When editorial cartoons go wrong
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Article Rating
An opinion column, written well, develops an idea in a way that encourages readers to think and broaden their views on an issue. It requires time to read and digest. It leaves room for discussion.
A good cartoon, on the other, hits fast and hard. The cartoonist intends to provoke an immediate emotional response, whether it's a squawk or a laugh. By condensing a situation in the news to a single, direct point, it leaves little room for nuance.
And if you have to explain it, it's not a good cartoon.
That's why when an editorial cartoon misses the mark, it usually does so pretty spectacularly - offending where it intended only to comment.
The Sentinel published two cartoons this month that brought serious complaints - via phone, e-mail and letter - from a number of readers. Both dealt with topics touching on the Roman Catholic Church, but the one they found most offensive, in the July 21 paper, dealt with the ongoing story concerning child abuse in some Catholic churches in America.
Satirizing politicians, government and those in positions of authority in political cartoons is an American tradition going back to the founding of our nation. But as our readers reminded us, when the criticism ventures into areas of deep personal religious belief, the practice is fraught with peril.
The most extreme example in recent years was the publication by a Danish newspaper of a cartoon collection that took aim at Muslim extremists and not only depicted Mohammed - which is considered forbidden by many Muslims - but did so disrespectfully.
Admittedly, that newspaper editor intended to provoke - and provoke, he did. Riots resulted, and many of the cartoonists went into hiding for a time.
In this country, though, we like to think everything and everybody is fair game under the First Amendment. But are they?
Newspaper editors often say that if we omit every item from the newspaper that might offend someone, we'd have nothing to print. I share that concern.
I also believe that along with the freedom to publish comes an obligation to do it responsibly.
Our readers are diverse, and sometimes what offends them is impossible to predict.
When it comes to religion, though, it's not a guessing game. Whether Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or any other religion, history and experience are clear: It's one thing to poke fun at the foibles of an elected official. Everybody knows what that is about and is free to agree or not.
But when the target involves a figure of faith who is revered as much for what he represents as who he is, criticism of individuals can be taken as an attack on personal beliefs, institutions and even God.
That's not a place we, as a newspaper, want to go.
Our country is supposed to be a place where all believers receive respect, and the newspaper should reflect that.
Sandy Huffaker, the artist whose cartoon prompted the objections, is a nationally recognized editorial cartoonist who is published widely, in print and online. When it comes to hypocrisy, he is an equal opportunity satirist, whether the subject involves politics or religion.
In doing a little research, I learned it gets him into trouble, though. A while back, for example, the syndicate that distributes his work, Cagle Cartoons, had to defend a piece he did that took a slap at Muslims.
Huffaker's target is human foibles, but in both that cartoon and the one in The Sentinel, he misses the mark. His point is not immediately clear, and maybe not even well thought out, and that kind of ambiguity is harmful.
I thank those readers for the time they took to express their objections. And I apologize that their newspaper managed to offend them, even though it was unintentional.
When it comes to politics, we‘re supposed to tread on a few toes now and then, both left and right.
But when it comes to faith, we'll be more thoughtful in the future.
---
Hope Stephan is executive editor of The Sentinel. You can reach her at hstephan@cumberlink.com or 240-7133.
