I draw cartoons for The Los Angeles Times about issues related to California and the Southland (metro Los Angeles).
This week: Governor Jerry Brown of California has submitted a plan to ease prison overcrowding – but says he doesn’t support it. Could this mark the start of Poison Pill Politics?
Some of my colleagues are unhappy that I am, as they put it, airing the dirty laundry by criticizing terrible editorial cartoons. I don’t get it. It’s not like these things are state secrets. They’re published in newspapers. They appear on the Internet. Pointing out that they are terrible doesn’t require speaking out of turn; everybody already knows that they are terrible because only have to do is look at them to see that they are terrible. All I do, as I see it, is describe and articulate why I think they are terrible. It’s not like I have any special power to censor bad editorial cartoons – although that would be great – or that anyone is going to get fired because of something I write. It’s just my opinion. And I suspect that it is an opinion that is more widely shared than the lazy hacks who create this crap would like to think.
And so, without further ado, here’s a look at today’s artistic atrocities by cartoonists who receive huge salaries from newspapers that wouldn’t pay $20 a week to run syndicated editorial cartoons by a good cartoonist. And editors wonder why the newspaper business is in trouble…
First and foremost, this is not a political cartoon. It does not express a political point of view. I happen to know that the cartoonist is a Republican, but you can’t possibly tell that from the cartoon. What is the take away message? College is expensive. Yeah, like everyone didn’t already know that. I’m never going to get the four seconds back that I spent reading that.
This is one of those cartoons that you practically need a decoder ring to figure out. Unless you are the biggest political wonk in the world, you’ve probably forgotten about South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and his lame excuse for going AWOL while he was sneaking off to Argentina on taxpayer money in order to visit his girlfriend: that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. But what really gets me, and it showcases just how old-fashioned mainstream editorial cartooning is, is the reference to the 1970s TV show “Sanford and Son.” I’m nearly 50 years old, and I was 14 years old when the show was canceled in 1977. In other words, I’m about as young as you can be and still remember it. When you do a cartoon that can only be referenced in terms of pop culture by people who are older than 50, you are giving up on the present – never mind the future.
In recent years, in a formatted trope that I think we began with Mike Ramirez, many cartoonists have started doing this below-the-frame caption thing, like the “locked in the attic” here. The effect is incredibly pretentious. It says I am smart and you are not. Ta-daa! Furthermore, the inherent weakness of the metaphor format shows through here. This is a drawing of the suspect in the Cleveland kidnappings. So why is he labeled Cleveland kidnappings? He isn’t the kidnappings. He is the kidnapper. Ultimately, the biggest problem with this cartoon is the simpleminded and vacuous concept behind it: that this is all explained by evil. You know, like he’s possessed by a demon. Which, frankly, if true should allow him to walk free. Or at least walk free after he has his demons exorcized by a crazy priest. Somehow, I doubt that the right-wing cartoonist who drew this cartoon really believes that this guy is possessed by a demon or the devil or Satan or whatever. All you are really left with is: some people are bad. Which, I already knew. And it’s not a political statement. So it should not be marketed as a political cartoon.
When I become cartoon dictator of the world, I am going to ban all editorial cartoons that point to anyone and say: that person is a hero. Editorial cartooning is an inherently negative medium. It is here to criticize, not praise. When you praise anything, you look cheesy and stupid. In this format. The only exception would be if you praise someone who is widely vilified by the mainstream media and American culture.
This runs in Daily Kos. I do not.
Totally retarded. Telling the public or for that matter the victims of a crime that they can take comfort in a fictional Christianesque anti-deity wreaking vengeance on their behalf is cartooning malpractice. Not to mention, now that I think of it, weirdly anti-Christian. Unless Randy is a devil worshiper.
This one… Wow. What the hell?
Once again hack blogger Alan Gardner of The Daily Cartoonist, the boosterish cut-and-paste pseudo-news site, is running interference for ethics-challenged cartoon kingpin/plagiarist enabler/cartoon recycler Daryl Cagle.
