Thanks to Chris Lamb for
permission to post this excerpt from his upcoming book, Drawn
to Extremes: The Limits of Editorial Cartoons in the United States,
which will be published later this year by Columbia University
Press.
Does 'fair and balanced' mean an
end to editorial cartooning? By Chris Lamb
John Sherffius, the editorial cartoonist
of St. Louis Post-Dispatch, recently reSigned after a series
of disagreements with the newspaper's editor over his criticism
of President George W. Bush and the Republican Party. In one
of his last cartoons for the newspaper, Sherffius drew a Republican
elephant riding a pig representing pork-barrel projects. The
caption line read: "The party of fiscal discipline."
When the deputy editorial page editor asked
Sherffius why he didn't include a Democratic donkey in the drawing,
he replied that, according to newspaper accounts, Republican
projects were receiving most of the money. The explanation satisfied
the deputy editorial pages editor but not the newspaper's editor,
Ellen Soeteber, who told him he should either learn to take more
direction or look for work elsewhere, The New York Times reported
Monday, January 12.
Given such a choice, Sherffius quit, creating
yet another vacancy in a profession that has seen its numbers
fall alarmingly. Twenty-five years ago, there were about 150
editorial cartoonists working full-time for newspapers; now there
are perhaps half that many.
The state of the art is a result of both
the economics of the newspaper industry and of editors who have
little appreciation or understanding for political satire. Too
many editors want editorial cartoons to be like news stories
- fair and balanced. But that's not what editorial cartoons are
supposed to do. When Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau was
once criticized for being unfair, he responded that "criticizing
a political satirist for being unfair is like criticizing a 260-pound
nose guard for being too physical."
As the newspaper industry has declined in
both readership and influence, so, too have the journalistic
responsibilities of editors, who opt for publishing generic syndicated
cartoons over provocative, staff-drawn cartoons because they
are cheaper and generate fewer phone calls. Pulitzer Prize-winning
cartoonist Joel Pett, of the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader once
expressed the frustration of his beleaguered colleagues by telling
editors: "(Editorial cartooning) has a proud history of
treating readers to a unique mix of devastating humor, savage
ridicule, bitter irony, and chilling tragedy. And you people
are killing it."
Since the days that Harper's Weekly cartoonist
Thomas Nast helped destroy New York City's "Boss Tweed,"
editorial cartoonists have made a profound contribution to our
democracy by pointing out the naked truths of our emperors. The
Washington Post's Herbert Block, or Herblock as he Signed his
drawings, captured the excesses of the Red Scare by caricaturing
U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Herblock and Paul Conrad reduced Richard
Nixon to the diabolical politician he was.
Years before President Clinton was impeached
for his sexual behavior, Clay Bennett, then working for the St.
Petersburg Times, drew Clinton wearing a T-shirt that said: "I'm
With Stupid." Below it was an arrow pointing straight down.
(His newspaper did not publish the drawing). As the Bush Administration
has shamefully questioned the patriotism of its critics, a number
of editorial cartoonists nevertheless have had the courage to
raise legitimate questions about the administration's war in
Iraq.
Nothing is more patriotic than social criticism.
Editorial cartoons are as irreverent as the Boston Tea Party
and as American as the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment
doesn't exist so we can freely praise our elected officials,
it exists so we can freely criticize them - and editorial cartoonists
represent the most extreme form of criticism in the newspaper.
Newspapers who give their cartoonist the freedom to express their
own views, as free as possible from editorial restraint, reinforce
the provocative message that an uninhibited exchange of opinions
not only strengthens but maintains a democracy; in fact, it is
necessary for a democracy.
Twenty years ago, James Squires, who was
then the editor of the Chicago Tribune, wrote an op-ed piece
that said a single drawing by Jeff MacNelly, the newspaper's
Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist could cause him more
grief than all the words written by all his reporters in a year.
Nonetheless, he insisted he was committed to letting MacNelly
do his job as unrestrained and unfettered as possible.
