Back on Sep. 12th I mentioned a couple political cartoons that I thought were interesting for their different takes on the attacks of the day before. Since then there have been the occasional political cartoons appearing here and there that have raised a bit of commmotion for one reason or another.
Today, Fark pointed to a Yahoo! news story about an editorial cartoon that ran in a New Hampshire newspaper that has prompted a denouncement by no less than the White House.
The cartoon depicts President Bush’s budget plan as an airplane veering towards two buildings labeled “Social” and “Security”. Not surprisingly, this has led to a fairly large uproar, to the point that White House spokesman Ari Fleischer issued his denouncement to reporters. The furor continues to go, also, as evidenced by this Fark discussion (which, to it’s credit, has stayed surprisingly civil through most of it). The editor of the newspaper that ran the cartoon has since apoligised, saying that to run it was a mistake.
This may be my biggest problem with the situation so far. According to the Yahoo! article, the same day the cartoon ran, the paper ran an editorial taking Bush to task for deficiencies in the current budget plan — an over-emphasis on the crusade against terrorism, while cutting benefits to people here in the U.S. who need it. The editor obviously had to see the cartoon prior to publishing and approve it, and I find it hard to believe that he didn’t realize that there would be an uproar once it was printed. I’d be far more impressed with the editor if he had stuck to his guns — he obviously felt the cartoon was worth printing at the time of submission, and to have him back down now is somewhat distressing.
I certainly realize that many people will feel that the cartoon is in bad taste and may disagree with either its message or the manner in which the cartoonist chose to depict it. However, political commentary is often meant to shock, provoke commentary and debate, and make people think — and I for one think the cartoonist did an excellent job on all levels.
I’m not sure if I want to ramble on much more about this at the moment. Suffice to say that not only do I not diasgree with the sentiments expressed in the cartoon, I’m rather impressed that the cartoonist felt strongly enough to express himself this way, and I’m saddened that the editor has felt the need to react as he has. If he’d found a way to apologize for any perceived (though I’m sure not intended) disrespect towards the victims without feeling he had to brand the decision to run the cartoon as “a mistake,” I’d have been more okay with that. Ah, well — at least it got people talking, and (at least in most cases), thinking. That should be the point, right?