Quoting Cagle’s laughable blog (without seeking comment from me, Matt Bors, Ann Telnaes or other cartoonists who have challenged him), Gardner writes: “Daryl Cagle responds to the criticism that by switching positions (and changing a cartoon) that he’s undermining editorial cartooning.”
Of course, no one criticized Cagle for “switching positions” (on whether the Boston Marathon bombing suspect “deserved” his Miranda rights). Nor did anyone criticize him for “changing a cartoon.” Changing cartoons is done all the time.
What Daryl was criticized for was the equivalent of selling weapons to both sides in a war: the reprehensible act of issuing two versions of the same exact cartoon, one pro-Miranda rights, the other anti, and selling both versions at the same time.
Alan Gardner knows that. Which makes him a disgusting, slimy liar.
Either that, or he’s a moron.
I’m giving him credit. I’ll go with lying sack of dung.
Not-So-Secret “Secret Bombings” Have Big Implications
Did Israel bomb Damascus yesterday? Of course it did. According to Syrian rebel sources, 42 Syrian army soldiers were killed. But Israel – following its customary policy – won’t admit it. This has happened before. Usually, Syria doesn’t say anything about Israeli airstrikes. (The Syrian government’s complaint about Sunday’s airstrike is unusual, and thus cause for concern that the civil war might escalate into a regional conflict.)
According to experts, the official silence following not-so-secret secret bombings reflect the fact that even enemies have to cooperate sometimes. If Syria acknowledges that it has been the victim of what international law and anyone with a dictionary defines as an act of war, Syrian citizens and non-Syrians throughout the Muslim world would pressure the government of President Bashar al-Assad into a war it can’t win. Knowing this, the Israelis – who don’t want a war that could unite the fractious Arabs against them and set the Middle East ablaze – let Assad save face. By refusing to confirm or to deny, they quietly gloat over what everyone knows, that they can come and go as they please over Syrian airspace (or fire long-range missiles from Israeli territory, since even the Syrians don’t seem sure what hit them yesterday).
We live in a time that bears out the most dystopian of George Orwell’s predictions, yet even in a world of bluster and BS few news events are as surreal and mind-blowing as a so-called secret bombing. There is, after all, nothing secret about bombs. Especially when they fall into a densely populated metropolis. Certainly the families of those 42 dead soldiers are in the loop.
“Imagine an airstrike on a US weapons depot and no one claims responsibility,” the political cartoonist Kevin Moore tweet-asked. “Would we be so blasé about it?” We would be if we were a weak nation and the attacker was a strong one.
Not that this is a first-time occurrence.
Older readers remember the so-called secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and 1970, when President Richard Nixon ordered the carpet bombing of North Vietnamese supply bases in eastern Cambodia and Laos, a violation of international law. It was a sensational scoop for to readers of the New York Times and members of Congress (who hadn’t been informed), but if you were there, there was nothing secretive about the 100,000-plus tons of ordnance dropped in 3800-plus sorties by American B-52s.
Tens of thousands of Cambodians, including many civilians, were killed.
As far as the rest of the world was concerned, however, the bombings were cloaked by a conspiracy of silence. The international media found out about it right away but coverage was scant and tentative. Cambodia’s leader, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, supposedly sent his tacit approval through back channels; for its part, North Vietnam couldn’t say boo because they weren’t supposed to be in Cambodia either.
The US drone war in Pakistan bears similarities to Cambodia, though it features a delicious extra dollop of deception.
As I reported in 2010, the United States isn’t so much occupying Afghanistan as it is using eastern Afghanistan as a staging area to launch drone strikes against tribal areas in western Pakistan. Again we have the ridiculous spectacle of something that couldn’t possibly be less secret – Hellfire missiles streaming out of the sky from buzzing drones circling Pakistani cities in broad daylight and blasting homes and cars – while both the Americans firing the weapons and the Pakistani government whose territory they are landing on officially deny knowing anything about them. Although Pakistani officials either claim helplessness in the face of American military might or condemn the drone strikes outright, thousands of people have died in hundreds of attacks under the Bush and Obama administrations as the result of a brutal quid pro quo: the CIA kills political dissidents and other “enemies of the state” on the Pakistani regime’s hit list in exchange for the privilege of killing “terrorists” it deems a threat. (It recently came out that CIA drone operators fire blindly, without knowing who they’re killing.)