Because MacNelly, Dick Locher, the newspaper's
other editorial cartoonist, and other talented cartoonists, Squires
said, "represent the most incisive and effective form of
commentary known to man and one as vital to the exercise of free
speech and open debate as any words that ever appeared on such
pages," Squires wrote. "To censor them would be a definite
disservice to art, and a probable danger to democracy."
But the Tribune's support for editorial cartooning
belongs to another time. For economic reasons, the newspaper
did not fill either the vacancy left by Locher's retirement nor
has it found a successor for MacNelly, who died in June 2000.
Instead of expressing provocative editorial cartoons on its editorial
pages, the newspaper now apologizes if its syndicated drawings
upset its readers.
Newspaper editors need to quit acting like
government bureaucrats and corporate accountants. If they begin
acting like guardians of the public trust, as they're intended
to do, they may find that their editorial pages give their readers
something to look forward to in the morning. They can do this
by hiring editorial cartoonists.
Editorial cartoonists, however, will continue
to be endangered species until publishers and editors believe
cartoonists are worth saving. And how do you do that? Joel Pett
said that newspapers could hire cartoonists without sacrificing
their bottom line. "If they take seriously the journalistic
side of their obligation," he said. "If they sign on
to the quaint but true notion that journalism ought to comfort
the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, there's no better
way to afflict the comfortable than with editorial cartoons."
Chris Lamb, Ph.D., an associate professor
of Communication at the College of Charleston, is the author
of Drawn to Extremes: The Limits of Editorial Cartoons in the
United States, which will be published later this year by Columbia
University Press. His e-mail is lambc@cofc.edu.
February 18, 2004
THAT BEASTLY CARTOON!
Oh, dear! As soon as he won the Locher Award as best College
Cartoonist of the Year, I put Josh Ferrin's most provocative
cartoon into the newsletter, and he's experiencing his first
barrage of hate mail. A comment from Josh follows the cartoon
below, along with a sampling from my mailbox, Josh's mailbox
and the Cagle Fray. If you would like to send more hate mail
to Josh, send it to him at joshferrin@mac.com.
Click here
to comment in the Cagle Fray. Click
here to see Josh's award winning cartoon portfolio.
The intent of my cartoon was
widely misunderstood. I was not attempting to equate bestiality
with gay marriage. Rather, to satirize the way that society is
continually accepting of ideas, even overtly so. But thanks to
all who filled my inbox with hate email, I have thoroughly enjoyed
your comments. --Josh
Subject: Gay Marriage = Bestiality From: TG Date: Feb 17 2004 11:26PM I'm deeply offended by today's newsletter comic, showing
the supposed similarity between same-sex unions and the marriage
of a man to a sheep. I understand wanting to post one of Josh
Ferrin's comics, since he won an award. Many of his drawing were
funny, much funnier then this. I cannot grasp how a marriage
of two consenting adults is similar to that of a man and an animal.
I understand gay marriage threatening the sanctity of heterosexual
marriages. I don't agree, but I understand it. I just can't comprehend
how it's the same as marrying an animal.
I realize political commentary
is essential to democracy, but I don't believe that likening
homosexuals to humans that would have intercourse with animals
falls into that category. I'm sure there's another way to make
a comic against same-sex marriage without doing something so
demeaning. Is there any way to contact the editor of the newsletter?
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage = Bestiality From: MiloandOliver Date: Feb 18 2004 5:31AM I can't possibly imagine what was gained by equating gay
marriage with beastiality. Anyone who does not realize that this
struggle for equality is a parrallel to the struggle of black
Americans 40 years ago is living with blinders on. 40 years ago
my parent's interracial marriage was illegal in certain states
thankfully they were born and lived in Mass. How sad that the
elected leaders of my birth state think that the solution to
this request is to enshrine second-class status to a select group
within the State constitution. Isn't it interesting that the
more gays are told that their lifestyle isn't 'normal' the more
of them there seem to be coming out of the closet. Wishing won't
make them go away adn neither will legislation. They want to
emulate the marriage contract not destroy it.
