Writing in today's Washington Post, ombudsman Deborah Howell focuses on political cartoons and how in many cases they can cause offense. I was struck in particular by a few of Howell's offhand admissions most. The first is that the top editorial cartoonists across the country are mostly liberal.
That concession came after Howell had briefly profiled Pat Oliphant, one of America's best-known cartoonists, who attracted controversy over a recent cartoon that ridiculed GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's Pentecostal faith and its belief in glossolalia, the ability to speak unknown languages in a moment of inspiration.
That is where the second admission comes into play. The Post, which has the ability to reprint any Oliphant cartoon as part of its deal with his syndicator, chose not to reprint the cartoon in its print edition even though it did so on its web site, something it did not do with the famous Mohammed cartoons:
Most complainers thought that the Oliphant cartoon appeared in print. It didn't. I showed it to several Post editors. While it was clever in some ways, most editors -- including me -- would not have run it. The Post has a policy against defaming or perpetuating racial, religious or ethnic stereotypes. That was why The Post did not run the Danish cartoons about the prophet Muhammad.
Oliphant wasn't surprised that it didn't run in print. "Many publications are too timid" to run some of his work, he said, but "the Web is giving us more of a solid venue."
[Post editorial page editor Fred] Hiatt and his deputy, Jackson Diehl, decide what cartoons are run in Saturday's Drawing Board on the op-ed page.
The online world is different. Syndicated cartoons are not chosen at washingtonpost.com; they are posted through an automatic feed, said the Web site's executive editor, Jim Brady. "I have always opted for the approach that we should not limit the cartoonist's freedom of speech. We prefer to present the cartoon and allow the reader the choice to read or to express their own freedom of speech if they're bothered or offended by it."
The hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a knife.
Posting a cartoon online which makes fun of Islam is "defaming or perpetuating racial, religious or ethnic stereotypes" while posting one that ridicules a branch of Christianity is noble by "not limit[ing] the cartoonist's freedom of speech."
To her credit, as Michael Calderone notes, Howell did say she wouldn't have run the Palin cartoon. It seems she would not have run the Mohammed cartoon either so at least she is consistent.
Back to the first point now. Twice, Howell admits that most of the top political cartoonists are liberals:
- "[Oliphant is] a political liberal, as are many, though not all, of the better-known political cartoonists."
- "Ann Telnaes started in print and is a pioneer in animated editorial cartoons; she does three a week for washingtonpost.com. [...] She, too, is a liberal"
That lefties dominate the cartoon pages of American newsprint should come as no suprise considering that the vast majority of large newspapers and magazines are run by lefties.
Just two of the top twenty editorial pages in the U.S. lean conservative. Only one of them, the New York Post, actually runs cartoons. I've made a chart showing the disparity.
| Rank | Newspaper | Ownership | Viewpoint | Toons? |
| 1 | USA Today | Gannett | Liberal | Yes |
| 2 | Wall Street Journal | News Corporation | Conservative | No |
| 3 | New York Times | NYT Company | Liberal | No |
| 4 | Los Angeles Times | Tribune Company | Liberal | Yes |
| 5 | Chicago Tribune | Tribune Company | Liberal | Yes |
| 6 | Washington Post | Washington Post Company | Liberal | Yes |
| 7 | New York Daily News | New York Daily News | Liberal | Yes |
| 8 | New York Post | News Corporation | Conservative | Yes |
| 9* | Denver Post / Rocky Mountain News | MediaNews / E. W. Scripps | Mixed | Yes |
| 10 | Dallas Morning News | A. H. Belo Corportation | Mixed | Yes |
| 11 | Philadelphia Inquirer | Philadelphia Media Holdings | Liberal | Yes |
| 12 | Houston Chronicle | Hearst Newspapers | Liberal | Yes |
| 13* | Detroit News / Detroit Free Press | MediaNews Group / Gannett | Liberal | Yes |
| 14 | Star Tribune | Avista Capital Partners | Liberal | ? |
| 15 | Star-Ledger | Advance Publications | Liberal | ? |
| 16 | Boston Globe | New York Times Company | Liberal | Yes |
| 17 | Arizona Republic | Gannett Company | Liberal | Yes |
| 18 | Atlanta Journal-Constitution | Cox Newspapers | Liberal | Yes |
| 19 | Newsday | Cablevision | Liberal | Yes |
| 20 | Plain Dealer | Advance Publications | Liberal | Yes |
Note: It's been a while since I've seen some of the papers in the chart so it's missing a few stats from the last column.
Of course, liberal bias isn't just a hiring problem for right-leaning cartoonists. They also face an uphill battle when it comes to earning distinctions.