The United States has similar arrangements with Yemen and Somalia.
Oh, and the U.S. doesn’t even officially acknowledge that it has a drone program. It’s classified. If it exists. Even though Obama jokes about it.
I wonder whether the lawyered-up officials who gin up these pssst arrangements worry about the geopolitical implications. For at least 200 years – arguably since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 – the Western world has been governed on the basis of strictly defined borders. In the postwar era the United Nations has served primarily as an attempt to enshrine the sovereignty of nation-states. At the core of contemporary international law is the doctrine that invading the territory or airspace is an act of war, particularly when the victim is internationally recognized as sovereign. So how does that square with secret bombings?
If Israel can carry out acts of war against Syria with impunity, without suffering any sanction, and if United States can do the same in Pakistan, who is to say which cross-border incursions of the future are acceptable and which are not? If Syria and Pakistan tacitly consent to their territory being bombed, but don’t sign formal agreements to allow it, can they legitimately claim to be sovereign independent states? It seems to me that both the bombers and the victim countries are messing around with issues with huge potential ramifications without thinking them through.
When political leaders wallow in “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes” absurdism, citizens roll their eyes and learn to reflexively distrust everything they see and hear from officials and in mainstream media. How, for example, can you take an Israeli government seriously that has had nuclear weapons since the 1970s but refuses to admit it (and sabre-rattles with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, which probably doesn’t exist)? Or a United Nations that refuses to call them to account under nuclear nonproliferation treaties?
The greatest enemy of political stability is alienation. Citizens don’t have to like their leaders to hand them the tacit consent of the governed. But if a regime wants to stay in power, the people have to believe their government more often than not. It can’t be perceived as totally full of crap.
Just ask Mikhail Gorbachev.
Sure, all rules are arbitrary. But once you start breaking your own rules, you undermine the basis of legitimacy for the system you’ve created and hope to perpetuate. If we go back to the basis of nationhood – you have a right to exist if you can carve out borders, defend them, and repel invaders – we unwind the world order that has been in place for nearly half a millennium. Which may be for the better. But it’s probably something that we should all discuss.
In the open.
(Ted Rall’s website is tedrall.com. His book “After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan” will be released in November by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.)
COPYRIGHT 2013 TED RALL
Doesn’t matter if they deserve it: criticizing the work of a creative person who isn’t successful is mean. Not to mention pointless. If they’re not doing well, and their work sucks, the system is working.
Take on a cartoonist or writer who is raking in the cash, on the other hand, and his fans will accuse you of sour grapes. “You’re just jealous!” they’ll say.
Which is true, but also not true.
I’ll start with the not-true part.
I’ll focus on cartoonists because that’s my chosen profession, and I happen to think I’m good at it, and I sometimes issue broadsides against cartoons I think are such an insult to my profession that their shitsmeariness literally takes money out of my pocket merely by toiling in the same genre.
Lots of cartoonists make more money than I do. Yet you won’t find me tearing them a new critical asshole. Matt Groening makes more money than he can count. Is he perfect? Hell no. But as far as I can tell, he deserves every cent. Charles Schulz, Gary Larsen, Garry Trudeau, Bill Mauldin, James Thurber — all cartoonists who made or make bank. Schulz still makes tens of millions a year, and he’s dead. All got more awards than I could dream of. As far as I’m concerned, the system worked in these cases.
If my criticisms of other cartoonists were motivated by simple sour grapes, by the simple equation of he-has-more-good-stuff-than-I-do, I would attack the most successful, richest cartoonists the most. Or I’d draw a line at my level of income and fame, and grouse about everyone above it. Of course, this would delegitimize my complaints.
