Norm, (7/15/2008 3:49:16 AM)

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs - the one that yelps is probably the one that got hit.....

Democrat, (7/15/2008 6:38:20 AM)

"Even the McCain camp agrees." That puts it in proper perspective. This piece of satire missed its mark. Perhaps the cartoonist should take a lesson from Bruce Plante. His cartoon of Obama as Evel Knievel is a much better example of satire to praise a candidate and to ridicule his unfair attackers.

The Neanderthals are high-fiving and fist bumping and saying "See, I told you" over this "tribute" to Obama.

tulsan09, Tulsa (7/15/2008 12:34:59 PM)

While I agree that the cover was satire, the problem lies with the American public who do not appear able to distinguish between satire and reality or between fact and fiction. Consequently, satirical images become reality. This is proven by the fact that so many Americans get their news from CNN and FOX news, neither of which present both sides of an issue fairly or honestly.

tulsan09, Tulsa (7/15/2008 12:37:38 PM)

By the way FISH, we don't need your "murdering Muslim enemies," there are plenty of murdering Christian enemies of this country already here.

Graychin, Eucha (7/15/2008 12:52:11 PM)

Would it be "satire" if a cartoon depicted John McCain "wet-starting" his jet aboard the USS Forrestal and causing the 1967 fire that killed 132 crew members? Or McCain crashing four planes before the one in which he was shot down over North Vietnam? Or McCain enthusiastically chasing skirts after his return to the US, before ditching his wife and kids to marry the younger, prettier, and richer Cindy?

No, not satire. Swiftboating. It all depends on whose ox is being gored. Right?

Daddo, (7/15/2008 1:01:12 PM)

Congratulations, 09, you just did precisely what Fox is praying you'd do, take their very real and blatant bias, the mythological and hilariously false "liberal bias" of CNN, and pretend they're the same. In fact, the problems of CNN have to do with bombast and too much Hollywood instead of journalistic reporting. But the idea that they "don't present both sides" is assinine, as is the idea that every story has "two sides", each equally true. Sometimes, the news is the news, and when the truth is negative for Republicans, they just blame the messenger and continue this silly "liberal media" myth started (as he's admitted) decades ago by Pat Buchanan to cover the corruption of his then-boss, Spiro Agnew.

One can do better than CNN, with NPR and decent newspapers, there's little need to get news from TV at all, but comparing CNN with the problems of today's press seen too clearly but still basically sound reporting with the right-wing bias of Fox is just wrong.

Graychin, Eucha (7/15/2008 4:36:11 PM)

Alden:

I've never read a Kenyan newspaper. And neither have you.

CycleDog, (7/15/2008 6:27:28 PM)

Soooo, let me ask this of the Tulsa World staff. If one of you posted a satirical cartoon making fun of a co-worker, say, an Arabic co-worker, and you lampooned him as a terrorist, would you get to keep your job? If you used an old Nazi-era propaganda poster of a Jew, do you seriously expect it would simply be regarded as a joke? If you satirized a co-worker as Little Black Sambo, what do you think would result?

If you can't see the offensive nature in this, your character has some truly serious ethical blind spots.

So, for the sake of argument, what is the World's human relations department take on the above?

Norm, (7/15/2008 8:21:48 PM)

Graychin and Politico are both wrong - as any Navy man who has been through shipboard firefighting training can tell you.

The missle was misfired from another aircraft - and hit both McCain's aircraft and the one next to him. The problem was caused by older - less stable munitions being used in place of the short supply "new" ones.

As for the loss of life - most of it was caused by a total breakdown in firefighting onboard. The DCmen put down foam to suppress the aircraft fuel that was burning. The other sailors - who were just trained to fight "fires", not necessarily flight deck fires - put down water. When the water ran across the deck - the aircraft fuel and foam floated on top of it - spreading it across the deck - spreading the fire, and washing the foam overboard.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good slander story.

Norm, (7/15/2008 9:29:17 PM)

Sorry Politico - now that re-read your post, I get what you were saying. Too many hours awake - too little caffeine......

Graychin, Eucha (7/15/2008 10:58:48 PM)

Politico and Norm:

I know that McCain's aircraft didn't start the Forrestal fire. I assumed that everyone who knows that McCain was on the Forrestal knows it too. The point of my example was that a cartoon about McCain's aircraft starting the Forrestal fire (an untrue premise) would not be considered "satire" - by anyone! It would be "swiftboating."

Obviously I should have used a different example: How about a cartoon showing McCain answering that 3 AM phone call - in his room at the "old folks" home? Or a cartoon of him in the oval office with a portrait of Charles Keating hanging over the fireplace? Or a cartoon of him talking into a computer mouse, thinking it's a microphone - like Dilbert's boss? Would those be "satire," or bad taste? I vote for bad taste.

Why then is it satire when a cartoon shows Obama "dressed as a Muslim and his wife dressed as a terrorist with an automatic weapon slung over her shoulder. In the background was an American flag burning in the fireplace over which a portrait of Osama bin-Laden hangs."

