|
April 25, 2005
ANOTHER CONTROVERSY ABOUT
OUR CARTOONS AND ISLAM
Here is a note I received from
the Opinion Editor of the Sacramento State University's newspaper,
the State Hornet, along with an editorial and a response from
an angry Hornet reader, all regarding the cartoon below by Sandy Huffaker.

Dear Daryl,
Attached is my article printed as a follow-up to the firestorm
over the Huffaker cartoon, "New Pope", and a Guest
Commentary from a member of the Muslim Students Association.
Since the article I've had some time to think even more about
the issue and part of me wishes I wasn't so diplomatic in my
response.
In retrospect, it's clear that the State Hornet was the victim
of a coordinated attack by Muslim supporters, many of whom probably
never saw the cartoon, but whose main interest was to elicit
an apology for what they considered an offensive image of Islam.
Evidence of that comes from e-mails that arrived from as far
away as San Diego and Portland.
Part of what drives me to write you today is the story last week
about the commercial helicopter that was downed last week in
Iraq--one of the bloodiest days there in months. In a video broadcast
on al-Jazeera, one of the surviving crew members is helped to
his feet and then promptly executed as the Muslim insurgents
chant "God is great". I guess the contrast of that
image against the relatively benign Huffaker cartoon is what
incenses me the most.
Why aren't the Muslims regularly denouncing this type of behavior?
It seems much more damaging to their cause to allow this type
of image to make it to the mainstream media. People are being
brutally executed every day and allover the world in the name
of Islam, yet there seems to be little Muslim denunciation of
those acts or the images that make it to the media.
I mention that the Muslims have a PR problem, which is clearly
understatement given the circumstance and the threat of terrorism
that haunts us all. If their god is so great, maybe he ought
to stop all of the killing in "his" name.
Best Regards,
Art Ballard, Opinion
Editor
The State Hornet,
Sacramento, CA
Editor's Note: Cartoon invites
lively, passionate discussion
by Art Ballard
Opinion Editor, State Hornet
April 13, 2005
Last week I ran a cartoon by
caglecartoons.com artist Sandy Huffaker that tapped a nerve with
some of our student and non-student readers. Cagle provides us
with a wide variety of mostly satirical political content and
there isn't much that is taboo with its artists. Huffaker is
no exception. I'm a fan of his 'nothing is too holy' approach,
because his work, while controversial, invites passionate discussion.
I like that.
I wish we had more lively discussions
on campus; since I find myself disappointed weekly by the lack
of response to much of what we print in the State Hornet Opinion
section.
Even the somewhat controversial
column by Andrew Stewart entitled, "College Greeks got all
the 'freaks'" generated a paltry 11 responses from a community
that numbers in the thousands. This, after I was assured that
a hell storm of response was forthcoming. But that is another
story and not what this column is about.
In case you missed it, the cartoon
depicted a caricature of President George Bush, an Islamic extremist
with a knife and the word "Islam" written on it, and
two careless wine swilling Europeans sitting in front of the
"New Pope's" office door. After the publication of
the cartoon, four members of the Muslim Students Association
(MSA) dropped by the Hornet offices to discuss what they perceived
as dangerous stereotyping. Their concern extended to the alleged
violence and future violence against Muslim students.
I wanted to make sure I understood
the artist's intention so I went right to the source, Huffaker
himself. He said by e-mail, "The cartoon criticizes Bush's
faith and Europe for not having much faith at all, as well as
Islam's problems with violence and revenge. The most vicious
E-mails I get are either from the NRA or Islam ... " Whether
you agree with him or not, the message is provocative and played
out satirically in a way that certainly displays the worst characteristics
of all the characters.
Let me state right up front that
I am not about, nor is the State Hornet Opinion section in the
business of intentionally perpetuating stereotypes. We will,
however, in the proper context, use every means possible within
the framework of the First Amendment to convey a message or make
a point. Satire often serves that purpose well. The problem with
any sort of satire is that inevitably someone is going to be
offended.
Dictionary.com defines 'satire':
"a literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked
through irony, derision or wit."
In the offensive category, the
cartoon in question had a number of stereotypes to choose from.
George Bush carrying a missile and a bag of money to the Pope's
office would surely rub a few Republicans and maybe even a few
Catholics the wrong way since it could have implied that the
Pope was for sale or maybe in danger.
The partying Europeans oblivious
to the piety of the Pope's position flirtatiously ignore anyone
around them, instead focusing on their own selfish needs. And
finally, the image in question, the Islamic fundamentalist staring
down the viewer menacingly waiting for the chance to perpetrate
his next heinous atrocity in the name of Islam.
In all three cases Huffaker paints
an extreme picture of the protagonists in his cartoon. On the
surface, this is a free speech issue. We have a right to print
what we like with few apologies, especially in the name of political
satire. In the words of this week's guest columnist, John Kincaid,
"In political satire people's feelings get hurt, no apologies
made." By its very nature satire is meant to exaggerate,
caricaturize and in some cases, incite an emotional reaction.