Why don't we just make marriage the religeous cerimony it is
and make have Civil Unions be the standard, recognized ceremony
for all "oficial" purposes. That way those that object
to the term marriage being used to include gays need not worry.
It can once again belong to just them but in order for their
union to be recognized they must perform the same civil union
that they want to force on others.
Subject: RE: Gay Marriage = Bestiality From: Shaz Date: Feb 18 2004 6:08AM I want to add my comments to those already posted against
the gay marriage equals bestiality cartoon. I've rarely seen
anything quite so offensive. And I was surprised to see Slate
posting it -- not because you don't like controversy! This seems
to go beyond controversy. It's downright nasty.
Daryl,
I received my cartoon newsletter this morning, and there was
an appalling cartoon by a student from Utah. It is good and proper
to honor him since he won an award. But why did you choose that
particular cartoon? I found it offensive, hurtful, and absolutely
counterproductive for my fight for equal rights. I can only conclude
that you have an anti-gay agenda. Shame on you!
Gil
Not really a big fan of hard-working,
taxpaying gays and lesbians being treated like normal people
even though our money subsidizes your life, are you? What an
a**hole.
-jbrown
Have you any lynching of Gays
cartoons?
Is it true that Mormans (a.k.a. morons) have
a ceremony for praising lucifer?
-area214
I want you to know that may be
an award-winner but it was disgustingly homophobic. And ill informed
- it was in San Francisco that same-sex marriages were taking
place, not MA until May 17. There isn't much of a market for
right-wing bigoted cartoons. Maybe when you grow up you'll be
more aware of civil rights.
-Ruth
not funny...sick...twisted...you
should be ashamed...
for a bit of an education, please read the last page of this
week's Time Magazine. ..then make fun.
I just can't understand how people who think like you function
in today's world.
Is it that you have no sense of shame???
-Tim Flinchum
Baa-trimony? I am guessing it
is you with the sheep ! Right ??
-Kevin Bradley
First off let me say that your
artwork is excellent, and that I completely stand behind the
first amendment and free speech. But i do take a lot offense
to your gay/ beasitality cartoon. i recieve cartoons from slate.com,
and this is the first one to severly piss me off. I have family
and friends who are gay and I completely stand behind their right
to marriage. I also don't see how someone from Utah, the polygimist
state, has any right to judge another state's decision to allow
alternative weddings. You do have the right to your opinions,
but in no way shape or form are the people of Mass. going to
allow some kind of sick sheep wedding. I understand the joke,
but i sure as hell don't find homophobia humorous. What about
San Francisco? Do me a favor and keep your hatred out of my in-box.
I thought God and the Bible taught tolerance. Open your mind
and let people live as they want to.
peace,
-Christopher E. Potter
Bigot
- Jack Johnson
We did not ask to be born gay,
but we certaibly have the right to demand fair and equal treatment
under the law. For you to trivialize our commitment to each other
and buy into the cheap myth that gay marriage will give wat to
sex with animals is unfair, ignorant, and deeply hurtful.
-Gil
Technically, your work is superb:
no other word for it. So is your shot at the jugular of the situation.
After a couple of your pieces of SLATE, I was put in mind of
Bill Mauldin .. when he was still skewering the Army's little
ironies during WW II (I'm 65, so I remember that).
You're a young man with a bright future: just keep a'doin' what
you're a'doin' ......
-Tom
Josh--loved the gay marriage
toon... You should do with with Kerry claiming he's a highly
decorated Vietnam vet, all the while he's in his fatigues with
an ear necklace ala Dolph Lundgren in Universal Soldier. Since
he did commit war crimes...
-Jon Alvaraz
You are a bigot, uneducated,
morman (aka moron).
-jmacpherson
February 17, 2004
Every year I post a collection of cartoons by the John Locher
Memorial Award winner --the best college editorial cartoonist
of the year.