There is a huge double standard at work here. It must be that librul media I hear so much about.

Daddo, (7/16/2008 9:43:38 AM)

Politico, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. In fact, independent studies show NPR and PBS to be the MOST balanced and LEAST biased of news sources, and the most dependable. The notion of a "liberal bias" at NPR was always malarky, and remains even more so today. Yes, there are voices from the left...and from the right. When you present news with the depth they do, you'll hear voices with whom you disagree.
The idea that they have a "liberal bias" is shown to be hogwash just again today, as they report on the Massachusetts gay marriage issue with long quotes from the hate group Family Research Council spouting their proven lies about how gay marriage will destroy our nation. When they cover a discussion of civil rights or affirmative action, can we look forward to a quote from the KKK? Some "liberal bias."

In fact the only news source that truly has a liberal bias is Pacifica, which is heard on some stations which also run NPR programming. Pacifica is to the left what Fox is to the right, if anything even a little MORE biased. And aside from hearing voices you almost NEVER hear anywhere else...while their opposing voices on the right are heard 24/7 on literally hundreds of radio stations across the country...there's little value to it and I really don't care much for Pacifica.

Perhaps you'd gotten the two confused...for only in the world of right wing propoganda and hate radio does NPR have some "liberal" bias.

I do agree that comparing it to CNN is a bit off the mark. CNN falls miles short of NPR when it comes to depth and quality. I said before, and will repeat...with NPR and a few decent newspapers, a person can be very well informed and not see one minute of news on television. PBS provides excellent reporting, but has all the style of paint drying.

Royce, Tulsa (7/16/2008 11:15:47 AM)

It's an undeniable fact that Barack Obama's candidacy has been endorsed by Ahmed Yousef, the political advisor to the terrorist group Hamas.

It's common knowledge that the aim of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. It is not at all likely that Hamas would endorse a candidate who was not sympathetic to their aims, or at least neutral toward them.

With this in mind, it's just possible that there is more truth to the "satirical" cover of the New Yorker magazine than the Obama campaign and their surrogates would care to admit.

Norm, (7/16/2008 2:06:04 PM)

Graychin - so you think making light of something that caused the deaths of 134 sailors is equivalent to a caricature of a presidential candidate?

Daddo, (7/17/2008 9:55:10 AM)

Royce--
"It's an undeniable fact that Barack Obama's candidacy has been endorsed by Ahmed Yousef, the political advisor to the terrorist group Hamas."

Which is about as relevent as the fact that most KKK leaders have endorsed McCain. McCain isn't affiliated with the Klan, and Obama isn't affiliated with Hamas.
"It's common knowledge that the aim of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. It is not at all likely that Hamas would endorse a candidate who was not sympathetic to their aims, or at least neutral toward them."

Of course it is. They don't really care who wins, neither candidate will support their goals, but they do have gains, in the cheapest sort of underhanded way, in "endorsing" Obama.
Just as you have goals, in the cheapest sort of underhanded way, in pretending this "endorsement" implies any connection between the two.

"With this in mind, it's just possible that there is more truth to the "satirical" cover of the New Yorker magazine than the Obama campaign and their surrogates would care to admit."

No, not in the slightest. It merely repeats the most dispicable, sleazy, racist attacks from the radical right, and that it was intended to be humorous doesn't make it much less offensive at all. We get that it was a joke...it was a tasteless and stupid joke.

Daddo, (7/17/2008 10:15:46 AM)

"Daddo. Are you really serious about NPR?"

I absolutely am, but you don't need to just listen to me, although I do listen every day and can very clearly hear that the "liberal bias" allegations are untrue, and I have enough knowledge of the history of that myth to know WHY it exists. However, there are independent studies showing that the American people view NPR as the single most dependable and credible and LEAST biased of the major news sources.
"Try Lehrer, Washington Week, Moyers, and totally biased special reports."

First off, those are PBS, not NPR. If you can't tell the difference between radio and television, you pretending to be an expert on journalism and media is going to be a little hard to take seriously.
Secondly, Lehrer does not have a liberal bias at all, Washington Week leans to the right, Moyers is liberal but is NOT a news program but a commentary show and so, again, one points out that this makes one in comparison to hundreds and hundreds of radio stations spewing forth conservative propoganda every single day with no balance or opposing views. The "special reports" being totally biased is laughable, since you cannot even give a single example much less tell us WHY they're "biased." You obviously were told by Rush or some other right wing propoganda master that public broadcasting is biased, so you parrot their lies obediently without a clue as to what they actually mean.

"Name some conservative shows."