If I were to worry about each
and every group I offended when I printed a cartoon, I wouldn't
have any cartoons to print. I print them because I think they
are important and even in this case they have inspired a dialogue.
My intention is never to hurt or offend.
In the case of the MSA, they
were concerned that if the cartoon were critical of Catholics,
Jews or blacks, I would have censored the material. Not true.
The numerous cases of alleged abuse of children by Catholic priests
surely would have been a concern had it been topical during my
tenure here at the Hornet and given the opportunity to highlight
the other groups in a satirical way would surely be explored.
And we certainly have taken our shots at President George Bush
whenever appropriate.
In some ways, I think this cartoon
was perceived as especially offensive because of the acknowledged
difficulties faced by Muslims since 9/11 and the rise of the
Muslim insurgency in Iraq. Five years ago it may not have garnered
even one letter from the Muslim community. That I understand,
and I am more than sympathetic to the issue. In business or political
terms, the Muslim community has a real PR problem on its hands
for which I don't have a solution.
Sadly, we cannot deny that a
lot of violence has been perpetrated in the name of Islamic extremism
just as the Irish Catholics and Protestants have had their violent
issues. As a journalist, how am I supposed to present these stories
if I have a fear of offending a certain group of people? As I
write this, three suicide bombers and an American contractor
kidnapped in Iraq are leading the news.
I know that most Muslims don't
relate to the violent extremist factions who represent themselves
as Muslims, but sometimes it's hard to separate the religion
from the act, even if those extremists represent a fringe faction
of the religion. The same could be said for the large numbers
of Catholic priests who have never molested a child. As unfair
as it is, it becomes guilt by association. I do agree with Kincaid
when he says America has a problem. Americans don't like those
who are different from themselves, which in this case, means
white America. I'm not proud of it, but it's one of those sinful
situations that has been around since the first Europeans started
exploiting the real Native Americans. Again, that's a column
for another day.
I'm sure that none of the above
comes across as an apology to the Muslim community, but I hope
it explains my position and the position of journalists who print
political satire. But I also hope that those reading this get
the fact that the Muslim majority is concerned about its image.
If there is anything good that can come from this, please take
notice that Muslims are not content to allow the negative stereotypes
to continue and that the majority of Muslims are nothing like
the awful stories we read about emanating from the Middle East
conflict in Iraq.
Art Ballard can be reached at
opinion@statehornet.com
---------------------------
Guest Commentary: Hornet discriminates
against Muslims
by John Kincaid
Sac State Student
April 13, 2005
About four years ago, The State
Hornet ran an article with the headline: "Sac State Muslims
Not Immune to Prejudice" (September 17, 2001, News section).
The article was written about a week after the attacks on Sept.
11, 2001; two separate incidents were documented, one where a
Muslim student wearing a headscarf was spit upon by another student,
and another where a Muslim student was told "we should bomb
you all."
Last week the Hornet illustrated
that Muslims are still subject to discrimination when it ran
a pair of editorial cartoons it received from Daryl Cagle's professional
cartoon service (A6-A7, April 6, 2005). One depicted the waiting
room for the new pope. In it, between a pair of oblivious Europeans
and a drawing of President Bush sitting on a nuclear missile
and a pile of cash, was the typical misleading image of a Muslim.
He wore a long black robe, had a bushy white beard, a hooked
nose and a mad, crazed look in his eye. In his hand was a long,
curved sword with the word Islam written on it.
The next cartoon showed various
evil-looking animals devouring each other. A snake labeled "Shia,"
a camel labeled "Kurd" and an unidentifiable creature
labeled "Sunnis."
So what's the problem here? Of
course these are stereotypes; they're meant to be. In political
satire people's feelings get hurt, no apologies made. But these
cartoons cut a little bit deeper than political satire, and in
fact reveal a troubling pattern - not just about the Hornet,
but about American society.
The picture in the first cartoon
is not just of the "typical" Muslim we are used to
getting in the media: it's of the "typical" Arab as
well. With a lecherous grin, he waits to do violence in the name
of religion, the very picture of fanaticism. We as American viewers
are quite used to getting this picture. From movies to T.V,.
we are confronted with it over and over again. When was the last
time you watched "True Lies," staring our current governor?
He kills enough of these stereotypical Muslim Arabs to fill a
morgue. What about "The Mummy?" or "The Siege"
with Bruce Willis? All of them rack up the body counts and the
stereotypes.
It doesn't stop with the movies.
On Fox news, Bill O'Reilly tells us that the "vast majority
of the Muslim world thinks we're infidels, that Allah wants them
to kill us and no matter what we do, we're not going to change
that." He goes on to compare the Quran to Hitler's "Mein
Kampf," while a few hours later, Geraldo describes Arabs
as "these dogs, these pigs; I call them animals," (remind
anyone of cartoon number two?) and that we should clean out the
"rats nest." What we have here is not just the Hornet
staff making a poor choice of cartoons; unfortunately, it's a
much bigger problem than that.
These destructive and ultimately
dangerous Arab and Muslim stereotypes are accepted as the norm
by most of us. While many of us would immediately be outraged
by a cartoon depicting a black "Sambo" or minstrel
character, we barely bat an eye at the same portrayal of Arabs
and Muslims.
