When is a chimp not a chimp?

The flap over the Feb. 18 New York Post political cartoon by Sean Delonas is a strong argument for critical thought and pre-publication editorial review of images and implications of their associated meanings, both current and historical.

I can understand the Post's editor's insistence that the drawing was not meant to be racist and was intended to be commentary on two hot news issues. What I do not understand is how THAT particular illustration made it past the editors and copy editors in the first place given the manner in which the issues were juxtaposed.

History professor Jelani Cobb at Spelman College commented in a CNN.com article:

" 'When I looked at it, there was no getting around the implications of it," Cobb said. "Clearly anyone with an iota of sense knows the close association of black people and the primate imagery.' "


It may not have been intended to be racist, but it seems to demonstrate at least blatant ignorance.

In the same article:

"Cartoonist John Auchter of the Grand Rapids Business Journal in Michigan said Delonas had to expect people to be offended.

'The racial connotation of what he drew, it's really silly that either he or his editors couldn't anticipate that [reaction],' Auchter said. 'When I think about all the things that are thrown around here with the accusations of being racist ... that is one of the things as a cartoonist you have to be aware of -- what you're doing and that you know things are going to be taken that way. You are the first-line editor.' "

Both the chimpanzee attack story and criticism of the stimulus are newsworthy and are justifiable subjects for political cartoonists, but should have been (in my opinion) handled in separate frames.

It is said (I paraphrase), those who are ignorant of the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them. Let us grant that the cartoonist and none of the editors were somehow blind to ramifications of the associations and parallels drawn (no pun intended) in the picture. Still, the ensuing uproar resulting from its publication, definitely highlights the need for diversity in the newsroom, not merely in terms of the actual race or ethnicity of the personnel, but also in their cultural fluency.

As a copyeditor, I believe it is my duty to the reader to make sure that words or images do not convey inaccurate or unintended meanings, so I keep aware of the current and historical uses of terms, phrases and images, both in the U.S. and internationally, as well as their etymology and origins. I know I can't know everything, but I try. Fortunately for me, it's a pleasant task, since I'm all sorts of curious about other cultures, languages and idiomatic communications other than my own.

See also: Bob Steele's article and Keith Woods' article at the Poynter Institute's website