I'm glad you asked, because the right attacking public broadcasting as "liberal" is not only based in a lie, it's an incredible example of a pathetic lack of appreciation. You should WORSHIP PBS, which was the birthplace of Rush, O'Reilly, and the rest of that sleazy cabal. For while Rush was still putting gum marks on his silver spoon, PBS gave us "Firing Line" with William Buckley, Jr. every week. This was a time with virtually NO conservative voices (or political opinion of any sort) in broadcasting. There would be no Rush, no Fox, no George Will, none of them without Buckley, who became a household name on PBS.
And that has continued to be the case. Wall Street Week is very conservative. Tucker Freakin' Carlson had a show on PBS. The Bush administration and conservatives in the legislature have made a political football of CPB (look it up, I doubt Mr. Media Expert knows what it even is) and they've been pushed into sucking up with more voices from the right.

The same is true on NPR, which consistantly has conservative voices in opinion pieces. One of the funniest things I ever saw, I dropped in one day on a friend who happened to work at an NPR station, and a listener called in to rail about the "liberal bias" on NPR. The station guy asked him "are you listening right now" and the guy wouldn't stop yammering. Finally the guy interrupted him and just yelled "Are you listening right this minute!" "Uh, no." "That's what I thought. Go turn on your radio, right now."

The station was in the middle of an 8 minute long opinion piece, as they aired every week, from David Frum.

Public radio's business reporting is, like most business reporting, quite conservative in it's slant with daily viewpoints from management and almost non-existant voices from labor. They've gotten a little better, and the "Marketplace" show they do (it's not NPR but most stations air both) has done a nice job of at least putting the business news into a "here's how it'll affect your family" perspective.

"Brooks is no more a conservative than you are."

I'm a moderate. Brooks is a conservative. What you think makes him "no more conservative" other than the fact that he's not usually in bed with the bigotry of the radical religious right I cannot figure.

"The network has been left wing since inception."

The lie that it's "left wing" has been around since it's beginning, it was never true and is less so now than ever before.

You guys obviously think the ideal is to have ALL Media be like Rush Limbaugh, or Fox. You don't WANT facts presented in an honest and unbiased fashion, and you don't e

Daddo, (7/17/2008 10:16:40 AM)

You don't WANT facts presented in an honest and unbiased fashion, and you don't even want there to be conservative, moderate and liberal voices heard. You want ONLY right wing propoganda, to be patted on the back for your being so conservative no matter how wrong you might be on so many things.

"Besides, it is so pretentious, smug and condescending that any thinking person could see it for what it is."

"Thinking person" once again meaning "a person who thinks exactly the way I do, no matter how much evidence that I'm full of beans there may be."

Pretentious? Because they don't have people screaming at each other and treat the viewer as having the education of at least a high school child? Hardly. A bit on the dry side? Absolutely. I for one appreciate having my intelligence respected while everything else on TV seems to insult it constantly.

By the way, isn't it interesting that the record of them STILL not having given us a single example of a NEWS story presented with a "liberal" bias stands firm?

Laffy, (7/17/2008 5:13:03 PM)

I completely agree that the Obama campaign has over-reacted to the cartoon........though I understand why.

However, what about the McCain campaign jumping off the deep end over Clark's statement?

He didn't denigrate his military service at all and yet, they acted like he called him a kiddie rapist and DEMANDED he "apologize to everyone in the military."

Give me a freaking break.

I saw today that the McCain campaign is crying that the media is Obama-biased.

That's the biggest joke I've ever heard.

McCain has been getting a free pass on almost everything.

Royce, Tulsa (7/17/2008 5:23:17 PM)

Daddo

"Which is about as relevant as the 'fact' that most KKK leaders have endorsed McCain."

I haven't heard of any KKKer, leader or otherwise, who has endorsed McCain. Indeed to my knowledge the only KKKer who has expressed any opinion on the upcoming election is Senator Harry Byrd of West Virginia. He has not only endorsed Obama's candidacy, but he's a superdelegate who has pledged to cast his vote for Obama's nomination. Moreover, he will undoubted campaign for Obama in the fall.

Please cite an authority to substantiate this 'fact', which you assert, most KKK leaders have endorsed McCain. The KKK is solidly Democrat, indeed it was founded by Democrats.

I'm inclined to think that Hamas endorsed Obama for the same reason that Byrd did. They're convinced that Obama will advance their interests in the Middle East. Which, in my view, makes it highly relevant.

Democrat, (7/23/2008 7:20:25 PM)

Alden wants everyone to forget the birth certificate issue because Alden foolishly questioned the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate because it said "Certificate of Live Birth" and not "Birth Certificate."

Nice try, Alden. But we are not going to forget it.

Obama is pro-choice on abortion and McCain is pro-life. This will probably help Obama win over the Hillary supporters by November.

Obama is for restoring the taxes that were cut for the rich in 2001. McCain voted against that tax cut, but has characteristically flip-flopped and now wants to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent. Obama prefers to cut the budget deficit.

Odinga is a Kenyan who claims to be related to Obama. No issue here except in the right-wing blogosphere.

Rezko is a shady businessman with whom Obama had legitimate business dealings. Charles Keating was the head of a savings and loan who John McCain had unethical business dealings with for which he was disciplined.

How did I do? Do I win a prize?