This Mike Marland Cartoon ran
in the Monitor on 9/12/2001
Posted on 02/08/2002 7:59:07 PM PST by calvin sun
Judgment is at the heart of my job as editor of the Monitor, and because judgment is subjective, it can be wrong as well as right. The decision to run Mike Marland's Friday editorial cartoon was mine alone, and it was a mistake.
The cartoon depicted a caricature of George Bush flying a toy plane toward the World Trade Center. Marland had written "Social" on one tower and "Security" on the other.
Marland is a free-lancer. He's a terrific cartoonist, and we've been lucky to have him on the Monitor's editorial pages for nearly 20 years. Perhaps some readers remember that in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 his cartoons captured American grief, anger and resolve. We've reprinted one of them with this column.
This Mike Marland Cartoon ran in the Monitor on 9/12/2001 |
I first saw the Bush cartoon Thursday night on a proof of the next day's editorial page. I knew instantly it would be controversial, meaning I knew there would be a public outcry if we ran it.
That alone is not reason enough to pull an editorial cartoon. An editorial cartoonist's function in life is to provoke. Whenever I see a cartoon that I think might be too provocative, I ask myself whether the reaction I am experiencing is an impulse to edit or an impulse to censor. If it is the latter, I err on the side of publishing and resolve to take the heat if there is any.
That was my thought pattern with Marland's Bush cartoon. I thought that rejecting the cartoon would be censorship. The attack on the trade towers was a singular, devastating event, but my own reaction to the cartoon was not visceral. Rather, I read it as I thought Marland had intended it: as strong criticism of the threat that Bush's budget poses to Social Security.
On Friday, after the cartoon ran, I spoke with Marland to tell him I was writing this column. One idea behind the cartoon, he said, was that the terrorist attack had had a direct bearing on Bush's budget and the fate of Social Security. But my decision to run the cartoon assumed that for others, as for myself, enough time had passed for the wounds of Sept. 11 to heal and for the terrorist attacks to take their place in the long history of political satire. Sometimes artists, including political cartoonists, get there before the rest of us. I thought this might be such a time. In retrospect, the decision was wrong for three interrelated reasons.
First, I should have foreseen that most readers' reaction to the cartoon would have nothing to do with Bush and Social Security. That was Marland's intended subject, and since there was nothing subtle about his message on the issue, there was no question readers would understand it. But their principal response would be to the use of the tower tragedy in a cartoon.
That was the second reason I should have spiked the cartoon: The spot where the towers stood is sacred territory. Yes, the country has had time to pass through all the stages of grief, but the World Trade Center site remains a symbol of national sorrow. Probably that will be true long after the events of Sept. 11 have passed from human memory.
Finally, running the cartoon was a mistake because we live in the world of the Internet. A local editor no longer makes decisions in a vacuum. Residents of Central New Hampshire took the events of Sept. 11 and their aftermath personally, but personal connections to those events were few. Had I been an editor in New York City, there is no way I would have even considered publishing this cartoon.
Well, these days, news travels fast. Even though Marland's cartoon was copyrighted, it was on the Internet by midday Friday. Monitor editors' e-mail queues and voice mails were soon filled with messages from New York and elsewhere expressing disgust and anger over the cartoon.
When we decided to run the cartoon, I did not even consider this possibility. I should have, and that alone should have kept me from running it.
I'm sorry we ran it. Marland intended it to provoke, not offend. Generally I try to see things not just through my own eyes but also through the eyes of readers. I wish I had been wise enough to do that in this case.
Friday, February 8, 2002
He is capable of making a judgement. In fact he said he did. He said he deliberated. He said that circumstances that he didn't reasonably expect to play in this matter did. That's good enough for me. He evidenced no hidden agenda. He was up front and I agree with him when he stated these type of cartoons are to be provocative. That it was. Perhaps too much so. But I'm really not interested in, after his apology, your continued pontificating, grandstanding and playing to the crowd. Its conduct unbecomming of you and has only contributed to the continuing credibility problem you have on this forum.
Seamole = down for the count
So far I have only read one "apology" that said he was "sorry" but he then tried to justify his actions and lay blame to those that were angry for the publication. He even accused those offended by his editorial decision of committing a crime in doing so!
A true apology is simple but its amazingly hard for some to understand. Its, "I'm sorry, I was wrong and I will take steps to remedy the situation." Mr. Pride did nothing of the sort.
I am sure the publisher of the Concord Monitor will make remedy for the situation through the firing of Mike Pride for gross editorial malpractice and the elimination of any further inclusion of Mike Marland's cartoons within the paper. This would be the responsible actions of a publisher who is responsible to investors and advertisers much less the community at large his paper serves.
I have no problems with the Concord Monitor disagreeing with Bush's policy on Social Security. That is a legitimate editorial and political argument even if I disagree with it. However, to cross the line and use the deaths of 3,000 innocent New Yorkers and portray President Bush as an Islamic terrorist to push that opinion lacks sound judgement. I am not saying he did have the right to publish the cartoon but he must accept the consequences of doing so. Free Speech is a two way street and Mr. Pride cannot publish in a vacuum -- especially in this day and age.
He did absolutely no such thing. For someone to read his letter and come away with that conclusion has to either be smoking some crack, stupid or uses a seeing eye dog. You have completely misrepresented (a polite dime-store word for LIED) about his letter. I can only imagine how exaggerated your crocodile tears are.