This blind eye toward Arab/Muslim
stereotypes leads to the type of behavior the Hornet documented
four years ago. It's not just the Hornet that's at fault here;
it's all of us.

April 22, 2005
NEW CARTOONIST AT THE ARIZONA TRIBUNE
I just received this note from
Brian
Fairrington who tells me that he is the new cartoonist for
the Arizona Tribune. I wish the best to Brian in his new role,
he is a very talented guy. Mike
Ritter is also a great guy and a great cartoonist. I'm sure
Mike will be missed at the Tribune.
Daryl,
On Monday, April 18th 2005
it was announced that Mike
Ritter has left the East Valley Tribune after 13 years there
and that the Tribune wishes Mike the best of luck in his new
endeavors.
I will begin working with
the Tribune sometime this summer as the dust settles on the recent
turn of events and I complete my move into a new house in Gilbert
Arizona, an East Valley suburb of Phoenix, with my wife and three
children. I have had an ongoing relationship with the Tribune
since I was a student at Arizona State University in the late
1990s and I look forward to this opportunity. In the mean time
I will continue doing my national cartoons which are syndicated
and distributed through Cagle Cartoons.
Brian Fairrington
BASHING THE POPE
Here's my newspaper column for
the week, on the cartoonists bashing the new pope.
CARTOONISTS BASH THE NEW POPE
by Daryl Cagle
The selection of German Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope has been treated politely by
the American press, but cartoonists around the world have been
bashing the pontiff in ways that most readers would find shocking.
Mixing the words "rat"
and "Nazi," the British tabloid "The Sun"
dubbed the new pope "Papa Ratzi" in a banner headline.
American newspapers are more polite to the conservative pontiff,
criticizing him in editorials but avoiding Nazi metaphors. Growing
up in Germany in the 1930's, Ratzinger was compelled to join
the Hitler Youth and the German Wehrmacht. As a defender of conservative
church doctrine, he was labeled as Pope John Paul II's "rottweiler."
Cartoonists have seized on these images, portraying the pope
as a snarling dog, and putting him in the role of the Fuhrer,
reviewing troops of goose-stepping sheep or cardinals.
Readers
usually see only one editorial cartoon in their daily newspaper
and have to wander onto the internet to see what the political
cartoonists are doing. Editors typically subscribe to many syndicated
editorial cartoonists so that they have a large selection from
which to pick a favorite cartoon of the day. In recent years,
the trend among editors is to choose more cartoons that are cute
little jokes which do not express a strong point of view. Editors
want to avoid controversy; strong cartoons draw a strong reaction
from readers. Cartoonists call the trend to opinionless cartoons
"Newsweekization," as Newsweek Magazine is notorious
for showcasing funny, pointless, inoffensive cartoons. Cartoonists
still draw the strong cartoons, but readers see only the bland
jokes that editors select. Cartoons that bash a pope will rarely
be seen in the US, simply because too many readers would take
offense.
The recent cartoons criticizing
the new pontiff come from cartoonists who don't like his conservative
views. Australian cartoonist Paul Zanetti depicts the pope saying,
"Forward to the future" as he leads his sheep down
a hole labeled "the past." Canadian cartoonist Michael
DeAdder portrays the pope's vestments decorated with symbols
that say "no condoms", "no reform" and "no
women." Cartoonist David Horsey of the Seattle Post Intelligencer
draws the pontiff invading a woman's bathroom, scowling as she
holds a birth control pill. Cartoonist Nate Beeler of the Washington
Examiner draws the new pope with an accordion singing, "Are
you ready to party like it's 1299?"
I
drew a breathless television reporter, with her finger on her
ear-piece, delivering the breaking news from Rome: "...WAIT
... I'm now being told that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the new
pope, is NOT ... repeat NOT called a 'German Shepherd,' he's
a 'Rottweiler'. He WAS in the Hitler Youth, but he did NOT, repeat
NOT, play Cliff the mailman on 'Cheers.'"
Foreign cartoons are always more
harsh than those from America. Brazilian cartoonist Lailson de
Hollanda shows an evil-looking pope at the window, with a crowd
chanting "Heil Pope! Heil Pope!" Slovakian cartoonist
Martin Sutovek shows the pontiff wearing blinders, like a race
horse. Brazilian cartoonist Simanca draws the pope as a shark,
about to chew up little fish labeled "homosexuals."
Cartoonists are bomb-throwers.
If this column runs with no cartoons, I'm sure there is nothing
to worry about. If this column runs with sample cartoons, I know
that somewhere, an editor is hiding under his desk.
(Credit Steve Berlin-Chavez for the funny note about the Pope's
name being similar to that guy who played Cliff the mailman on
Cheers. You're a funny guy, Steve.)
April 20, 2005
SEE CAGLE!
