Post editor-in-chief Col Allan released a statement defending Sean Delonas' New York Post cartoon: "The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy."
My take; If the policemen had been labeled, such as "Republican House" and "Republican Senate", and the chimp labeled "Stimulus" or "Stimulus Author" or somesuch, indicating that the Republicans had "shot down" the stimulus bill (which they haven't, BTW), or put a wig on the chimp (since Nancy Pelosi was the primary author of the stimulus bill), or, if they had shown the policemen shooting a group of chimps at keyboards (the classic "infinite chimps with typewriters" scenario), then Col's statement might (repeat, MIGHT) have some validity!
As it is, I believe Col's statement just reveals his lack of ability in judging and editing both content and intent in editorial matter.
Keep in mind: Freedom of speech is cool! Freedom of speech is important! Just make sure when you say something, you're coherent! This cartoon is NOT clear as to it's intent or purpose, and thus fails as an editorial statement!
Look at the work of the editorial cartoon greats: Nast, Herblock, Maudlin...they ALWAYS got their points across, cleanly and effectively! You may not have agreed with them, but you KNEW what they were saying!