For someone who had an opinion that mattered I would call them a totalitarian fool if they seriously advocated a prior restraint on all of Marland's future cartoons. Talk about being an ignorant, uninformed, head in the sand chicken little.
Very true. VA, you seem to think that because someone on FR posts their opinions, or writes letters to the editor expressing their views, they somehow have an untoward motivation for doing so. Juxtapose that with your freely expressed criticizisms of the posters in your own posting. It's ironic, to say the least.
I am genuinely upset, and let the editor of the paper know. It's my right to speak. We, each of us, have a duty as citizens of this land, to exercise our rights, freely. To use our voices. By doing so, we send out a message. Sometimes the message conveys approval, other times disapproval. A jury of your peers sends the same message with their verdicts. It is what our country is built upon, free expression but there are consequences and responsibilities with that freedom. A good and wise citizen uses, not abuses, those rights. On that note, I will share my freedom of expression (which includes criticism)(seamole, bear with me here, I know you've already seen this):
Dear Mr. Pride,Online yesterday, I came upon Mr. Marland's political cartoon. My immediate reaction was: disgust and anger. Today, those feelings have only intensified.
This morning, I came upon your statement/apology concerning the cartoon. My reaction: while the apology places blame upon your decision to allow the cartoon to run, there is an undertone of placing blame on the individual (whoever that may be) who posted the cartoon on the internet, thereby allowing the community at large to read/see what's being printed in the Concord Monitor's newspaper. ("Even though Marland's cartoon was copyrighted, it was on the Internet by midday Friday.") While I appreciate your public apology, I sense a certain amount of deflection and finger-pointing by the previous statement, thereby making the apology something less than a full apology. The cartoon is offensive for several reasons, some you have mentioned. What I perceive to be the greater offense: depicting President Bush as callously using our national tragedy for his personal gain and personal agenda: an ad hominem attack. There are great similarities between Mike Marland's "Social Security" cartoon and one drawn by Gary Trudeau in a Doonesberry cartoon and printed a couple months ago. These kinds of attacks were absent from the cartoonists while Clinton, an man of ill-repute and questionable character, was in office, which makes the attacks against our current President more odious and disgusting. President Bush is an honorable man, who seeks to do good for our country. We may not all agree with his every decision, but he is motivated by and seeks to do, what he believes is best for our country. Something his predecessor never did.
Trudeau's strip to which I referred, printed November 18, 2001:
Here are Mr. Pride's words:
Even though Marland's cartoon was copyrighted, it was on the Internet by midday Friday.
This is a clear accusation that his detractors had violated the copyright laws in republishing the cartoon for public debate. There is no reason to mention this unless Mr. Pride feels that his or Mr. Marland's copyright was violated. Accusation of copyright infringement is a serious charge for writers. The US Court System deals with copyright infringement on a daily basis -- it is not something to take lightly. Jim Robinson, owner of the Free Republic, is currently dealing with this accusation in the courts right now with the LA Times and the Washington Post.
For someone who had an opinion that mattered I would call them a totalitarian fool if they seriously advocated a prior restraint on all of Marland's future cartoons. Talk about being an ignorant, uninformed, head in the sand chicken little.
No one is advocating prior restraint on Mike Marland's cartoons as that would involve the US Government. Denying him access to the pages of the Concord Monitor is not censorship but a pure business decision. Mr. Marland will still be able to shop his work to other publications or even establish a web site of his own to publish and sell his art. Newspaper publishing is not only a literary activity but a financial one. The publisher has far more responsibilities than catering to its writers. They must meet the business needs of the publication which involves investors and advertisers. Publishing a newspaper that negatively effects those two groups is a sure fire way to terminate its publication.
I'm sorry that you can do nothing more that throw insults in matter. I can understand you having a different opinion in this matter but it has been completely lost in your nasty, hate filled comments. Step back and look at what you are writing and how that reflects back on you and your opinion. I am sure that the blind members of the Free Republic would take umbrage to your invalidation of their opinions because of their physical condition.
This is a clear accusation that his detractors had violated the copyright laws in republishing the cartoon for public debate. There is no reason to mention this unless Mr. Pride feels that his or Mr. Marland's copyright was violated. Accusation of copyright infringement is a serious charge for writers. The US Court System deals with copyright infringement on a daily basis -- it is not something to take lightly. Jim Robinson, owner of the Free Republic, is currently dealing with this accusation in the courts right now with the LA Times and the Washington Post.
What the heck does this have to do with the fact that you're upset over the cartoon? Is there ANYTHING in his sentence that is inaccurate? Is there anything in that sentence that accuses ANYONE of breaking the law? You're clearly over reacting to the point where you're really rather dishonest, in my opinion.
No, I think they might be upset with me for comparing them to you.
Seamole = Taking in water.
I am, however, at a loss to understand the seemingly snide and gratuitous personal attacks on the others who replying to you. Why, for example, must someone necessarily be LYING when talking about the editor? Thanks.
There is no apology possible for such an action.
Yes, thats is a point I am trying to make.
Because that other cheeseball was trying to link the editor's comment about the picture being copyrighted to all sorts of sinister intentions and hidden motives. She's just nuts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