Want to see the reclusive Daryl
Cagle rear his ugly head? Daryl will be doing a book signing
this Saturday at the Barnes & Noble in Valencia California
(by Magic Mountain) from 12:00 to 3:00pm. The address is:
Barnes & Noble
23630 Valencia Boulevard
Valencia, California 91355
The easiest way to get there
is to take I-5 North, exit Valencia Boulevard turn right, continue
approximately 1.5 miles. As you pass Magic Mountain Parkway,
you'll see it on your right. Continue until the next signal (Applebee's)
and make a right onto Creekside, turn right into our parking
lot.
Free drawings! Books! Oh to be
in California!
April 16, 2005
A TOME FROM MR.
FISH
I have an open invitation to our cartoonist contributors to write
something for our blog. Our newest cartoonist, Dwayne
Booth, aka "Mr.
Fish," sends us this on the origin of Mr. Fish.
CALL ME FISHMAEL
Ever since I found the front-page
newspaper clipping from The Gettysburg World Gazette in
my grandparents' attic describing the death of my Great Uncle
Lloyd Taylor in 1933 by what appeared to be spontaneous internal
combustion as fantastic and terrifying and unforgettable,
I wanted to be famous.
I remember seeing the faded photograph of the living room blackened
by the greasy flash of light and the charred armchair that my
great uncle had been sitting in and the single remaining slipper
still containing his foot standing defiantly just beyond the
radius of the explosion. "Wow," I thought to myself,
"to still be standing after that! What a freaking superman!"
My grandmother told me that the foot, still inside the slipper,
was buried in my one of my great aunt's flower boxes while my
great uncle's receptionist from the insurance office where he
worked, a 400 pound woman who wore an eye patch named Bunny Tinkle,
played Yankee Doodle on a row of drinking glasses and
relatives cried and the children of relatives tried to keep a
straight face and raccoons, already in face masks, waited for
nightfall.
"The thing was eventually yanked out of the flower box by
some animal," my grandmother said, "and chewed into
a pile of, I don't know, a kind of meat loaf and smeared all
over the front fender of the car. Aunt Minnie tried to comfort
everybody by insisting that that's the way Uncle Lloyd would've
wanted it. 'He really loved that car,' she would tell them, 'particularly
that front fender.' Her smile was intolerable when she spoke,
like a toupee. You had to look away. And then, to top it all
off, in order to protect the memory of her late husband, she
had specifications put into her own will indicating that after
she died she too would be ground into something like a meat loaf
and smeared on the front fender of the car." My grandmother
told me how days following the heart attack and coma that would
eventually kill my great aunt the family sold the car and replaced
it with a box of trash bags.
Listening to her talk while she changed the diaper on her 22-year-old
cat, Roosevelt, his cloudy eyes rolling around in his tiny, wizened
head looking hard through the fog for a bus to jump in front
of, all I could think of was, "Geez, if only I could grab
the spotlight like that for five minutes I could change the world."
How? Well, when I was seven-years-old I had some definite ideas,
all of which seemed to suddenly coalesce into a cohesive whole
the morning after I'd first heard about Great Uncle Lloyd's miraculous
disappearance.
Sitting alone at the breakfast table, I found myself obsessed
with trying to imagine what must've gone through his head in
that final millisecond just before he was suddenly blasted into
smithereens. I wondered if he'd said anything and, if he had,
was it something that was unpublishable by The Gettysburg
World Gazette? I wondered what I might say in a similar circumstance.
I then remembered back to several months earlier, on the Saturday
before Easter, how I walked into the dining room and sat down
at the table lined with newspapers and leaned forward and picked
up a hard-boiled egg from a plate of a dozen or more, unaware
that they'd all just been removed from the stovetop not a full
minute before I entered the room. I remembered how I yelped and
let go of the egg and how it dropped into the open fly of my
speedboat pajamas and how I let loose with a line of curse words
so intense that afterwards it was discovered that the Jesus in
the upstairs hallway had to have His hands pried away from His
ears and re-nailed to His tiny cross before Sunday dinner. It
was my punishment to do the hammering while everybody else crouched
behind the furniture with their fingers in their ears.
Peeling a banana as if disassembling a metaphor, I started thinking
about how I'd always been immune to the deleterious effects of
dirty words and how I was able to repeat them over and over and
over again inside my own head without personal injury,
shame or, truth be told, even revelry. Why? After all,
according to the ethereal lore of acceptable behavior dirty words
when spoken were supposed to explode like firecrackers of varying
size depending on the military rank of the word and like firecrackers
were largely illegal except in the South and only to be used
by responsible adults although, to talk to my mother, it
seemed that only the less sensible adults used them with any
regularity, typically of the beer drinking, my-life-ended-when-I-left-high-school,
I-haven't-worn-dark-socks-and-hard-shoes-since-the-Senior-Prom
type. She had a name for a person like that: Your father!
(The inferred explicative in the extra long f sound whenever
she mentioned my father usually made it necessary for me to wipe
her saliva off my glasses with my shirt.) But with me, dirty
words were simply part of a forbidden language that seemed completely
non-threatening and undeserving of its menacing reputation, particularly
when every dirty word that I knew had a corresponding regular
word that named the same thing that the dirty word did, however,
without the obscenity, suggesting that maybe the obscenity of
dirty words was imaginary and that the harmful effects of them
was self-imposed.
