Keeping up with Tank McNamara in spite of the Post

Remember, you can't see the Dick Cheney strips in today's Post or their online site so to see the strips if you're a Post reader, here's GoComics site.

And the NY Times chimes in, noting that the Post is the only paper to drop the strip - Comic Strips on N.F.L. and Race: Fair Game or Out of Bounds? By RICHARD SANDOMIR, August 11, 2009.

Washington Post censors Tank McNamara

This time their own reporter, Michael Cavna, notes it as the Washington Post censors Tank McNamara for daring to satirize Dick Cheney because it was "inappropriate" - for details, see "'Dick Cheney' Orders a Hit on Michael Vick: Why YOU Won't See It," By Michael Cavna, Washington Post Comic Riffs August 10, 2009.

To see the strips if you're a Post reader, here's GoComics site. If I'm reading Michael's report correctly, the Post won't run the strips online either so going to their website is pointless.

Reason's website review of The Ten Cent Plague

See "Friday Mini Book Review: The Ten Cent Plague," Brian Doherty, Reason.com January 2, 2009. Reason's based in DC, just north of Dupont Circle on Connecticut Ave for those of you who were wondering.

Cartoons can put you in jail in America and Australia

People were mocking an Australian judge for declaring that cartoons using the Simpsons children in sexual situations wasn't just bad taste or copyright violations, but rather "Fake Simpsons cartoon 'is porn'" The BBC article by Nick Bryant noted, "An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography."

Well, here in America, judges in Richmond (90 miles from DC) just did the same thing - "Child porn cartoon conviction upheld in Va." by LARRY O'DELL, The Associated Press, Friday, December 19, 2008. O'Dell wrote, "Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons. ... Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted in the majority opinion that the statute under which Whorley was convicted, the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.""

There's a similar case going on now in now in Iowa that the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is helping with.

I have a child, and have no interest in this type of thing, but one wonders why the First Amendment only applies once in a while. I don't recall any add-ons that say "except for photographs or artwork that we really don't like."

Post ombudsman on Oliphant cartoon

Here's the Post ombudsman on an Oliphant cartoon about Palin, with a ho-hum sort of defense of free speech as it applies to cartoonists on the web, which after all, isn't really the newspaper, but if it had been the newspaper, well, then by god, we wouldn't have run the cartoon because it criticizes beliefs in god of 750 likely non-subscribers to the Post... aw, just read the thing - "The Power of Political Cartoons," By Deborah Howell, Washington Post Sunday, September 28, 2008; B06.

Dan Wasserman, the Boston Globe's editorial cartoonist had a better response in "Pentecostals peeved at Palin cartoon" basically arguing that if you mix your politics and religion, then perhaps other people won't bother to separate them either.

Oliphant and the Pentecostals continued

In a post with a lot of comments, Alan Gardner quoted my earlier post on this and linked to a letter to the Post from a Pentecostal minister: Pastor Bernard's Response to Washington Post Cartoon, Tuesday, September 16th, 2008.

OT: Zapiro's editorial cartoon controversy in South Africa

Obviously South Africa is a bit off this blog's usual beat, but reader Lorrainne Thompson wrote in a few minutes ago, "I was wondering what you thought about the recent caricature done by Zapiro (and the resulting furor) in South Africa?"

Since we're in America and I'm a First Amendment absolutist, here's the cartoon:



Now that's a strong and unpleasant cartoon. However, editorial cartoonists don't view their job as making a politician's life sweetness and light, and god bless them for that. Neither do I.

Secondly, Zuma and Zapiro have a history of going at each other. Last year when Zapiro was at the Cartoonists Rights Network to accept an award, it was because Zuma was suing him over another cartoon. This was reflected in the press release from the CRN which said:

Two of Shapiro's three "Zuma" cartoons are cited in a US$2 million defamation suit ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma has brought against the cartoonist, editors and South African publishers. Zuma's political pedigree includes resistance organizer, 10-year Robben Island prisoner, exile, ANC negotiator, party official and former deputy president of South Africa. In recent years, Zuma has drawn criticism from the press due to his in-fighting for ANC leadership and the company he keeps. There are allegations of tax evasion, corruption and rape.