Some of the cartoonists whose work I criticize respond by saying that my work sucks. In other words, I don’t have standing to attack them. Which, if true, is silly: you don’t have to be a (rich) film director to have a (valid) opinion on a movie. Then they fall back on the sour-grapes argument: I’m jealous of their talent.
Indeed, I am jealous of other cartoonists’ talent. I wish I drew as well as Matt Bors, wrote as brilliantly as Ruben Bolling, had as much passion as Stephanie McMillan, as much control as Jen Sorensen, as much crossover appeal as Shannon Wheeler, as much consistency as Tom Tomorrow. None of whom, by the way, make more money or have earned more awards than I have. Which, for me, is evidence that the system is not working. They should make more money and win more awards — not than me, goddammit! — than the hacks whose crap I ridicule.
Am I jealous? Damn right, I’m jealous.
I’m jealous when people get stuff they don’t deserve.
Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist, is one of the worst published writers in an American newspaper, an insult to logical reasoning, and more damning of all, deadly wrong about major issues. His job is to prognosticate, yet he has no ability to see past his bushy porn-star mustache. He was, for example, in favor of invading Iraq because he thought the U.S. would do a good job there. He was wrong when a lot of other people were right. He was listened to. They weren’t. And the consequences were devastating. Friedman lives in a palace. Does he deserve it? Hell no. Do I deserve it? More than him, that’s for sure.
I recently applied to a minor cartooning contest called “Best of the West.” It’s for political cartoons that run in the Western United States. Since I do cartoons for The Los Angeles Times, I applied. When the results came out, I was disgusted. This is because (a) it turned out the judge for the contest is close friends with the first-prize winner. They’re co-hosting the editorial cartoonists’ annual convention in three months. Talk about conflict of interest. I was jealousgusted (new word! use it, spread it around) by (b) by no objective standard could the first- or second-prize winners of Best of the West be judged to have done better cartoons than me or, say, Jen Sorensen, who also applied. Jen’s worst-ever cartoon is better/smarter/more political than number one or number two’s best-ever cartoon. So is mine. It’s not even close. We wuz robbed. So were others, including third-place “winner” Matt Bors. No one with eyes would put number two — who the same week published an “editorial cartoon” that, if I were on a prize committee, would have by itself have disqualified him from consideration — above Matt Bors in an editorial cartooning contest.
I bring up “Best of the West” because it literally means nothing. Well, maybe 0.02% of nothing. No prize money. No acclaim. The only reason I applied was that it’s been years since I won any prize whatsoever, and in a tough environment even 0.02% acclaim might be worth having. So just to be clear: I’m jealous. Not of Matt Bors, who got screwed as much as I did, well, slightly less, but still. I’m jealous of numbers one and two, who hold jobs, with full benefits, while I don’t. And I’m angry at the judge, because he knew — or should have known — that he made a shitty decision, and one devoid of basic ethics to boot.
Now several of my colleagues have taken me to task for talking about how certain hack cartoonists have staff jobs, with medical benefits, while I don’t. This, they tell me, makes me look petty.
Well, shit.
If the homeless veteran on the street outside the Starbucks where I am writing this sees me typing this on my shiny $3000 laptop, a $2.40 coffee cooling at my side, $650 glasses perched on my nose, is he jealous? Well, he should be. I don’t blame him if he comes in here and beats me to death. The gap between what I have and what he doesn’t have is so huge that he would literally have to be stupid and crazy not to hate me. I don’t deserve what I have, not compared to him. I don’t deserve to be the beneficiary of that gap.
Now let’s take a detour down Theoretical Lane: Imagine that — and that this is somehow provable — that by objective standards, he has led a better life than me. That he has worked harder, made better choices, been nicer, more creative, etc. Let’s further imagine that he and I both know this fact. Does he have a right to be jealous? Damn right he does. Would it be petty for him to express this fact? To tell passersby: “Hey, look at that (relatively) rich asshole in there. I spent my life saving children, creating great art and giving generously to the poor. All he’s done is draw pictures and whine about the president.”? Of course it wouldn’t. He’d have every right. Not only that, he’d be wrong not to make such a point. Because it would make a Very Important Argument: that the System does NOT work. If the system, which governs everything, doesn’t work, then everything is suspect. Clearly this calls for radical and immediate reassessment. It’s like capital punishment: a faulty tax audit is an injustice, but putting an innocent man to death represents such a grotesque and immense gap between the way things should be and the way they actually are that you have to stop executing people entirely.
