racism/sexism in cartoons about Obama/Clinton

[flowomo]

This is my weekly newspaper column, published today.

Also available online at: http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/02/14/editorial/rich_lewis/lewis40.txt


When cartoonists shatter glass ceilings
By Rich Lewis, February 14, 2008

Sometimes humor is no laughing matter.

The world certainly learned that lesson two years ago when some cartoons involving the Prophet Mohammed set off deadly riots in a number of countries, and newspapers in our own country agonized over whether to reprint the cartoons as part of their news coverage. Some did, some didn’t.

Yesterday several of Denmark’s leading newspapers reprinted one of those cartoons, a day after the arrests of three men suspected of plotting to kill the cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard.

As the AP reported, the papers said they wanted to show their firm commitment to freedom of speech.

What I find interesting is that cartoonists here in the U.S. are now facing a problem that involves very different issues, but nonetheless goes to the question of what is acceptable when it comes to mockery and humor.

The matter was raised squarely and well by Pam Platt, the public editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal, in a widely discussed column published last Sunday.

Platt suggests that Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton “present special challenges” to political cartoonists and the newspapers that print their work. The question, she says, is this: “How do you use exaggeration and caricature with these candidates, who are shattering gender and race ceilings, without falling in to sexist or racist traps?”

To get answers, she e-mailed nine editorial cartoonists “whose work is widely syndicated in print and online” and asked them about this issue. All but one of the nine replied, which is interesting because the one, Pat Oliphant, often said to be the world’s most influential cartoonist, was recently criticized over a cartoon involving Obama that many saw as racist. More on that in a bit.

The other eight offered thoughtful comments on Platt’s inquiry. All denied approaching their drawings of Obama and Clinton “differently than they do with other candidates” — but many acknowledged the sensitivities involved.

John Cole of the Scranton Times-Tribune finds Obama and Clinton to be “equally dicey” because “some folks will attack a cartoon that fairly criticizes or lampoons either candidate as a product of the cartoon’s racism or misogynism.”

But syndicated cartoonist Ann Telnaes feels that comic depiction is “much more problematic with race” than gender.

Jeff Parker of Florida Today agrees: “There’s an obvious degree of caution that needs to be considered whenever it comes to rendering people of color, and Sen. Obama, that a cartoonist would wouldn’t generally think about when depicting a white personality.”

And, of course, readership is always a central focus in any decision about appropriate content for a newspaper. For example, David Brown of the Los Angeles Sentinel noted that, “Because I work for an African-American newspaper, our readership is sensitive to how African Americans are depicted.”

Platt got specific in her last question: “A number of cartoonists have drawn President Bush with ape-like physical attributes.... Why is it OK for Bush, but not for a candidate of color?”

And Chicago-based cartoonist Tim Jackson went right to the heart of the matter when he replied, “”A person/candidate of color being drawn ape-like comes with other deeply rooted connotations, which takes it to another place than what the artist may have intended. Unfortunately this country isn’t over that enough to ignore such an image. Instead of simply implying ignorance or stupidity, it dredges up a more hateful message.”

And that’s the key — women, and ethnic and racial minorities, were either suppressed or victimized for so long that the line is blurred between poking fun and dismissive or hateful stereotyping.

Drawing Bush as a monkey or a chimp sparks no furor — in fact, one of the more popular liberal Internet sites is called The Smirking Chimp. But the Oliphant cartoon mentioned above drew sharp fire for placing Obama in a suggestively monkey-like posture. The editor at Platt’s own newspaper refused to run the Oliphant cartoon because he felt it was “racially insensitive.”

Another recent Oliphant cartoon was pounded in many places because, as one blogger put it, “It plays into every sexist stereotype about women, including claiming that women get hysterical once a month because of PMS.” Another blogger called it “one of the most offensive and sexist editorial cartoons I have ever seen.”

I was the editorial page editor here at The Sentinel for a number of years, and, as such, responsible for picking which political cartoons to print. I killed a number of them for exactly these reasons — pieces that, deliberately or not, evoked hurtful stereotypes, or would be offensive to our readership, usually because they involved sex or religion. My successor, and good friend, Francis Volpe, applies the same standards. He says he is “obviously aware of the issue” with respect to Obama and Clinton, still tries to give wide latitude, but is alert for anything that crosses the line in his judgment.

The problem, of course, is that when it comes to racism and sexism, the line is not widely agreed upon. One person’s joke is another person’s insult.

This is no great matter in the overall scheme of things, but it is another example of the many small shards of change that fall on our heads when ceilings are shattered.

——

Rich Lewis’ e-mail address is: [e-mail]

[jkshaw]

1. Interesting post,

and column. Thank you.