When Investor's Business Daily cartoonist Michael Ramirez won the Pulitzer prize for cartooning earlier this year, he was actually the first conservative since 1998 to be given the award.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'm sure if you ask these
September 28, 2008 - 14:56 ET by ArchConservativeI'm sure if you ask these cartoonists if it's ok to run panels depicting Condi Rice of being an "Uncle Tom" and giving her racially demeaning dimensions they would say yes. But they won't run panels with Barry Obama's big ol' ears sticking out.
Bush with big ears : ok
Barry with big ears: racist
Sarah Palin (on anything): ok
Hillary Clinton (on anything): sexist
McCain's age: ok
Barry's inexperience: racist
....etc.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
"You support the troops by
September 28, 2008 - 16:02 ET by WhichWing"You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't
support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops."
How ridiculous is that? You should get some sort of award for that one. Sickening.
Whichwing -- Sickening. And
September 28, 2008 - 16:05 ET by ThisnThatWhichwing -- Sickening. And rediculous. And a waste of pixels.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
A question.
September 28, 2008 - 18:47 ET by Mike BrattonIf the troops are the ones performing the mission, and you don't support the mission, what, exactly, are you supporting with regard to the troops?
Their favorite reading material? Choice of hairstyles? Their right to wear camouflage?
For those who try to make that disingenuous distinction, we'd appreciate a substantive answer.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
With or against
September 28, 2008 - 20:07 ET by ArcherBAs a former soldier, let me educate you. When we go somewhere, we have a job to do. We either do the job or we die trying. In other words, not completing our mission usually means death. So, if you say that you are against my mission, you are against my life. By opposing my mission, you are siding with those who want me dead. You are supporting those whose mission is to kill me. Trust me, once bullets start flying, you are either with me or against me. There really is no middle ground.
(Also, I should point out that if you ACTIVELY oppose my mission... well, that can be dangerous to your health).
George Orwell said it best when he said:
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
HOOAH!
September 28, 2008 - 20:21 ET by ArchConservativeHOOAH!
Archer B & ArchC
September 28, 2008 - 20:33 ET by BlondeI saw your post and thought "spot-bloody-on".
I've been searching for a bit (unfortunately without succcess).
I posted a forum thread, about a year and a half ago, about "Supporting the Troops without Supporting the Mission", and what a total b.s. fallacy that is.
On that forum thread, there are some of the most articulate statements taking down the liberal meme of supporting the troops without supporting the mission you could possibly imagine.
I wish I could find it...I'll keep trying. The answers from some of our veterans were outstanding, and your answer would be a great one on that thread as well.
I'd love to send that whole forum to these idiots who mouth that stupid sentiment, actually.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Thanx
September 28, 2008 - 22:41 ET by ArcherBIf you can find that forum, I would be interested in seeing it.
Thanx again.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Well, I support the police,but
September 28, 2008 - 23:09 ET by misterbillWell, I support the police,but I don;t support the law.
I support the ministers, but I don't support the churches.
I support teachers, but I don't support education.
That's the best I could come up with tonight. I left my asshat at my friend's house.
PS My frontal lobe has atrophied from reading asinine statements.
Hmmm. Sickening? No. On the money? Yes.
September 28, 2008 - 20:19 ET by ArchConservativeWhichwing, what is sickening is people like Murtha who call innocent Marines murderers. People like Dick Durbin who compare our troops to Nazis and Pol Pot's thugs. Those are the truly sick ones.And you are a sick depraved soul if you supported anything those two traitors had to say.
You didn't post any kind of logical or thoughtful rebuttal to what I believe is a true statement. I see signs that say "support the troops, end the war". That means: they hate the mission, they want to pick up and leave Iraq no matter what the consequences are, and be damned the idea of victory in any sense. THAT is what truly is sick.
People like yourself and those with those ignorant yard signs think that the troops were roped into service, that we had no minds of our own, that we are just poor delusional creatures incapable of making decisions.
The troops care whether or not there is victory. The troops care whether or not their sacrafices are going to count or not. Trust me, I was there, I know.
What is sickening is people like Obama who have no idea what the hell is at stake, what was happening in Iraq prior to the invasion, doesn't care or doesn't know that we went in with a large coalition of countries, that there were numerous UN resolutions violated.
Your conempt for the mission shows contempt for the troops and the effort that they are succeeding in. So I say again.........
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
Let's be fair
September 28, 2008 - 23:00 ET by ArcherBWe need to be fair here. It is possible to oppose the war and be for the troops. For example, you may think that we should have never gone into Iraq, yet you send care packages to the troops. The main point here is that you are not opposing the mission. You may be against the war, but you are not trying to stand in the way. You are not going to hamper the progress of troops in the field.