The John Locher Memorial Award
is named in honor of the son of Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist,
Dick Locher. Dick and the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists
(AAEC) do a great job of judging and administering this prize,
which has open the door to a career in editorial cartooning for
past winners including Mike
Thompson, Brian
Fairrington, Drew
Sheneman, Eric Devericks
and Patrick
O'Connor. Josh wins a trip to the AAEC Lexington Kentucky
where he will schmooze with grizzly old political cartoonists
as they down their bourbon and snort on their cigars at the race
track.
February 16, 2004
This ad ran in the St. Louis Post Dispatch today:
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
with a Sunday circulation nearing 500,000, seeks a brilliant,
insightful artist to draw daily cartoons for the editorial page
on a wide variety of local, state, national and international
topics. In the tradition of Pulitzer Prize-winning Post-Dispatch
cartoonists Daniel Fitzpatrick and Bill Mauldin we want bold
cartoons that engage, surprise, provoke, challenge, amuse, satisfy,
shock, delight and occasionally outrage readers at all points
along the political spectrum. The cartoonist may also be expected
to contribute occasional illustrations, caricatures of newsmakers,
sketchbooks, etc. for use in other parts of the newspaper. In
keeping with the Post-Dispatch platform articulated by Joseph
Pulitzer in 1907, we seek an individual who will "always
fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party ....
always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack
wrong.` Because opportunities for satire present themselves on
all sides of an issue, the cartoonist must be an equal-opportunity
impaler. The views of the cartoonist need not march in lockstep
with those of the editorial page on every issue, but a high degree
of compatibility is important. While we recognize that cartoonists
are a special breed of cat that thrives on autonomy, the cartoonist
must also be able to thrive as a member of a small, opinionated
and cheerfully argumentative group. We want an individual who
is unafraid of controversy, but at the same time can hear and
appreciate the value of constructive criticism. The editorial
page cartoonist must be able to comment on the news of the day
with insight and pointed wit, as well as bring fresh, nuanced
perspectives to shop-worn subjects like gun control and abortion.
The cartoonist should be widely read, a keen and skeptical observer
of politics and human nature, and nobody's fool. He or she will
be expected to be as well-informed about the nuclear arms build-up
in North Korea as s/he is about the latest trends in public education
or body-piercing. Unquenchable curiosity, resilience and a sense
of humor are essential. To apply, please submit a resume and
a portfolio of 20 cartoons and/or illustrations to:
Cynthia Todd
Director, newsroom recruitment
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
900 N. Tucker Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63101.
To the very talented and
generous editorial cartoonists across the nation:
I am looking for any cartoonists
that have drawn a cartoon on the recent Wisconsin primary to
please donate the work to the Wisconsin State Historical Society.
I will be collecting the cartoons and presenting them to the
Historical Society on March 2. Wisconsin SHS has been collecting
editorial cartoons for more than 60 years. The artist maintains
the copyrights of the donated cartoons.
I will not be making the donation
in my name or taking a deduction myself.
I've been donating my own
work to the Wisconsin State Historical Society for years. This
society is funded by the state of Wisconsin and does a great
job of collecting and maintaining important historical artifacts
pertaining to Wisconsin and the nation.
A note to cartoonists: One
of these years, Congress will hopefully pass the Artist-Museum
Partnership Act. Past Senate bill 694 and HR 1598. This will
restore the artist's ability to take the full -fair market value
when they donate their own work. We can thank Nixon for the loss
of this tax deduction. When Nixon donated his vice presidential
papers and documents, he took a huge tax deduction. The deduction
was outrageous enough to galvanize Congress into enacting an
income tax provision to curb this "abuse." Since 1969,
"creators" donating their own work can deduct only
their costs, rather than the donation's fair market value, from
their taxable income. Although this provision was aimed at preventing
politicians from capitalizing on their public service, it has
primarily limited artists, charitable contribution deductions
to material costs, paint and canvas, for example- and has excluded
deduction for the "creative" part of the artist's work.