I’m not comparing my loss in “Best of the West” (or, for that matter, the Pulitzer Prize) to the case of Todd Willingham, the innocent man poisoned to death by the state of Texas under Governor Rick Perry (who then tried to cover it up). What I am arguing, in certain cases, is that to reflexively accuse a critic of petty jealousy/sour grapes is to automatically assume that injustice either (a) doesn’t exist or (b) shouldn’t be complained about — in other words, to assume the role of the oppressor.
When I write about bad cartoons, I mention the Pulitzers and six-figure salaries of their creators first, in order to show my hand (a key component of integrity in arguing): I’m annoyed at said bad cartoon not because it is bad per se (there are millions of bad cartoons by, say, high school newspaper cartoonists that don’t deserve mention); and second, to make the case that the system is disproportionately rewarding those who don’t deserve it at the expense of those who do. This is important, because there are people like Lisa Klem Wilson, my former boss at a newspaper syndicate that has since gone out of business called United Media, who believe, as she said at a morning meeting, that “we live in a meritocracy. The best stuff rises to the top.” I remember thinking and saying: “What world do you live in?” When you look at, say, the list of Pulitzer Prize winners and compare them to some of the high-profile creators who lost those same years, it’s hard to see where people like Lisa are coming from. But they’ll never change their minds unless those of us who see things differently point these things out.
I am envious of anybody who has more than I do. Who, besides a monk, doesn’t want a nicer house? A bigger bank account? A good job? But I’m not angry about it, except in the generalized rage I feel about inequality in general, which informs my politics. No one deserves more anything than anyone else. To believe otherwise is to accept and enable evil.
Matt Bors won a major cartooning award, the Herblock Award, two years ago. $15,000! They cover the taxes! Tom Tomorrow won this year. I was envious, but I wasn’t jealous. They’re both great cartoonists. They deserved it. Jealousy is directed at the undeserving. As long as they have nice things that other people deserve more — a lot more — I’ll be jealous.
I draw cartoons for The Los Angeles Times about issues related to California and the Southland (metro Los Angeles).
This week: Sequester-related budget cuts to air traffic control could cause big delays at Los Angeles International Airport.
Obama Doesn’t Need Congress. He Needs Travelocity.
Guantánamo is complicated. Everyone says so.
Everyone is wrong.
There’s nothing complicated about it. Guantánamo should be closed.
Mainstream media pundits don’t get it. They suggest a lame hodgepodge of solutions: a few repatriations here, a few extraordinary renditions there, maybe convincing some allies to take the victims of our stupid “war on terrorism.”
Immoral and idiotic.
All of the detainees — every last one of them, the schlubs who have been officially cleared by the Pentagon and, yes, even the scary dudes the government insists are “the worst of the worst” — can, should and — if the United States Constitution means anything at all — must be released.
Here.
In the United States.
I don’t find myself saying this very often, but President Obama is finally doing talking about doing something right. Granted, he let five years pass before he took the problem seriously. It took a hunger strike, now entering its fourth month, which could begin claiming the lives of some of the more than 100 participating POWs, to get his attention. Even now, he is violating the detainees’ human rights and the standards of the American Medical Association by violently shoving feeding tubes up their noses to —irony alert! — save their lives. Still, better late than never: Obama (finally) says he wants to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise by closing this monstrosity.
“Guantánamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” he told a news conference. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us, in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”
So close it. You don’t need Congress. All you need is a Travelocity account.
When Obama became president in 2009, there were 245 prisoners at Gitmo. Now there are 166. (None have been released since 2011, which demoralized the remaining prisoners to the point that many are willing to die from hunger.) Some of these wretches been there since the concentration camp — look it up, there is no better term for it — opened 12 years ago.