P-o-o-p, for example, referred to the same thing that
s-h-i-t did and while one was as safe as a piece of ice
cream, the other was not again, why? I knew that
the thing that both words described might not be something
that the average person typically regarded with deep affection
or even a vague respect, but was it obscene? No, of course it
wasn't; it was inert and non-malicious and utterly indifferent
to how it might be perceived by the vanity of the animal whose
life it helped to sustain as nobly as breathing. So did the obscenity
of s-h-i-t come from the thing that it literally described?
No, not if the thing that it literally described could also be
talked about using the word p-o-o-p without offending
anybody.
It was as if the conceptual obscenity of the dirty word had been
made into the equivalent of its written and spoken form the same
way that the conceptual value of a cent had been made into the
equivalent of a penny and people had somehow become confused
and made both of them synonymous with each other, ignoring the
fact that when one sees a penny one does not also see
a cent; the cent must be imagined, it's reality conjured out
of one's ability to pretend that something is there when it really
isn't. Specifically, a dirty word presented outside the country
of its origin, like currency, is meaningless, just as Americanism
outside of America is meaningless and the precepts of Christianity
outside the Christian faith are meaningless and all notions of
racial and sexual superiority outside the circumstance of their
particular prejudice are meaningless. Obscenity is always imposed
and never intrinsic.
Obscenity, then, I came to realize, isn't only about shock and
upset. Some obscenity is about elation and arrogance and narcissism
and pride, which might be the most dangerous sort since it lacks
the physical or even spiritual discomfort necessary to label
it convincingly as bad for the health of society.
"What are you doing?" asked my mother, passing me on
her way into the kitchen to rinse out her coffee cup in the sink.
"Huh?" I said, attempting to hide my banana by making
its angle less confident.
"Oh, no," she said.
"Oh, no, what?" I said.
"Jesus, don't tell me that you're turning into your Cousin
Penelope," she said, referring to the nineteen-year-old
ultra-hippie daughter of my father's brother who had just spent
the weekend with us on her way to the Peace Corps and had done
nothing but argue nonstop with my mother about everything from
why she wasn't at least giving our family the option of hibiscus
leaves instead of toilet paper to the virtues of bad breath,
body odor and armpit hair, not the least of which was all the
alone time that it afforded for self-reflection and the meditative
picking of syphilis scabs.
"If that banana is singing Kum-by-yah to you or telling
you that you're an incomplete person because I didn't eat your
placenta like a hyena when you were born don't pay attention!"
she said, turning off the water and drying her hands on a dish
towel. "That crackpot cousin of yours told me that she wanted
to be a lyricist for whale songs and I told her to give me a
call when she found a word that rhymed with unemployment."
"Hey, Mom?"
"Hey, what?" she said, reaching into a drawer
and pulling out a pack of cigarettes.
"Is there any difference between your middle finger and
your ring finger?"
"Huh?" she said, pulling a cigarette out of the pack
with her lips like a cowboy.
"Is there any difference between your middle finger and
your ring finger?"
With her brow clenched around my question like a fist around
an empty tube of toothpaste, she picked up her hand and looked
at it. She looked at her wedding ring. "What do you mean?"
she said, squeezing the empty tube.
"I know that one's bigger than the other one, but is there
any difference besides that?"
"I don't know what you're talking about," she said,
lowering her hand satisfied that I was an idiot.
"Hey, Mom," I said again.
"What," she said, looking around for something to light
her cigarette with. I held up my ring finger as if flipping her
the bird.
"Does this mean anything to you?"
Predictably, my gesture fell into her brain like a cherry bomb
into a box of kittens, however, unpredictably to somebody
having never been in the company of more than one cat at a time
and unrehearsed in the herding of such existential animals
the one cat that I had any experience with being 22-years-old
and as likely to run anywhere as it was to pilot an airplane
I watched while my mother's intellect exploded into shrapnel
and scampered out of the room in all directions to cower beneath
various pieces of furniture throughout the house, in absolute
incommunicado with one another.
And while I was being dragged down the hallway to my bedroom
still clutching my banana and demanding that I be allowed to
call either the ACLU, my lawyer, or a cab, I began to realize
that perhaps it might be necessary for me to remove my body,
or more precisely my ring finger, from my method of instruction
and to make my gift of p-o-o-p and s-h-i-t to the
world much more of an anonymous offering.
Sitting on my bed and listening through the floor to my mother
slamming kitchen cabinets and yelling at the dog in the hell
that I'd made of her morning, I uncapped a pen and wrote with
my left hand, so as not to make my penmanship immediately traceable
to myself, six words so small as to be nearly invisible on the
sole of my left slipper, space being of the essence:
Hello, my name is Mr. Fish.
E-mail Dwayne at applesandcheeses@verizon.net
and visit his work here.
April 14, 2005
CAGLE ON HANNITY & COLMES
Yes, that was me on Hannity
& Colmes last night. Thanks to all of you who wrote to
say that I don't look like what you thought I'd look like.
