end up being true, they throw all notions of journalistic integrity and objectivity out the window. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Hunter S. Thompson once said that there’s no such thing as objective journalism because journalists are innately subjective. The Post doesn’t veil its feelings, unlike The New York Times, which is also highly subjective – just in a more subtle and cerebral fashion. While I may tend to agree with most of the stuff written in the Times, it doesn’t make it good journalism, just good writing.

In the end, my problem with both papers is that they claim objectivity, and that is a dangerous refrain. Without setting your biases on the table, as HST routinely did, you mislead readers into believing that everything you’re saying is 100-percent fact. Every journalist subconsciously brings his/her own preconceptions and values to a story. This is not a slight on journalism. These values are culturally engrained in us. The sooner we understand that, the better.

Shit, a lot of people have realized that, it’s one of the reasons blogs have become so popular.