It’s been ages. Three inmates arrived at Gitmo as children. As they passed through adolescence and entered adulthood, they were tortured, abused, and denied basic human rights by American soldiers and CIA agents, left to rot in American dog cages. (At least 28 children have done time there.)
American officials worry that their experience may have radicalized them. How could it not? If it hasn’t, they must be insane.
The horrors are just beginning to come out. A Spanish investigation censored in U.S. media found that American soldiers have abused Gitmo prisoners with “blows to [the] testicles,” “detention underground in total darkness for three weeks with deprivation of food and sleep,” being “inoculated…through injection with ‘a disease for dog cysts,'” smearing feces on prisoners and (of course) waterboarding.
Actionable intelligence obtained under torture: none.
This was in 2009. Under Obama.
Few Americans are aware of how the vast majority of the so-called detainees got there. Mostly, they were sold. Yes, like slaves: Afghan warlords and Pakistani tribesmen sold anyone they could find, especially Arabs and other foreigners fleeing the 2001 US invasion, to the CIA and the US military for bounties ranging between $3,000 and $25,000. Hundreds of men and boys shipped to America’s new gulag were innocent, simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. As for the rest, the majority were never a threat to America. Their jihad was against the governments of U.S. frenemies like China, Pakistan and Yemen.
The 166 survivors — several have committed suicide, and some deaths classified as suicides were almost certainly murdered under torture using an obscure technique called “dryboarding” — can be classified into four categories:
Eighty-six have been cleared for transfer or release but can’t be sent back to their home country — Yemen, for most of them — because, as political dissidents, they might be — irony alert! — tortured or killed.
The Obama administration considers 47 too dangerous to release, but cannot prosecute them because there isn’t enough evidence against them, or the case against them has been compromised by the fact that they were tortured.
Twenty-four are deemed prosecutable but no one can say when a trial might take place.
Six have been charged and three have been convicted in the kangaroo court “military commission” system invented by George W. Bush’s legal team to prosecute “unlawful combatants,” a phony term that doesn’t exist under U.S. or international law.
Obama should stop blaming Congress. Yes, the Republicans did refuse to allocate funds to transfer Guantánamo detainees to the United States. But Obama signed their legislation into law. He owns this mess.
All 166 men should be offered the choice of a ticket back home or permanent residency in the United States. After all, what are we talking about? 166 one-way tickets. Even if we fly these guys first-class, $250,000 isn’t going to break the bank. Obama is worth about $12 million. Who needs taxpayer money? He could cover that personally.
Consider it retroactive payment for that 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
Under the American system of justice, everyone — citizen or noncitizen — is innocent until proven guilty. 163 of these guys clearly can’t be proven guilty, and the three that were found guilty obviously didn’t get a fair trial. The rules might have been different had the Bush and Obama administrations classified them as POWs, but he didn’t want to give them the rights that they were entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. The US has been having it both ways for 12 long years. This disgusting farce needs to come to an end now.
Imagine the visual: Obama flies to Cuba, personally apologizes to each man, hands him a big check for $10 million, throws open the gates of the camp and gives it back to Cuba (from which we stole it in the first place). Hell, let them hitch a ride back to Andrews on Air Force One. Open bar!
Would some of these ex-Gitmo victims join the fight against the United States? Maybe. After all, 60% of American ex-cons reoffend. In a free society, that’s a risk that we take.
Still, you’ve got to think that in a country full of security cameras, with two or three overfunded intelligence agencies and countless domestic police apparatuses, it shouldn’t be too hard to set up the former prisoners of Guantánamo with job training, phone taps, GPS trackers on their cars and two or three agents each to follow them around and make sure that they don’t get into trouble.
And don’t forget that footage of Obama apologizing.
Can you imagine how pissed off the Al Qaeda guys would be?
(Ted Rall’s website is tedrall.com. His book “After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan” will be released in November by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.)