I was invited on to rebut the
position of "conservative media watchdog" and Fox News
Analyst, Brent Bozell, who argued that the Pulitzer Prize Committee
must be biased because most Pulitzer Prizes for editorial cartooning
go to liberal cartoonists.
Of-course, readers of our site
know that most editorial cartoonists are liberal. If the Pulitzer
Committee considers excellence without regard to politics it
is no surprise that the award winners reflect the proportions
of liberal and conservative cartoonists in the pool of cartoonist-applicants.
If we were going to have an equal number of liberal and conservative
winners, the Pulitzer Committee would need an affirmative action
program with quotas for minority conservative cartoonists. The
thought of that makes me laugh.
April 11, 2005
SCOTT BATEMAN LEAVES KING FEATURES
A couple of weeks ago, cartoonist Scott Bateman parted ways with
his syndicate, King Features. Scott was part of a "package"
service called "The Best and the Wittiest" which
is perhaps best known for being the least expensive source for
newpapers to subscribe to editorial cartoons. I would guess that
the service goes to 400 or 500 newspapers, which is a lot or
newspapers. The Best and the Wittiest is unusual in that
King picks individual cartoons to include in the package from
a list of contributors, rather than including all of the work
submitted by each of their contributing cartoonists. The package
is not unusual in how much King pays their contributors; most
editorial cartoonists make very little income from syndication,
no matter how their work is distributed.
Scott is a long time contributor
to our site. See his cartoons here.
I've posted a story from Editor
& Publisher about Scott's departure from the Best
and the Wittiest package, followed by Scott's story in his
own words, from his blog.
King No Longer Syndicating
Scott Bateman's Editorial Cartoons
By Dave Astor
Published: March 29, 2005 2:05 PM ET
NEW YORK Editorial cartoonist Scott Bateman and King Features
Syndicate have parted ways.
Bateman was one of about a dozen
editorial cartoonists in "The Best and the Wittiest"
package distributed by King. He said the syndicate was "using
fewer and fewer of my cartoons, and especially shying away from
the harder-hitting ones" -- including a March 20 cartoon
pointing out the hypocrisy of President Bush and many Republicans
in the Terri Schiavo case.
King Editor in Chief Jay Kennedy,
when contacted by E&P, said in a statement: "Contrary
to misconceptions expressed in some online discussions, Scott
Bateman and King Features did not part ways because King Features
objected to his political stances. 'The Best and the Wittiest'
purposefully offers a range of divergent editorial views. King
Features and Scott Bateman parted ways at his behest because
he was unhappy with how few of his cartoons were being used."
Kennedy added: "Scott is
a talented guy. His editorial pieces expressed a lot of carefully
thought-through views, but they are lengthy and are better described
as illustrated editorial columns than as editorial cartoons.
The larger sizes required to legibly print Scott's pieces are
a problem for many daily newspapers."
Bateman's March 20 cartoon showed
a woman saying, in part: "The recent bankruptcy bill that
Bush supports will make it nearly impossible for families that
suffer a major illness or injury like Terri Schiavo's to ever
get back on their feet again. ... The tort-reform bill that the
president wants would put an end to malpractice claims like the
one that's paid for Terri Schiavo's care all these years. ...
And when he was governor of Texas, Bush himself signed a law
that gives hospitals the right to remove life support if the
patient can't pay." So, the cartoon concluded, Bush and
many Republicans are interested in "the culture of life
... only when it doesn't interfere" with the desires of
big companies such as the ones that supported the above three
pieces of legislation.
The cartoon subsequently appeared
on many more Web outlets (including blogs and bulletin boards)
than a typical Bateman drawing, and it generated a lot of online
discussion. But King didn't distribute it via "The Best
and the Wittiest." So Bateman e-mailed the syndicate to
tell it how popular the cartoon was on the Web and said he'd
be willing to quit the package "if King continues not to
distribute my best work."
In its reply, King said it was
"best" that Bateman leave the package.
Bateman said he joined the package
in 1997, and, for a time, had an average of 10 cartoons used
per month -- at $55 per drawing. He added that this income was
very important to him because, unlike the other cartoonists in
the package, he doesn't have a staff job at a newspaper. Bateman
said King started using fewer of his cartoons, and, by last month,
only picked up three.
"Granted, my work's been
getting edgier in tone and design, but still, in terms of content,
it's nothing worse than, say, 'The Daily Show,'" commented
Bateman.
What's ahead for Bateman in terms
of editorial cartooning? "Currently, I have no future plans,"
he replied. "It's going to take me some time to figure out
what's next."
Meanwhile, Kennedy said a decision
has not yet been made about who might replace Bateman in "The
Best and the Wittiest" package.
Dave Astor (dastor@editorandpublisher.com)
is a senior editor at E&P.
From Scott Bateman's Blog ...
First, here's the preamble:
I'd been getting increasingly
dissatisfied with King Features over the past several months.
They were using fewer and fewer
of my cartoons, and especially shying away from the harder-hitting
ones.
