Just ask the people in Denmark, where the publication of 12 editorial cartoons criticizing Islam in 2005 sparked protests across the Muslim world, resulting in more than 100 deaths.
Last week, I had to deal with an angry reader who was offended by a cartoon I chose, which she said put words in Karl Marx's mouth that he never actually said.
And today, I heard about this controversy over a cartoon about Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama. Cartoonist Gary McCoy is getting lots of email and threats over his cartoon.
Do you think editorial cartoons have a place in opinion commentary?
To your concluding question....yes, I think there is "...a place in opinion commentary." Cartoon is an art form wide open to critique as well as criticism. That Colin Powell cartoon with the Cool Aid I don't understand. Raphael(ian) it is not, but so what? I would not be able to draw my way out of a paperbag.
P.S. Everybody wants freedom of expression for the self, but won't grant it to anyone else.
Editorial cartoons are the purest form of political commentary and have a long history in the world. I would hate to see them go. They are a form of satire. Originally popular due to the high illiteracy rate, they have been used as political propaganda; to instigate social reforms; incite rebellions; chastise people in the seats of power; historically the number one way to reach the masses. Editorial cartoons are supposed to stir people up. That is their purpose. If society or individuals in a society can’t laugh at themselves or the human condition, then they need to step back and re-evaluate themselves.
I like 'em when they're making fun of the other side, but I don't think they're funny when they're directed at my guy. Geee...I wonder why that is...and what are the odds that I'm the only one who feels that way?
Of course they have a place in opinion commentary. I remembered reading an article months ago in U.S. News and World Report about political cartoons and when they started, so I looked it up. Here's an excerpt:
The drawing that turned Thomas Nast into the most powerful political cartoonist in American history wasn't the least bit funny. Published in Harper's Weekly in September 1864, it showed a triumphant Confederate soldier shaking hands with a peg-legged Union veteran as a woman wept over a grave of Union heroes from a "Useless War." Titled "Compromise with the South," the cartoon blasted the anti-Civil War peace platform adopted by the Democrats.
Facing Democrat George McClellan in that fall's election, Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party printed up millions of copies of Nast's cartoon and distributed them everywhere. Nast's popularity skyrocketed, and his cartoon was credited with helping turn the tide in favor of Lincoln, who called Nast the Union's "best recruiting sergeant." Three years after Lincoln's assassination, Nast struck again. Ulysses S. Grant attributed his own presidential victory to "the sword of Sheridan"—a top Union general—"and the pencil of Thomas Nast."
The rest of the article is here.
Certainly they do! Historically they have been a way to make points in a single cartoon that 1000 editorial words cannot.The cartoons from Harper's Weekly and Keppler's Puck cartoons from the late eighteen hundreds make today's editorial cartoonists look mild...but still effective.Kudos for the Marx cartoon and I guess the left has a problem with humor at their expense over the Powell cartoon.Keep it balanced and it's OK.How about a little Dennis Miller mixed in with Hamilton,Letterman,and Leno.I love good humor...at anyones expense.