COPYRIGHT 2013 TED RALL
BOSTON (CBS/AP) – Boston police say three additional suspects have been taken into custody in the Boston Marathon bombings investigation. Their names have not been released. Police said more details will be revealed later today. According to CBS News, the three people arrested are friends of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Two will be charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements. They are not U.S. citizens. According to WBZ-TV’s Karen Anderson, their names are Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbayev. Both are originally from Kazakhstan and attended the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The third suspect, according to CBS News, is an American citizen and he will be charged with making false statements.
Once again, a Central Asian connection. Maybe, just maybe, people will finally start paying attention to this region I’ve been writing about and reporting from for two decades.
Like a politician trying to sneak out those sleazy statements that come out late Friday so that they will appear in a Saturday newspaper that nobody reads, cartoon kingpin Daryl finally addressed CagleGate — the outcry that followed the discovery that the ethics-challenged former editorial cartoonist is selling two versions of the same exact cartoon, with just a few words changed so that they can appeal either to the liberal or the conservative side of the political spectrum. (Bear in mind, this follows a multitude of sins: sleazy business deals, bottom-feeding and scabbing, censorship, coddling and encouraging plagiarists, and even publicly calling for other cartoonists to behave unethically.) Actual quote: “It amuses me to reuse old cartoons; I don’t find much opportunity to do it, but when I do, I chuckle to myself and take an extra hour for lunch.”
Perhaps the most remarkable argument here was that editors don’t take editorial cartooning seriously, so editorial cartoonists shouldn’t take themselves seriously either. To which I would answer: (a) if editors didn’t take the profession seriously, why are they doling out millions of dollars for editorial cartoons every year? and (b) maybe we need to take ourselves a little more seriously.
As promised when this remarkable piece of spin and dissembling hit the Internet on Saturday, here is my response to a few choice lines:
This week I drew an unusual cartoon that garnered a crazy response from my outraged, cartoonist colleagues.
“Crazy”? Who’s the real nut here? The scores of editorial cartoonists who find Daryl’s behavior cynical beyond belief? Or the one cartoonist in American history – the first ever – to try to strip the politics out of political cartooning, to try to sell the same cartoon to both Democratic and Republican newspapers?
I drew this last Sunday:
I got no response from editors or other cartoonists to this cartoon, but I got such a strong reaction from readers against the cartoon, with many well reasoned arguments, that I changed my mind – something that doesn’t happen much in this profession. (The comments on my Facebook page are representative of the overall comments I received). So I posted a revised version of the cartoon on Monday. I learned that Tsarnaev was given his Miranda rights shortly before I posted the revised cartoon, so I doubt that this second cartoon got reprinted much.
As with so many things, Daryl’s response was a dishonest attempt to recast history in order to put him in a better light. Here’s what he said at the time: “I remember when the Miranda decision came down in the 1960′s, on a 5-4 vote. It was controversial for a long time; the only area of the law where ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ didn’t hold true. I got a large enough sampling of e-mails in response to the cartoon (and you can see from the Facebook comments as well) that I realized the Miranda decision no longer seems to be controversial.” In other words, “well reasoned arguments” had nothing to do with it. Like Dick Morris, the pollster who advised Bill Clinton when was the best time for him and his family to take a vacation, Cagle poll-tested the cartoon and found it wanting. Remember, that his defense.
The second version is the same as the first, but instead of “none of them” deserving to be read their Miranda Warning, the revised cartoon says “all of them” should get the warning. I’ve changed my mind before, not often, and usually over a longer period of time, but I won’t go back into the archive to delete the old cartoons. I posted them, I should live with my history. So both cartoons are still posted. (My old cartoons supporting the run up to war in Iraq are still posted too – I’m more embarrassed by those.)