Senator Leahy of Vermont introduced a bill which currently sits
in the Finance committee.
With
the potential of the Artist-Museum
Partnership Act. passing, it's important to remember that
cartoonists establish a donation history with a non-profit organization.
Also note, that the organization which you donate to will not
resell the artwork.
Please mail them to:
Joe Heller
PO Box 285
Green Bay, WI 54305
Thanks for donations. If you
have any questions, e-mail me at joe@hellertoon.com
Joe Heller
Editorial cartoonist
Green Bay Press-Gazette
920.431.8304
February 12, 2004
Our own Signe
Wilkinson, the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist for the
Philadelphia Daily News, ran a Janet Boob cartoon caption contest
in her newspaper and got lots of interesting responses. An email
from Signe is below the cartoon, with some of the winning captions.
Hi Daryl, We got some great entries. Over 800 and they're
still coming in. We picked four for Philadelphia and three for
Sacramento which also ran it. "Got Milk? Was fourth
place. "Houston, we've got a Jackson" was third.
One about it being no more shocking than a Daily News front page
was second. And our first place went to an Eagles-related one
from Clay Belcher, "That's another one Pinkston and Thrash
would have dropped!" First place in Sacramento was,
"It's not the star of Bethlehem" Signe
Yall just Racist From:gabby Date:Feb 5 2004 8:33AM
They are prejustice how they gone ridicule Janet and not Brittney
See thats what I'm talkin about obviously that Martin Luthern
King speach didn't get through some people. Leave Janet Alone
the cartoons was stupid and ignorant. I am so sick of this world
I am so sick of white people thinking they are the better race
they ain't nobody black people will never be respected for who
they are like there will never be a black president hum I wonder
why they got rid of Bill clinton take a wild guess. They seen
a black girls boob and go balistic they seen a white girls boob
they let it go the world is sick I hate it they need to stop
saying god bless ameerica god ain't gone bless this country for
nothing of its worth. leave Janet alone see whats she has to
go through. See this is what I'm saying a police gets shot yes
thats sad but if a black police gets shot all they gone do is
show it on the news and leave it lone they ain't gone show thewhole
funera on the news they ain't gone start no trust fund for fund-
Races white folks
From: Aidan McGrattan
This is about as funny as a kick in the ****. Get a life! Also,
you look like you should be spending a little less time on the
couch.
( I am assuming that the rest of your body is as fat as your
face.)
Subject: ITS SILLY From: GETREALISTIC Date: Feb 5 2004 10:57AM
Its silly how the media is dwelling on a breast that by the way
WAS NOT FULLY EXPOSED I say parents need to raise their kids
more realistically and stop harassing celebrities to be their
role model. By the way whats the first thing your mother sticks
into your mouth when you are born. Get Realistic and leave Janet
alone. GO CENSOR ALL THE VIOLENCE ON TV AND MAYBE YOU CAN MAKE
A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD
From: Tray Bouldin Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:37 AM To: cari@cagle.com Subject: Cartoon
Just shows how small minded the (Libs) are, to incliude politics
with this issue!!!!!!! LOOK I GOT A CHEAP SHOT IN
From: FRO4STYSubject:
you are lame as f***!
those janet cartoons are stupid and classless you are a retarted
*** human being with absolutely NO talent those cartoon werent
even funny you a******!
From: Janice Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:58 AM
what about the dog or the monkey biting down the man penis or
the horse passing gas in sombody's face?
So what you saw a tit
Too many Haters!!!! From: craigster
Feb 5 2004 10:09AM
It's not that big of a deal...omg so everyone saw her breast
for like 2 seconds...u know if this happened on bet or mtv it
wouldnt be that big of a deal..and the cartoons are so stupid..maybe
the people coming up with these cartoons are running out of ideas
and need to retire...they suck and the people who thought of
them suck as well. Leave Janet alone..she is a great person.