The rape case did go to trial and was deemed consensual sex by the court 8 May 2006. However, Zuma's own testimony outraged HIV/AIDS educators. This former chair of the National AIDS Council testified that he did not use a condom. He said he minimized the risk of infection from the 32-year-old HIV positive woman by taking a shower.

So we can see some of the same issues and motifs of concern to Zapiro popping up in this drawing - the shower head on Zuma's head, the rape threat, the complicity of South African political parties in the scandal. At this point, Zuma's a leading candidate for President, filling a seat once held by Nelson Mandela, in spite of being on trial for corruption charges. For more details, see
"Zuma's Cartoon Character," by Barrett Sheridan, Newsweek blog Wednesday, September 10, 2008.

Earlier this year in "Freedom of expression in Jester's space," April 15 2008, Zapiro defined his idea of an editorial cartoonists responsibility and rights: "The line stops when you make a tangible connection between what you are saying and instances of people going out and doing violence or causing physical hurt or death because of what you say," he said.

"Its about taboos, about whether a cartoonist has the right to go beyond a certain point. I am a freedom of expression junkie. I don't gratuitously go out of my way to piss people off."

In conclusion - I think Zapiro was perfectly right to draw what he wanted to, and I applaud his newspaper for standing behind him. Many of the articles I've seen have been generated by complaints from the parties depicted in the cartoon. If they, and Jacob Zuma, had ignored the cartoon, it would have been forgotten in a week. Instead it's being blogged about in Washington, DC. I welcome any comments others (or Lorraine) would care to make.


For those with a continuing interest, here's another article on Zapiro's career, followed by much of what I've compiled for the Comics Research Bibliography on this:

"Shooting Sacred Cows: A POLITICAL CARTOONIST DISCUSSES THE PERILS OF RIDICULING GEORGE W. BUSH--AND WHY HE GOT A PERSONAL PHONE CALL FROM NELSON MANDELA," Arlene Getz, Newsweek Web Exclusive, Oct 17, 2007.

Alan Gardner of the Daily Cartoonist found this interview - "Times Q & A with South African cartoonist under attack; Zapiro defends his cartoon depicting ANC chief and presidential hopeful Jacob Zuma as about to rape the justice system, which has drawn criticism from his supporters," By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, September 12, 2008.

IOL polled its readers and in 'Zapiro's cartoon was very much appropriate', By Fundile Majola, September 10 2008, reported:

With the cartoon having been a central theme of the international media this week, Shapiro himself has expressed shock at the volume of response. "I've had some pretty huge responses, but nothing has come close to this," he said.

Following the uproar, IOL decided to engage their readers on the issue, asking if they thought the picture was indeed inappropriate. Of the 548 readers who responded, an overwhelming 76 percent (412 votes) thought the cartoon was in fact the most appropriate reflection of what the judiciary is going through under the Zuma camp while a not-so-convincing 17 percent (94 votes) thought it was inappropriate and the remaining 6 percent (32 votes) just couldn't care less. I don't know who IOL's readers are - perhaps literacy is another unspoken issue in this - but that's a pretty lopsided vote of confidence in Shapiro.

This is typical of the press releases from parties pictured in the cartoon - "YCL calls on SAHRC to investigate Zapiro cartoon - Statement issued by National Secretary Buti Manamela," September 11 2008.

"Zapiro: cartoonists join the fray," September 10 2008.

"Paper supports cartoonist," Port Elizabeth Herald September 11 2008.

This is a good article about what's been going on, without the hyperbole - "Editor stands by Zapiro cartoon," Sapa, 10 Sep 2008.

"South Africa: We Should Draw on Our Humility in Cartoon Saga," Business Day (Johannesburg) COLUMN by Sipho Seepe, 10 September 2008.

"Zapiro cartoon gets SA talking," September 09 2008.

"Zuma camp vents fury over rape cartoon," By Ian Evans in Cape Town, Tuesday, 9 September 2008

Fleminger, David. 2008. "A Zap in the Face," The Times of South Africa' In My Humble Opinion blog 9 September 2008.

"Why, Zapiro? An open letter to Zapiro from Sandisiwe Vilakazi"

"Zuma cartoon: Worth a thousand words?," MAIL & GUARDIAN ONLINE REPORTER AND SAPA, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, Sep 09 2008.

and a few older articles:

"Zapiro: 'Strange things happening' in media freedom," by NATASHA MARRIAN, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, Apr 15 2008.