It is standard operating procedure for rogues to describe their nefarious actions as motivated by integrity. In this case, he says he’s taking responsibility for his mistake by refusing to memoryhole the old, bad, wrong version. The problem is, Daryl will happily sell both versions of the cartoon. If he had really changed his mind, he would refuse to distribute the old one. Or he would mark the old one in some way as to indicate that he no longer stood by that opinion and that it was in the archives for no other reason than historic interest. But anyway, given the fact that only one word changed in this cartoon, the appropriate action would have been to delete the older version. After all, the history of the change is online in his blog and in other places. The only reason to put the old one in the archives, is if you plan to sell it again. Which he clearly does.
I remember when the Miranda decision came down in the 1960′s, on a 5-4 vote. It was controversial for a long time; the only area of the law where “ignorance of the law is no excuse” didn’t hold true. Liberals like it, conservatives still don’t like it. I decided to disagree with the talking heads at Fox News and I changed my mind to agree with my readers and conclude that the Miranda decision should no longer be controversial – it has become a part of our national fabric. Most of the responses conflate reading the Miranda warning to the suspect with the suspect’s overall civil rights; I have come to the conclusion that is a good thing. (I really do pay attention to the arguments that readers send to me.)
See above. So interesting that he keeps using the word “controversial.” And so revelatory. Like any other political thinker, an editorial cartoonist takes stands on various issues. As far as I know, Daryl Cagle is the only one who overtly crowdsources his own political opinions. As far as everyone else is concerned, if they don’t like the Miranda decision, they say so and they let the cards fall where they may. Frankly, any editorial cartoonist who worries about being unpopular should get out of the business.
Some cartoonists wrote that I must surely be lying about my reason for changing the cartoon, because the idea that I would change my mind was simply not credible. Others called for me to be punished for my breach of the unwritten laws of cartoon ethics. Some demanded that I remove the old version of the cartoon from my archive, as I would do with a cartoon that was revised to correct a spelling error; the idea that an editor could purchase and print both versions of the cartoon, with two different opinions, was repugnant. Bloggers and journalism sites reported on the cartoon controversy.
Yes, the cartoon police really do exist.
No they don’t, but Daryl Cagle personally is a one-man justification for recruiting such a force. Like most other cartoonists, I spend most of my time focused on my own work. It’s only when you have some butthead crapping all over everything that is good and decent that you have to put down your pen and speak out. The idea that Cagle might change his mind was quite credible. What made his story incredible was the fact that he continue to sell both versions of the cartoon. And here’s my favorite part:
I know this all sounds unbelievable, but I’m not exaggerating. It is fascinating that editorial cartoonists have such a different perspective on their own work than editors and readers do. The cartoonists take themselves far more seriously than anyone else takes them.
I don’t even know where to start with this.
Why do anything if you don’t take it seriously? Yes, I admit it, I think editorial cartooning very seriously. It’s all I have ever wanted to do since I was a little kid. I still get an incredible thrill when I see my work in print. Some of the most amazing artwork I have ever seen has been in this medium. Its potential has yet to be achieved. No one has ever drawn the perfect editorial cartoon, and I plan to spend the rest of my life in a vain attempt to try.
I suspect that Daryl’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t take his own work seriously, it’s that he doesn’t view editorial cartooning as his life’s work. He is a businessman first and foremost. His business is to aggregate cartoons. This business model, beginning in the 1990s, was to collect the cartoonists who were unable to get syndicated by the five major syndicates, aggregate them into a package to be sold to individual newspapers, pay the cartoonists a pittance, undercut the syndicates by offering 100 cartoons for the price of one good one, and flood the market. He takes that job very very seriously.
Fortunately for editorial cartoonists and for readers, so do a lot of editorial page editors. Many of them are still willing to pay $20 a week for one high-quality syndicated editorial cartoonist feature as opposed to $50 a week for a package containing 100 low-quality cartoons. They know the difference and they figure that their readers know the difference too.
Even if you take Daryl at his word, even if he’s right that editors don’t take editorial cartoons very seriously, what is he asking us to do, stop caring? Abandon ethics? Forget about working hard to do the best possible work that we can? Pretty much. Because that benefits him. Well, I reject that. I think it’s important for us to take ourselves seriously. After all, if we don’t, who will?
