Go, Read: The Other Recent Objected-To Australian Newspaper Cartoon About Gaza

A few CR readers noted my post yesterday on the Sydney Morning Herald apologizing for a cartoon that critics believed used racist imagery to draw attention to this story, about a Bill Leak cartoon objected to for its nasty, strident and hard-to-support political point.

I actually think there's a still-vital difference in the kinds of objections made in these cases, even if you don't buy it. I find the Leak much more objectionable for the point being made, and suspect that some of the energy behind the objection to the Herald cartoon comes from resistance to the political criticism involved. Still, it seems to me a pretty open and shut case that you don't employ certain elements of racial caricature without getting -- I'd say deservingly -- hammered and I'm not sure we're at the point where we censure artists in that same way for the content of their arguments, even if they're sickeningly dumbassed. Maybe a first step would be to employ the Herald criticism across the board, as Jeff Sparrow notes we don't.

To be clear: I do think that both cartoonists should be held responsible for their ideas in the way that every editorialist is; I wouldn't blame anyone for canceling their subscription if they objected to Leak's point of view, or otherwise objected via a methodical rebuttal letter, or just made it loud and clear they didn't agree or thought the piece was horrid. I'm just not all the way sure that he's being engaged on that level. It's different with cartoons

I couldn't find the whole Leak cartoon, so I'm excerpting a bit from the linked-to article's appropriation
 
posted 12:25 am PST | Permalink
 

---

 
Daily Blog Archives
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
 
Full Archives