Berger, Guy. 2008. Dr Zapiro dispenses his muti. Mail and Guardian (April 2). Online at http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=336076&area=/insight/insight__converse/

Enwemeka, Zeninjor. 2006. Cape Times cartoonist Zapiro wins top award [in South Africa].
IOL (April 7). Online at http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3015&art_id=vn20060407015346380C125851

Thorpe, Lindsey. 2006. Public figures fair game - Zapiro. Saturday Argus (July 8): 10. online at http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20060708103232744C351304

Unknown. 2006. Safm and Independent Newspapers scoop Journalism Awards. Media Online (August 30): http://www.themedia.co.za/article.aspx?articleid=282412&area=/media_news/

NY Times on Frank Miller's latest

In "Arts, Briefly: A Superhero Glitch," By GEORGE GENE GUSTINES, New York Times September 12, 2008, he reports that DC has called for the destruction of shipped issues of All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder #10 due to language. Black bars were printed over top of Batgirl's profanity. Gustines says, "Unlike other series that are aimed at an older readership, this Batman title does not have a “Suggested for Mature Readers” label," but given the copy that I saw, DC wouldn't have published some of these words in any of their lines. This also begs the question of 'why letter them in, if you're going to suppress them?' It's not like they appear magically - somebody has to put them there and then sanitize them.

I rail against censorship in the comic strips in this blog, but there's only one word for Miller's writing here. Ridiculous.

Smackin' around the Post over the Danish cartoons

I just loved this letter to the editor:

Throwing Stones At Random House
Washington Post Wednesday, August 27, 2008; Page A12

The Post was entirely correct to criticize Random House for preemptively caving in to Islamic fundamentalists who might take offense with the novel "The Jewel of Medina" ["Random House's Retreat," editorial, Aug. 22].

But I can't help but think you would have a little more credibility on the subject if you hadn't allowed the same potential threats to dictate how you reported the controversy two years ago over cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. The Post had its chance to assert its right to report current events as a major newspaper should by printing the cartoons, but instead you caved in to the mob just as Random House has.

JOE SCHWIND
Martinsburg, W.V.

NY Times on French cartoonist Sine's resignation UPDATEd

A Scooter, a Sarkozy and Rancor Collide
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: August 5, 2008
A scandal has emerged in France involving the president’s son, his wealthy fiancée, a much-beloved and scabrous magazine, a crusty cartoonist and humid charges of anti-Semitism.

I don't have a deep interest in this, but I've run across a few more articles for my Comics Research Bibliography, so here's links:

Satirical jab at Sarkozy's son sparks cries of anti-Semitism
By Haaretz Service and News Agencies August 4 2008

Cartoonist gets death threats over Sarkozy 'Jew' quip
Adam Sage in Paris
The Times August 6, 2008

Muslims, Jews and the free speech debate
By Sarah El Sirgany
Daily News Egypt August 5, 2008

French satirist sparks uproar with Sarkozy son Jewish jibe
by: Emma Charlton
05/Aug/2008 16:58 (AFP)

'Anti-Semitic' satire divides liberal Paris
Controversial columnist's aside about Sarkozy's son and a Jewish heiress reignites old embers
Jason Burke in Paris
The Observer, Sunday August 3 2008

French cartoonist fired for anti-Semitic remarks towards Sarkozy's son
EJP 29/Jul/2008

Weingarten's clarification of Post's non-censorship of Candorville

From his July 31 chat update:

Third, I misrepresented The Washington Post's degree of guilt in the egregious Candorville affair. It turns out it the blame was more evenly shared between newspaper and cartoonist. Yes, The Post DID object to the suggested profanity that, in the readers' minds, would have transformed into "nuts." They asked Darrin Bell for a replacement strip. Instead, HE capitulated and transformed $#*! to "ears," thereby killing his gag on his own. He was Abraham, the joke was Isaac, and God (The Post) never said "stop."

Post doesn't really "censor" Candorville, just asks for alternative strip created specially for them

Yesterday, I quoted Gene Weingarten about the Post altering a Candorville strip. Today Dave Astor, a real reporter, has the larger story - "UPDATED: A 'Candorville' Comic Is Changed for 'The Washington Post'," By Dave Astor, Editor and Publisher Online July 30, 2008.