Subject:Janet Jackson From:catchat Date:Feb 5 2004 10:43AM
I cannot believe that her boob has shocked everyone, please people,
there are viagra and other realated commercials, like the guy
that can't have sex throws a football at a tire and can't get
it through the hole, takes some pill and now he can have sex
because he throuhg the football through the hole. Or how about
the guy that his entire office is wondering why he is so happy
because he got some. Please people lets don't all be boobs. Lets
face it the only reason she will be investigated is because her
brother is. Get a life, don't let a boob run it for you.
Subject: stick with brittney spears. From: dontcare Date: Feb 5 2004 10:30AM
that was a great cartoon thingy and i think the whole thing was
on purpose.you know its aLL ways the celebrities that get into
trouble and never want to admit that they did it.we all know
justin was dieing to see janets breast and he got to. i heard
from greg paul on 101.5 the zone that it was gross looking so
i think the only boobs hes ever gonna look at again are brittney
spears' fake boobs.
Subject: WHATS THE PROBLEM? From: rac Date: Feb 5 2004 10:34AM
Why is everyone making a big deal about the halftime show? Its
not like anybody have not see boobs before. Plus people do not
make a big deal about movies that contains more body parts that
is not cover. Its like a movie trying to entratain peopole. Also
parents made a big deal about there kids seeing it. Which they
let there kids see dirty movies. So why is it a big deal? Subject: Janet's "Act" is a big deal From: domijack Date: Feb 5 2004 10:26AM
The problem is that we have become so de-sensitized from all
of the garbage on t.v., that most of you really believe that
this was "no big deal". yes, we all have breasts but
i dont think God intended us to flash them on national television
in a sexually provocative manner. Yes, nudity is all over the
tv, but you are wrong that we can't do anything about it. The
networks would stop putting that trash on tv if everyone would
quit watching it. I believe my children should be able to watch
a football game w/out me having to worry about Janet (or anyone
else) "baring it all". Why dont some of you put God
back into the picture and then maybe you will understand why
so many of us think it is "a big deal"
Subject: SuperBowl for All From: teachyourchildren Date: Feb 5 2004 10:10AM
There may be inappropriate visions all across the channels; but
I've managed to keep my kids from viewing it for the last 7 years.
I get involved with my kids' viewing adventures. I pay attention
to what they do and watch. The Superbowl is intended as Family
Vision. I did not expect to see inappropriate behavior on the
screen. The whole act that everyone is debating was not the kind
of behavior I want my kids to portray in their early lives. Since
my kids did see the scene, I took them aside and explained to
them that that is NOT they way grown ups should act. And exposing
themselves to others is in no way appropriate. Moral: teach your
children well... I guess we can thank Janet and Justin for teaching
our kids what bad people look and act like.
Subject: It's me Janet. From: Janet_Jackson Date: Feb 5 2004 3:35AM
Hi everybody. This is Janet. I understand that some of you liked
the halftimeshow and some of you didn't.
Most of you have seen one of my breast on the halftimeshow. And
just to let you know, it wasn't Justin's fault. It was my outfit
*hopefully*. I wanted to make a post to tell you all that you
shouldn't be making fun of me. Imagine you being me, it's hard.
So please stop making mean post like, I saw her boob! Cause that's
mean.
Subject: American hypocrits From: Hypocriteliminator Date: Feb 5 2004 7:46AM
It isnt amazing..........its sickening to know that children
see countless ads each and everyday revealing tampax, tampons,
lingerie, underwear & much, much more............then there's
regular tv programs that are about faggots and dykes, murder,
sex out of wedlock, 1940s-2004 gangsters and much much more............animated
sitcoms with use profanity and every other forbidden fruit......and
then there's award shows where Britney and Madonna tongue kiss...............Where's
the hype about all this hypocrits? If it was Britney's or Madonna's
tit would you hypocrits be so upset then? Get over it. Most adults
didnt even notice that it happened, let alone children. What's
new about a breast anyway? If adults werent such hypocrits children
wouldnt let the sight of a tit turn them into a pervert.