What I am NOT OK with are the people that block traffic in protest. I'm against people that try to disrupt conservative speakers at universities and conventions. Finally, I think those that block ports that are used to ship supplies to our troops should be tried for treason and shot. There is no more blatant act of rebellion, no more obvious support for the enemy, no quicker way to do the job of those that want us all dead than to block supplies headed to troops in the field. The rest of the examples are the same, but to a slightly lesser extent.
If you are against this war, call you congressman, ONCE and let him know how you feel. Then, on election day, you vote for or against candidates based on your views. However, when you do any of the things I mentioned in the previous paragraph, you are double dipping. First, you vote. This is you Democratic right. It is the right thing to do. If your guy loses, well, your views do not match the will of the people. Better luck next time. However, when you double dip, you are trying to subvert the will of the people. You are trying to change policy to fit YOUR views, not the views of the majority. You are literally trying to overthrow policy via force and cohersion, and it is against the principles that this country was founded on. I call it double dipping because you vote (that's one) then you try to change policy via other means when you don't get your way (that's two).
So, if you are against the war, that's fine. That's what election day is for. And it is possible to be against the war, and still want us to win it. However, if you oppose the mission, and want us to lose, then you are a traitor, and you are not supporting the troops.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
A cooler head prevailed,
September 29, 2008 - 01:28 ET by WhichWingA cooler head prevailed, good post.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Conservative cartoonists just not mean-spirited enough
September 28, 2008 - 15:16 ET by VerbinatorYears and years ago I tried political cartooning. I had the drawing skills, but was too much of a political naif, and perhaps, just too much of a nice guy to succeed. I had no axe to grind. I had no real political leanings (then). In later years I came to understand that my beliefs were conservative (my epiphany was the year Doonesbury's cartoonist returned from a year long break -- his cartoons were the same, but I no longer saw the humor in them). By the time my political beliefs were mature, a career in political cartooning was no longer an option ... my art skills were targeted elsewhere full time.
Back on topic -- the righteous anger that sometimes fires the bellies of conservative political cartoonists is too often tempered by things like faith, good manners, intellectual honesty, and niceness. Liberal cartoonists, taken as a generalized whole, are often empowered with bitter bile-driven anger, mean-spirited-ness and a blindness to the double standards they employ. The only scandals they are willing to reveal in the lives of fellow progressives are the unforgiveable sins of cooperating with the enemy or compromising extremist beliefs.
Conservative cartoonists cannot cross the lines of good taste and civility because unlike their bitter, dark-humored, liberal peers, they will be held accountable for their transgressions by all.
it doesn't take much imagination to be a liberal cartoonist
September 28, 2008 - 16:33 ET by Jnoblethey all draw in the same tired outdated sterotypes:
The "rich" are monicle wearing top-hatted fat-cats right out of the '30s
Bush is a big eared moron with Dick Cheney as his evil puppermaster looming over him
Corporations are smoke-spewing fenced off evil conglomerates, kinda like Dr Evil's place in Austin Powers
The "poor" are always shown as put-upon looking woman with a cute young child at their apron with "THE POOR" labled somewhere on them just in case we're too stupid to figure that out
I don't bother reading most MSM papers anymore outside of the NY Post once in awhile
it doesn't take much imagination to be a liberal cartoonist...
September 29, 2008 - 08:27 ET by misterbee241And not a whole lot of talent either. From the third grader who does the political cartoons from my local paper:
http://fredericksbur...
No wonder
September 28, 2008 - 15:34 ET by 10ksnookerThere are no Obama cartoons. The fight is rigged, the sooner they all go broke the better off America will be.
MSM Bias ?
September 28, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Dave PasleyIt's too bad radio and TV outlets aren't are the list as well.
There are two constants in life, truth and time.
One ultimately leads to the other -- Anonymous
</
Did WaPo run an Oliphant
September 28, 2008 - 16:32 ET by d1carterDid WaPo run an Oliphant cartoon of BO and Jeremiah Wright?
Matthew
September 28, 2008 - 17:37 ET by stratmanThe Liberal Cleveland Plain Dealer does do Toons.
Saturday, September 27th, the Editorial comments section printed a Lisa Benson political cartoon:
Thanks
September 28, 2008 - 23:27 ET by Matthew SheffieldLisa Benson cartoons
September 29, 2008 - 00:04 ET by rsbsjbtdbWow! Just went back and looked at the last month or so of Lisa Benson's cartoons for the Cleveland Plain Dealer - don't think I have ever seen 7 or 8 conservative political cartoons in my life. What a treat to see; she is a good artist, and spot-on with many of her obervations. May have to add her to my morning email...
RSB: Yep. The Benson
September 29, 2008 - 11:43 ET by stratmanRSB:
Yep. The Benson cartoon was a shocker! It's not often one see's a non-Liberal OpEd cartoon these days.
