Jump to content
The World News Media

El periódico de la caricatura de Serena Williams reavivó la polémica en su nueva portada


Raquel Segovia

Recommended Posts

  • Member

El periódico Herald Sun reimprimió el controvertido dibujo de la tenista estadounidense en su portada de este miércoles

La caricatura de Serena Williams hecha por un periódico australiano que ha causado polémica

La caricatura de Serena Williams hecha por un periódico australiano que ha causado polémica

La caricatura de Serena Williams, que ha sido muy criticada por quienes consideraron que era un representación racista del tenista estadounidense, ha sido reproducida nuevamente en la portada del periódico de Melbourne que la publicó inicialmente. Luego de la polémica, el Herald Sun volvió a usar el dibujo junto a otras ilustraciones del mismo tono en su portada.

El periódico usó una parte editada de la caricatura de la ganadora de 23 títulos de Grand Slam saltando sobre una raqueta rota durante su disputa con un juez de silla en la final del US Open y la colocó en su tapa junto a otros dibujos similares de personas famosas como Donald Trump o Kim Jong-un.

El periódico ha defendido a su caricaturista Mark Knight y afirma que los reclamos, que les han llovido de todas partes del mundo, son impulsados por la corrección política. "Si los censuradores autoproclamados de Mark Knight se salen con la suya con la historieta de Serena Williams, nuestra nueva vida políticamente correcta será muy aburrida", escribió el periódico en su primera plana.

En declaraciones a News Corp., Knight dijo que creó la caricatura después de ver el "berrinche" de Williams durante su derrota final ante Naomi Osaka y que fue diseñada para ilustrar "su mal comportamiento en ese día, no en su carrera."

Los críticos de la caricatura de Knight lo describieron como un claro ejemplo de un estereotipo que enfrentan las mujeres negras, representando a Williams como una mujer negra furiosa, descomunal y boquiabierta, saltando de un lado a otro sobre una raqueta rota.

En una publicación en las redes sociales, Peter Blunden, director general de las operaciones de News Corp en el estado de Victoria, defendió al caricaturista: "El mejor dibujante de Australia, Mark Knight, cuenta con el apoyo más fuerte de sus colegas por su descripción de Serena Williams. Se trata sobre su mal comportamiento, no sobre su raza."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 353
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,410

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.