Political Cartoonist Quashed For Expressing Political Views

 

More Than Democracy

Dies in Darkness

by Rick Marschall

Political cartoonist Ann Telnaes, long a fixture on The Washington Post's editorial page, and winner of the Pulitzer Prize, the National Cartoonists Society Reuben Award and other honors, recently chose to end her association with that iconic paper. 

Her decision, announced publicly and inspiring debates (not enough of them -- me) in the print and electronic media, was due to the newspaper's "spiking" of her cartoon depicting media moguls kowtowing to a statue of Donald Trump. They bow, and several of them offer bags of cash; her statement refers to Big Media's quiet and newfound tolerance of Trump during his successful campaign for president, and subsequently. To her collateral point, some media companies have donated money to Inauguration events.

To her larger and more substantial point, these media giants do significant business with the federal government -- most prominently Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, which does amazonian amounts of business with the feds. Most pertinent in this controversy is the fact that Bezos has other distinctions. The cousin of country singer George Straight? No, guess again...

Bezos is the owner of the Washington Post and some people, his cartoonist Ann Telnaes chief among them, will wonder whether he found, in her cartoon, a reason to violate his promise not to interfere with his employees' independence at the Post.

The history of political cartooning in America, indeed of journalism in general, is strewn with examples -- not corpses, except metaphorically; unlike some countries where cartoonists have been persecuted and jailed -- of cartoonists' disputes with their publishers and editors. We shall prepare a historical essay on this for a future column in Yesterday's Papers / NEMO...

In the meantime, there is a need for debate on the questions raised by the cartoon, the Post's action, and the reaction of Telnaes. A screaming necessity. 

~~ In a democracy (such as Bezos pledged to defend as he adopted the credo "Democracy Dies in Darkness") should political cartoons ever be suppressed?

~~ In a free-enterprise society, can an owner decide what appears in his own newspaper?

~~ Are there practical questions? Could the Post have moved the cartoon's placement on its Op-Ed pages? Could it have run a disclaimer ("We do not necessarily endorse the view...")? Could Telnaes -- as I understand, a freelancer, not an employee -- have been offended at her treatment, but been satisfied with separate and internet dissemination?

~~ Should the larger political and civic community begin debates about the policies of newspapers (that is, their news pages, apart from their Editorial and Op-Ed pages) that have famously been skewed Red or Blue? Major print media have been overwhelmingly liberal for years, in terms of staffers' viewpoints, choices of coverage, and subtle mistreatments of facts. In the latter regard there are even cases at The Washington Post where stories (even prize-winning stories) have been proven false, but not corrected. 

Surely these issues are related to a free press, freedom of expression, the responsibilities of owners, publishers, editors, and writers.

... and cartoonists? Maybe not. 

While it isn’t uncommon for editorial page editors to object to visual metaphors within a cartoon if it strikes that editor as unclear or isn’t correctly conveying the message intended by the cartoonist, such editorial criticism was not the case regarding this cartoon. To be clear, there have been instances where sketches have been rejected or revisions requested, but never because of the point of view inherent in the cartoon’s commentary. That’s a game changer…and dangerous for a free press. -- Cartoonist Ann Telnaes

I am a retired political cartoonist, occasionally still throwing bricks when issues tickle me. Cartoonists and columnists are a special breed. It is almost a job description to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Readers know that we have points of view and will employ exaggeration, hyperbole, and even prevarication if we intend to persuade (or dissuade). 

If we fib, going off the reservation of rational discourse, we will pay the price. But -- I maintain -- it should be a price of readers' opprobrium, not an owner's arbitrary guillotine. Especially an owner who specifically pledged not to do what "his people" did to Ann Telnaes. In my own case, I drew cartoons for a major newspaper chain and I often designed outrageous concepts. But I was somewhat blessed to work for an owner whose views I shared. In fact he sent me fan letters and pats-on-the-back; so I have been spared Ann Telnaes's dilemma and an undoubtedly painful decision.

My motto as a cartoonist, and as a historian of the art and as a cultural critic, is the comment by caricaturist Henry Major:

"In the past, some cartoonists were jailed for what they drew. Today, cartoonists should be jailed for what they don't draw."  

+   +   + 

Here is a link to Open Windows, the web page of Ann Telnaes, and her thoughts on this issue:
https://anntelnaes.substack.com/p/why-im-quitting-the-washington-post?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0H6ajLBlBYZ2ikQ-oJreBmLlnm2xDYHKvM67o4TOscBGkFs_XUxH086nU_aem_zVodeMsVLvlGTXlfBBsxkA