I should add here: my work had
been running as part of King Features' "Best & Wittiest"
package since 1997, The Best & Wittiest package includes
about a dozen cartoonists, all sending their stuff to King each
day hoping to have one of their cartoons be one of the six King
sent out to clients every day, five days a week--an average month
for me had been right around ten of my cartoons being included
in the package a month, at $55 per cartoon (syndication is NOT
where the money is, yo). I was currently the only cartoonist
in the package NOT on-staff at a newspaper, which meant I depended
on that scant syndication much more than my peers in the package.
Granted, my work's been getting
edgier in tone and design, but still--in terms of content, it's
nothing worse than say, The Daily Show.
This culminated with them using
only three (out of nine I submitted) in February.
And since I get paid per cartoon
they pick up, that meant a very scant payday in mid-March.
And so on Sunday, March 20, I
drew and submitted this cartoon:

This cartoon struck a nerve online
and by Monday it had appeared on numerous blogs, bulletin boards,
and LiveJournals, generating a whole lot of discussion of President
Bush, the Texas Futile Care Law, and Dubya's hypocrisy in the
Schiavo case.
In fact, within 24 hours, the
cartoon had been seen about 15-20 times as many times as a typical
new cartoon of mine would have been, according to my web logs--and
that doesn't count those who saw it on the Slate political cartoon
site, or people who posted the cartoon to their own server to
post on their blog or web site.
Also by the end of the day Monday,
it was clear that King hadn't used the cartoon in the Best &
Wittiest package, so I sent this email to King:
You'll be using my Schiavo cartoon from yesterday in the Best
& Wittiest package, right? It contributes a HELL of a lot
more to the debate than that Shelton cartoon, yo. And it has
already become one of my most popular cartoons on the web ever,
and inspired a large discussion on DailyKos.com.
If you don't use it, I will
want an email explaining why.
And after you guys only used
three of my cartoons last month, I'll be happy to quit the Best
& Wittiest package if King continues to not distribute my
best work. I'm starting to think I need someone a little braver
backing my work...
24 hours later, on Tuesday, I
sent another email:
Hi--
Still waiting for an answer re: my Schiavo cartoon.
I should re-iterate that the
cartoon has already appeared on many blogs and message boards
online--by far, my most popular cartoon of the past year. Newspaper
editors should have the chance to use it in their papers.
I should also re-iterate that
a) the facts in the cartoon are absolutely true, and b) I'm willing
to walk over this, cuz, hey, if you're only going to use three
cartoons of mine a month (as you did in February), do you really
think I'm going to miss the monthly check for $165...? I'm pretty
much the only political cartoonist in America who actually lives
on his meager syndication income, and I'm sure I can do better
than $165/month SOMEwhere.
That prompted this response from
King:
Scott:
I am
not the person who makes the BEST & WITTIEST selections.
The selections are made by a group of editors.
I did
ask to see what you have submitted in the past two months. Having
looked at the batch, it is not surprising to me that so few of
your cartoons were selected for inclusion. The bulk of
our clients are still print clients - daily newspapers. Daily
newspapers are unlikely to print cartoons with endings such as:
"Remember, America - you can't spell "B*s**"
without "Bush!" and "Screw unto others!"
You do
interesting work that you obviously put a lot of thought into,
but your cartoons are generally so verbose that they are better
described as illustrated opinion columns than as editorial cartoons.
That approach works better on websites where newsholes
aren't physically limited by page counts, as is the case with
print publications. The trick with websites of course is
figuring out a viable business model to support the creation,
marketing and distribution of the work.
I'd like
to see you do well and I want you to do well. Your involvement
with The BEST & WITTIEST feature is clearly upsetting to
you, so at this point I agree, it is best that you move on and
leave the BEST &
WITTIEST.
I'm sorry
that the experience has been frustrating for you, and wish you
the best. Hopefully, you'll find a paying staff editorial
cartoon position on some website.
I pinged back with an email agreeing
that yeah, it was probably time to move on.
So now, I'm out of work, and
nobody's beating down my door to hire me.
Email Scott Bateman at batetoon@yahoo.com Visit
his cartoons here.
The Editor & Publisher article and Bateman's blog entry are
posted with permission.
April 10, 2005
THE ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH HIRES R.J. MATSON
Our own R.J.
Matson has been hired to be the daily editorial cartoonist
for the St. Louis Post Dispatch. The Post Dispatch
subscribes to our Cagle Cartoons
syndication package and got to know RJ by running his cartoons.
RJ joined Cagle Cartoons
in January.
RJ asked me not to mention that
he won the job until today, when the new position was announced
by the Post Dispatch. RJ plans to move to St Louis in June,
from his home in Connecticut. He has a new baby boy and a two
year old daughter. He's looking forward to raising his family
in Missouri. RJ tells me he has already scoped out his new office
at the newspaper. RJ currently draws one cartoon per week for
the New York Observer and four cartoons a week for Roll
Call; he plans to continue drawing for both, in addition
to his new cartoon commitments at the Post-Dispatch.
The Post-Dispatch is one
of the nation's largest newspapers and the fact that they had
no cartoonist was often cited, during the last year, as evidence
of the decline of the editorial cartooning profession. The empty
cartoonist position at the Chicago Tribune is the biggest
remaining hole in our long-suffering profession.
