ive had a bellyfull cartoon in the times

[Tortington]

have you seen this

didn['t buy the times (obv) so have no context,...is this really as it appears?

if so

sick fuckers

[Tortington]

well well?

[Tortington]

welly

[Tortington]

christ on a bike

[Tortington]

well fuck me i give up

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Yes, the famine has not received the coverage it would have done otherwise, but - hard not to see a Murdoch rag as spinning to its master's desires.

I also love the way they try to plead that the BBC is being gleeful over the matter as they are competitors; so the BBC is putting them in the worst possible light. Yeah, right.

[LemonDifficult]

Euuurgh. tasteless.

But punchy.

[2shoes]

fcucking hell that is sick

[CheeseandGherkins]

Awful

[lawnimp]

but it hasn't received the coverage it should have, don't really see why it's sick

[Tortington]

well thats the question, becuase i haven't seen it in any context - if it isn't sick, what can theypossibly be trying to say>

[Tortington]

.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

It's not 'sick'. It's black humour, certainly, and it's not subtle. But the point of the cartoon is that while everyone is diverted on the phone hacking scandal, thousands are dying. Which is valid.

[TheRealMBJ]

Yes, but as noted in the commentary the aid amopunt given to Somalia has tripled this year. Ok'd by the same parliament that is now investigating the phone hacking scandal.

There should be more coverage if the famine in Africa, yes. But the NI/Murdoch saga is not an invalid issue either.

It is not as if the drought and famine coverage is being eclipsed be a new season od Big Brother.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

David Bull, executive director of UNICEF, worded their advert that appeared this week as follows.....

"I am writing for your support in moving the news agenda on. The story about phone hacking does matter, but there?s another, far bigger and vital story that?s going unreported.?

Yes, they are both important stories, but clearly UNICEF believes that one is eclipsing the other disproportionately.

[claig]

I think it is sick, because I think it is using starving people and "belly full" as a means of trying to deflect attention from the phone hacking scandal. It is belittling the plight of starving people by using a term like "belly full" and it is doing it for its own interests. I think it is insincere and even the use of the word 'belly' is offensive and belittles the suffering.

[Tortington]

i found this comment interesting "Instead, the Rude Pundit would respond with "I've had a bellyful of white assholes using images of hungry black people to manipulate public opinion, as if implying that those black people are being ignored when, in fact, the British government, with the approval of those very members of Parliament who are on the attack over the phone-hacking scandal, has tripled the amount of aid it has sent to Somalia just this year, even if much more needs to be done, while the white assholes at Murdoch's media outlets say that the money is going to pirates and terrorists and should be cut off, so probably cartoonists like Peter Brookes should go fuck themselves with their smug little poison pencils until they stab their prostates with the tip." Or, in other words, it's possible to take care of two things at once. The scandal can bring down Murdoch and the Prime Minister while the British government tries to help the starving."

especially the last sentence

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I think someone's guilty of taking a cartoon way, way too seriously....

[BuckBuckMcFate]

I'm glad you put this on here custardo, I've been trying to do a link but couldn't work out how to do it from my phone.

I think this cartoon is vile. Yes, there has not been sufficient cover of the situation in Somalia but to make a joke regarding bellyful is just horrid.

And using the images of dying children to express boredom of the Murdoch saga really sickens me.

[Tortington]

way to wrap it up cognito yes thats what it is

[WhereYouLeftIt]

But Cogito, political cartoons are meant to be taken seriously, they're not 'Peanuts' or 'Andy Capp'. They are not meant to be funny, they are meant to make a point. It is political commentary in picture form, and has been for centuries. (Spot the James Gillray fan.)

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

So it makes a serious point but it's still just a cartoon. If it offends anyone, don't buy the newspaper or complain to the editor. To come here swearing and ranting seems a rather OTT (not to say misdirected) reaction. I also suspect it's part of the more general self-righteous anti-Murdoch mass hysteria we're all meant to be part of at the moment.

[WhereYouLeftIt]

A picture is worth a thousand words. A political cartoon of this type is the equivalent of a half-page column by e.g. Andrew Marr or Dominic Lawson. So, it's the equivalent of a (Murdoch-owned) Times columnist writing a lengthy piece saying everyone is being unreasonable to scrutinize the illegal activities of another Murdoch-owned paper, look look over there instead. Had it been in any other newspaper, that would not be the case, but in a Murdoch-owned paper it looks particularly self-serving and so appears disrespectful to the people suffering famine. That is offensive to many, I would presume.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

It is not the equivalent of a half-page column, it's a wry one-liner. But, since rationality has completely gone out of the window where anything remotely Murdoch-related is concerned at the moment, I'm sure some will spin it up into anything they want. Why don't we just have done and put out a fatwa on the cartoonist.... ?

[Tortington]

well that's ridiculous, a fatwa?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

You don't remember the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed? Some people took those a little too seriously as well.....