You know, honestly I think this is worse: "[Washington Post Writers Group comics editor Amy] Lago told E&P: "In Gene's chat yesterday, he made it sound like the Post had changed the July 25 'Candorville' strip. In fact, they asked for a sub. We offered them an alternate version, approved by Darrin, which they okayed."

What they asked to have changed was the "word" '@#$!,' which was standing in for 'nuts' as Jesse Jackson actually said (although readers of the Post are apparently too sensitive to read that and it makes one wonder what they reported about Jackson's comment on Obama) to 'ears,' which makes no sense whatsoever.

So the Post, rather than running a nonsense word, which in-the-know readers will understand is 'nuts,' as it's actually quoting Jesse Jackson, instead asked put in 'ears' which we should read as 'horse's ass.' Especially since their website ran the original, not the 'alternative' version.

Post censors Candorville again, again

From Gene Weingarten's chat earlier today:

Philadelphia, Pa.: I like how "Sally Forth" discovers that their 10-year-old daughter is really 36. This proves so many theories of alternate universes.

Gene Weingarten: I meant to add this to the comic picks. It's terrific. I am pretty sure I was the inspiration for this. Last week, in the Gene Pool, I noted Hilary's real age. Marciuliano mentioned this in his blog. I think he got that strip in in a hurry.

This also reminds me of an awful thing. Last Friday's Candorville contained some awful editing by The Post. In the version as drawn, and as appears online, the last panel contains comics-curse symbols to mean, obviously, "nuts." In The Post, they reworded it to say "ears."

Blitt cartoon of Obama on New Yorker becomes controversial

Politico cartoonist Matt Wuerker sent along this article about Barry Blitt's cover of the New Yorker showing the Obamas as radicals and the controversy it's generating, at least in the hermetic media world - "'Scare tactic' — Obama slams Muslim portrayal," By MIKE ALLEN, 7/13/08.

Personally, I can't believe editor David Remnick had to tell anyone it was satire. Or that anyone had to ask.

Matt was responding to a discussion we had with Warren Bernard about Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. See "Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist: The arrest of a controversial Dutch cartoonist has set off a wave of protests. The case is raising questions for a changing Europe about free speech, religion and art," By ANDREW HIGGINS, Wall Street Journal July 12, 2008; Page W1.

Post censoring of Opus attracts cartoonist's comments

I put the story up last week, and so did Alan Gardener at his Daily Cartoonist site. The difference between his site and mine is that he gets comments from cartoonists, including Mat Bors, Milt Priggee, Ted Rall, Wiley Miller and Rick Stromoski. They're a tough audience apparently.

Post censors comics again; punning headline writers despair

Gene Weingarten's July 8th chat reveals that the Post once again censored the comics section, this time Breathed's Opus. Weingarten wrote:

And lastly, HERE is Sunday's Opus. No, that's not the one you saw in The Post, which ran a sub. I believe the editors perceived a racial-ethnic insensitivity.

Bad decision. Nothing wrong with that comic. I really liked the real-world "available now" labeling.

A click on the 'censorship' label below will pull up the other examples for you.

Washington Times on Hajdu's Ten-Cent Plague

See "When nation fought its war against comic books," By Stephen Goode, Washington Times April 20, 2008.

City Paper recommends seeing Hajdu on Monday

Again, I'll be there. And it's pronounced Hay-du.

Here's the article - "David Hajdu, Monday, April 7, at Politics and Prose," by Mark Athitakis, Washington City Paper April 4, 2008.

April 7: David Hajdu at Politics and Prose

Monday, April 7th at 7 pm: David Hajdu turns from the folk pop era of the ’60s (Positively Fourth Street) to the comic book era of the ‘30s and ‘40s with THE TEN-CENT PLAGUE at Politics and Prose in DC.

I'm going; anyone else?

In Saturday's Post ... Toles criticism, Superhero Movie, Candorville

Ok, I can't find it online just like last week as the Free For All section doesn't appear in searches or on the opinion webpage, but there's a letter to the editor criticizing Tom Toles for this cartoon. Surprise, surprise.

Also, Superhero Movie got a lousy review in "Spoofs Like 'Superhero' Make Anyone Climb the Walls," By John Anderson, Washington Post Saturday, March 29, 2008; C01.

Finally, Darrin Bell in Candorville is definitely criticizing the Post in Friday and Saturday's strips for not running his strips about Obama's security.