From: Sylvie Bernal Anderson (Morris) LOVe your cartoon....
From: DEAN PIERCY
Your the only Boobs in this leftist world
From: Discus, Tony
BILL CLINTON WOULD HAVE LOVE THIS
From: jrchambers Subject: Janet Jackson/George Bush Cartoon
Cagle; That was a cheap shot at President Bush.
Shame on you.
Jim Chambers
Houston, TX
From: Balboa Subject: Janet Jackson
I really dont understand the problem with this, okay it was gross,
but wasnt the Britney Spears and Madonna (and Cristina Aguilera)
televised kiss with tongue and all even more gross, where more
children were apt to be watching the MTV awards than the Super
Bowl half time. Is this some double standard on behalf of FCC.
Kenia Lopez
From: Shirley Subject: janet cartoon
Why have President Bush in the Janet cartoon? He wasn't in the
sleezy half time show. Does it always have to be political?
From: andy cubes Subject: your cartoon
hey your cartoons wernt that funny, but if you got paid for it
in some way more power to ya man. ok they were ok, i giggled
on one of them, and laughed at another. good day to you sir.
From: polly hoxey Subject: Your Cartoons
Why don't you make some cartoons of all the movie stars with
there boobs hanging out going to the awards.
From: Jamie Lemaire
Subject: cartoon...
Mr. Clinton is better suited for the job of revealing a boob
than Bush.
From: Hester and Associates,
Inc.
Subject: Janet Jackson Cartoon
I fail to see any humor in your cartoon....
Linda Hokett
From: bevann702@sbcglobal.net Subject: Dumb
THe catoons are stupid and ignorant
From: Paul Nichols
Subject: This is what America is about.
Looking at these comics on a broad range network, just let's
me know what level society measures up. And believe me this shows
me another bold step people play in others lives or how your
were raise as a child. Yeah, this meaning your mother never taught
you to don't say nothing bad about someone due to you having
nothing good to say about that person. Oh , excuse me Afro-Americans
lives. We all know if this would have been Britney Spears or
Carmon it would have been acceptable. Because just as I'm writing
you the KKK and racial groups thought it was really distasteful
by being a Black Woman's breast. Learn to not feast on others
down fall or mistakes. And then see if your a good story teller.
From: Diane Roberts
Subject: janet cartoons
Please let it go......
From: Smith, Marlon . SGT (L)
Subject:
Say Guy, Why don't you be the first to tell the world the truth
about the "Boob" incident. The truth you say? In one
word, four syllables, "HYPOCRISY". This whole deal
is being exploited for the personal gains of many on different
levels, yet, all pimpin'!!! You can make light of the situation
and or the phrase, yet the truth is in your pens'!!! Please,
stop it, all of you!!! Try something new. Like writing, drawing,
explaining, and yes, giving your opinion responsibly and fairly
for everyone!
The
mysterious Revilo is one of my favorite cartoonists. Revilo is
secretly also known as Oliver Christianson, who is the treasure
of Hallmark's Shoebox division. I just put up a collection
of Oliver's cartoons, take a look. Oliver/Revilo is a Vietnam
vet who I got to know through his magazine cartoons in the '70's
and '80's in National Lampoon, Esquire, the Saturday Evening
Post and Penthouse (which I bought only for the cartoons). You
can buy Oliver's new book, "Talk to the Tail" at Hallmark
stores. Click here to
visit Oliver's web site, click
here to e-mail Oliver.
I asked Oliver for a comment and he gave me this:
"I encourage people to be nice to their pets. They've seen
you naked and not laughed. Okay, maybe they DO laugh, but they
have the decency to wait until you leave the room. "
February
15, 2004
With
the potential of the 
From: Aidan McGrattan
Subject:Janet Jackson