The Washington Post has posted its (cough) “Best Editorial Cartoons of 2013 (so far).”
The Washington Post is edited by assholes.
Look, if you’re going to call a group of cartoons the “best,” they really should be, you know, best.
If not best, at least solid.
And this isn’t even representative of the field, much less solid.
Not one single “alternative” (modern) editorial cartoonist. No Matt Bors, no Tom Tomorrow, no Stephanie McMillan, no derf, no Jen Sorensen, no me, no Ruben Bolling, no Brian McFadden. None.
Not one of the good conservative cartoonists: Scott Stantis, Chuck Asay, Mike Lester.
All they did was cobble together some random mainstream stuff – hardly the best – by a few of the cartoonists they run all the time. With lots and lots of Tom Toles, because, well, he’s their staff cartoonist and they already pay him. Which is fine. Do whatever you want. But don’t fucking call this the “best” in the entire country or people will notice. Because the Washington Post may not want its readers to read the best cartoons…but people find them on the Web. Which is one more reason the Post is losing readers.
Assholes.
7 Comments.
Yeah, those are pretty lousy. It would have been nice to see an alternative cartoonist in there — but not Bors. His work is not up to any kind of standard. And that millenials cartoon was one of the worst things I’ve seen in years. Bolling on a BAD day is better than Bors at his best.
I’m not attacking or name-calling. I’m stating my opinion and I hope Ted will let that stand. Bors has some growing up to do.
@ex: I am not removing the Matt Bors comment although I disagree with it. It does not involve name-calling and is therefore not stupid.
Just look at the latest Bors: http://www.mattbors.com/blog/2013/07/24/pro-life-perry/
Is that any better than the typical editorial? No. It’s ultra-obvious, among other faults. This is the future of alternative? Come on. We can do better.
@ex: You can’t judge any cartoonist based on one single cartoon, unless it is absolutely so terrible that it negates his entire body of work. Certainly this one doesn’t come close to that standard. It’s not his best, but it certainly is much better than the average editorial cartoon by Pulitzer prize-winning mainstream cartoonists who earn a fortune. If you look at his body of work overall, he delivers the goods a lot more often than not, which is more than I can say for most of my colleagues.
There is need for ultra-obvious cartoons because the average American cannot quickly understand anything of a higher level. It has always been this way. There is a bell-curve of “obviousity” that has existed for the entire existence of cartoons – just like comedians. Many people cannot understand Richard Wright’s comments, so others that are more obvious do better. If you don’t write down to a certain level, then you can be certain that a certain amount of people certainly won’t understand you. Get my drift?
@Ted: Like this? http://www.mattbors.com/blog/2013/07/15/zimmerman-gets-justice/
Here, I’ll paraphrase you when you critique the editorial cartoons.
“What’s this saying exactly? That Zimmerman killed lady justice? That Trayvon is lady justice? That Zimmerman is Ted Nugent? What exactly?”
Again, in addition to being ultra-obvious it’s not much (if any) different from the standard editorial cartoons. You know, the ones with ship sinking, with the ship labeled “USA” and the water labelled “National Debt”. This one (Zimmerman killed justice) isn’t any better. If alternative cartooning wants bragging rights, it needs to step it up and provide an …. alternative.
I stand by my comments.
I also add, Bors views on the world are binary. Not much different that those on the left. I’ve read some of his writing that comes off as shallow, to say the least. He’s young, so perhaps he’ll grow. But this “left v. right” crap is tiresome. The left is often just as ignorant as the right. The interesting space is where people actually, you know ….. think. Look at Greenwald. There’s a reason he’s so hated by those on the right and (especially) the left. He inhabits the space where people actually think and have principles. He doesn’t engage in reflexive ideological arguments.