The Plain Dealer, though, made sure to make up for their "sin" of the Benson cartoon Saturday with a full page cartoon of a revolting Liberal/Leftist nature on Sunday.
My post on this disgusting OpEd cartoon is at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2008/09/29/open-thread#comment-730543.
The Big Lie
September 28, 2008 - 17:59 ET by jaywlThe most important and most damaging effect of this pervasive bias is that it allows the use of "the Big Lie." When the media puts out stories claiming Palin tried to ban books or that McCain's campaign but not Obama's is infested with lobbyists I don't believe most undecideds are influenced by them. The real problem is the lack of an effective response to commercials and articles that support Obama. I just saw an ad featuring Obama giving a laundry list of blame and problems followed by his solutions. His ten year energy program reared its ugly head with millions of "green jobs" attached. Ads will feature greedy Wall Streeters that only he will punish with taxes, regulations, etc. He has and will claim he is for offshore drilling, nuclear power, and clean coal. All, of course, would be hamstrung with webs of deceit. No one in the liberal media will call him on the Big Lies underpinning his campaign. If McCain claimed repeatedly that his energy policies will result in freedom from oil imports and millions of new jobs from an undefined, non-existent green energy sector you can bet the media would spend anything and everything ridiculing and refuting those claims. When Obama makes broad sweeping claims without media oversight undecided, everyday voters rightfully (alas) assume there must be truth to them. That is the real, and to my mind, dangerous result of the liberal media.
And Obama continues the Lie today...
September 28, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Prester John....as his ads about Social Security and McCain's support of a privatization plan for those under the age of 50 are aired even after the Annointed One's claims were debunked.
Stupidity of the double standard
September 28, 2008 - 20:26 ET by nkviking75A lot of us folks in flyover land don't see the paper-and-ink Post on a regular basis. If we want it, we must either subscribe by mail or go to the library. On the other hand, the website is available to anyone in the world with internet access, if their government or religious leaders aren't filtering it. So it seems silly to say that a cartoon is inappropriate for readers of the paper but not for readers of the website. Either way, the cartoon is bigoted and at least bordering on blasphemous.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Liberal Newspapers
September 28, 2008 - 22:05 ET by nandrelli17 of the top 20 newspapers are liberal.
Of the 6 major broadcast/cable networks, 5 are liberal.
And the lefties are doing everything they can to shut down Fox News.
Give me a break.
Cartoons
September 28, 2008 - 23:07 ET by LorraineRocky Mountain News - Ed Stein - far left-wing moonbat cartoonist
Gosh -- the WaPo has it so
September 29, 2008 - 04:25 ET by Jack BauerGosh -- the WaPo has it so right.
It takes real guts and courage to attack and insult Christians in America. You never know when they may act "irrationally" and pray for your soul.
On the other hand, it's clearly an act of great political courage NOT to mock Muslims for their practises.
This is so much BS, and the facts are these:
Oliphgnat (and the ComPost) are way too cowardly to mock Mohammed, but have no problems mocking Christians.
Let me guess Oliphgnat, because Christians never threaten to behead you?
I could care less what unfunny Oliphgnat doodles make it to the WaPo. He wants to mock Palin, and Pentecostals, and all Christians, that's his problem, not mine.
But please... read the hypocrisy he oozes about who he deigns it is Policially Correct to offend. You guessed it. He doesn't think Muslims should be offended. Christians are all fair game to him though.
Good job, Jack! You have
September 29, 2008 - 05:34 ET by motherbeltGood job, Jack!
You have to sometimes wonder if these guys actually read their own bilge.
I wish that column was current. I would write to him and ask him to republish his last cartoon lampooning Islam.
I did a quick Google search of Oliphant cartoon + Islam and it brings up 12,000 hits. I don't have more time, but up through page 10 every one of them was in reference to this cartoon, and the the only Islam references were to the Danish cartoons, or the fact that cartooninsts don't lampoon Islam. I then skipped to page 15 and the hits were all of Oliphatnt cartoons, or Islam, but not both.
So who is Oliphant kidding that he would also make fun of the Taliban or Islam?
mb -- thanks milady. No
September 29, 2008 - 05:41 ET by Jack Bauermb -- thanks milady.
No doubt Oliphgnat thinks he's this edgy, anti-establishment figure.
As opposed to actually being on the front line of THE ESTABLISHMENT.
You cannot get more Washingtion establishment than the Post and lefties like Oliphgnat. The are they frackin' establishment. Don't know who they think they are fooling: but it sure ain't us.
from a Conservative Cartoonist
September 29, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Mike LesterThere are fewer conservative cartoonists for the same reason there are fewer conservative newspapers: they fancy themselves as radical, social engineering arbiters of taste, culture and politics. The word "editor" is synonymous w/ the word "sensor".
However, there are still conservative cartoons available:
http://www.unitedmed...