The Post-Dispatch has
a rich history of great cartoonists, but their drawing table
has been empty since December of 2003 when John
Sherffius resigned in a dispute with the paper's new editor
at the time, Ellen Soeteber. We reprinted an article from the Chicago Reader about the events leading to Sherffius'
resignation. Sherffius was hired in an unusual, high profile
contest when the Post-Dispatch solicited entries from
cartoonists across the nation and had a panel of Pulitzer Prize
winning cartoonists select the "winner" of the job.
The newspaper was flooded with resumes from job seeking cartoonists
for that contest, and was also deluged with portfolios during
the past sixteen months.
I asked RJ if he was worried
about editorial interference given the reports of Sherffius'
experience at the Post-Dispatch, and how he might handle
pressure not to pick on Republicans too much. RJ didn't think
that would be a problem, noting that the editors liked the fact
that his cartoons were "unpredictable" and were impressed
that he has been able to skewer both political parties with equal
verve in the cartoons he has drawn for Roll Call, a newspaper
that covers Capitol Hill with a strictly non-partisan editorial
policy. If anything, RJ expects that working at the Post-Dispatch
will allow him to cover more issues in a more biting way than
ever before.
Congratulations to RJ on winning
the job! I look forward to continuing to syndicate his excellent
work for a long time to come.
April 8, 2005
PUSHING THE LIMITS?
I think Peter Nicholson's new
animation of Charles and Camilla's Wedding Night is wonderful
--so I put it up on the site even though it is not exactly "Middle
School safe" and his own newspaper, The Australian, refused
to post it on their web site. Our site is the only place to see
it.
I'm told that our site is widely used in schools ... maybe not
for long.
April 4, 2005
NICK
ANDERSON WINS THE PULITZER PRIZE
Congratulations to Nick
Anderson of the Louisville Courier-Journal for winning the
Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning. See
his winning portfolio of twenty cartoons here. The runners
up were Don
Wright of the Palm Beach Post and Gary
Trudeau for Doonesbury. Nick is a great choice!
Every year, the finalists for the Pulitzers are supposed to be
a secret, but every year the finalists are leaked to Editor and
Publisher. Interestingly, this year the leaked finalists were
wrong (we had earlier quoted the finalists as being Don Wright,
Joel Pett and Gary Trudeau), so Nick is a pleasant surprise.
April 3, 2005
THE POPE CARTOONS
I just put up a big
collection of cartoons marking the death of Pope John Paul II.
Readers respond more to obituary cartoons than to anything else
that political cartoonists draw, and I'm sure the cartoon memorials
to the Pope will be the same.
There were a couple of cartoons
that didn't quite fit with the ... erm ... respectful tone of
the others ... so I didn't include them in the Pope memorial
section and I thought I would put them here. Cartoonists tend
to travel in packs, but there are always a couple of strays.

 Rainer Hachfeld,
Berlin, Germany, Neues Deutschland
E-mail Rainer. Visit an archive of the artist's most
recent cartoons in the drop menu at the right. For reprint
requests, e-mail Cartoonists & Writers Syndicate at cws@cartoonweb.com
Click on the cartoon to e-mail it to a friend. |
|

JIHO, France,
Phosphore and Macadam Journal
E-mail JIHO -- Visit
JIHO Click on the cartoon to e-mail it to a friend. |
|
April 1, 2005
OFFENSIVE CARTOON?
Here is an interesting piece posted with permission from Editor & Publisher
about a recent cartoon by Signe
Wilkinson.
Duluth Paper Apologizes for
School-Shooting Cartoon; Cartoonist Unhappy
By Dave Astor , Editor & Publisher
NEW YORK A note apologizing for a syndicated editorial
cartoon about the recent Minnesota school shootings was posted
today by the Duluth News Tribune -- to the cartoonist's displeasure.
In the note, News Tribune President
and Publisher Marti Buscaglia said: "Some of our readers
have indicated they were offended by the racially derogatory
nature of Wednesday's political cartoon commenting on the Red
Lake incident. Frankly, I agree with those viewpoints and want
to extend my apologies to those who were offended during a sensitive
time in our region."
The drawing, dated March 25,
was created by Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Signe Wilkinson
of The Philadelphia Daily News and Washington Post Writers Group.
In it, she showed a person holding an "Indian Tracking Guide"
while following items on the ground such as a gun, a picture
of Adolf Hitler, and a Nazi swastika. "I'm not recognizing
these signs," says the person.
When contacted by E&P, Wilkinson
e-mailed this response to the NewsTribune apology: "My cartoon
was drawn in sympathy with the Red Lake citizens. All it was
saying was that the footprints troubled kids leave behind today
in the 21st century are not the footprints of anyone's traditional
culture. The cartoon boldly bemoaned the violent American subculture
that some of our children fall prey to. I would have appreciated
the chance to explain that to the one reader whose letter was
published and to anyone at the paper who had cared to get my
side of the story."
Buscaglia's note was linked to
by the Poynter Institute's Romenesko Web site.
Dave Astor
is a senior editor at E&P.
|