Yesterday, I received a call from a woman who wanted to sell me a subscription to a Seattle newspaper. I gently explained that I thought a 46-2 imbalance in editorial cartoons showed too much bias for my tastes. (She said she understood why I would feel that way.)
I have thought about urging the two newspapers to run a few more conservative cartoons, or even a few cartoons that supported President Bush, but decided not to waste my time. Instead, I will be posting, from time to time, links to cartoons that the Times and PI will not publish. (Feel free to add links to other, similar cartoons in the comments.)
Today's cartoon, from Michael Ramirez, shows vividly the reaction many have to the actions of the Democratic congress on Iraq. It is well drawn, as Ramirez cartoons almost always are, so well drawn that I thought, briefly, of looking for Congressman Inslee's fingerprints on that knife. (Those in other districts may want to look for the fingerprints of Larsen, Baird, Dicks, McDermott, or Smith. Or, if you are feeling feisty, you may want to send your congressman a copy of the cartoon and ask him to autograph the knife.)
(For the editors of the Times and PI: I gave a fairly complete discussion of what I found — and didn't find — in the earlier post, but I'll add a few comments just for completeness. I love editorial cartoons, so much that I have bought several collections, so much that I wrote this post on Thomas Nast. (By the way, this Nast cartoon has, I think, a lesson for our time, now that the Copperheads have made such a comeback.)
So, the unwillingness of the Times and PI to run a wider range of cartoons is terribly disappointing. I feel like a gourmet who finds that the local restaurants have chosen to serve tasteless or even disgusting food, when with no more effort, they could serve lovely meals.
Some examples may help. When I see an Ohman cartoon, I expect to be both bored and irritated. When I see a Toles cartoon, I wonder how this man has made a living at a trade for which he is so unsuited. (If he were a cook, I would fear that his customers would, all too often, get food poisoning.) I have mixed reactions to Oliphant; his nonpolitical cartoons can still be quite funny, but that only reminds me of how good his political cartoons used to be.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 21, 2007 05:37 AM | Email Thisdiversity, America-bashing, military disdain, illegal aliens, perma-victims all receive plenty of space.
head in sand, detached editorial board ignores the balance of the city/state opinions and throws a few bones to some. fair enough--their game, their money, their rules. i dont have to buy/read it. just don't pass it off as "intelligent" or "balanced."
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 21, 2007 06:29 AMBut, could Ramirez from Townhall (one of my favorite sites and location of awesome podcasts) fit into a paper of general circulation? That is a question.
At first (like the 1/2 hour news hour), it would appear out of place in general circulation, but after time, we will/would get used to the cartoons and it would become part of the culture.
As compared to now where any skepticism or dissent is discouraged by the MSM.
Posted by: swatter on February 21, 2007 06:40 AMYou really base decisions on cartoons?
Pray tell...where has Bugs Bunny led you? How about Family Guy? South Park?
I would think lives led by cartoons would be most interesting!
Posted by: Heythere on February 21, 2007 07:20 AMAs for the paper's toons, it ain't just the toons, but we all know that already. The PI will die a slow death, as it should.
Posted by: Palouse on February 21, 2007 07:36 AMYou're proof that liberals really have no sense of humor. Sinse Nast, political cartoons have been highly respected and are a valuable cultural indicator throughout our history.
I love the Air Force 3 broomstick. That's some great stuff.
Posted by: Jeffro on February 21, 2007 07:49 AMand
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 21, 2007 09:11 AMI showed that cartoon to a co-worker of mine who is former Army - he loved it!
Posted by: Robert on February 21, 2007 09:20 AMI apologize if you are not a liberal. Your post just happened to echo the usual liberal superiority slant to it.
Maybe it was your use of "Pray tell" and "most interesting!" that made me think you were a liberal.
I agree that we must always self-evaluate to maitain standards - I don't think this SP post should be the litmus test.
Posted by: Jeffro on February 21, 2007 09:26 AMTry and find me one, just one, tongue in cheek Barrack Obama political cartoon, that shows some foible of his.
I'm waiting...
Posted by: John Bailo on February 21, 2007 09:43 AMI was at a Mariners game last year. On the concourse, there was a lady behind a table offering a lot of quality free merchandise. The quality was good enough that it was clear that getting it for free would actually be a "good deal." So, I was sufficiently "lured in" to listen to her pitch.
Turned out she was simply trying to get people to sign up for a subscription to the Seattle Times. And in return, they'd get free stuff. I laughed. I told her there gonna have to up the ante on the free stuff sufficiently, most likely making it worth more than the subscriptions themselves. That's the only way I'd consider subscribing to the Seattle Times, to get something of greater value in return. And as for the P-I, well, they would have to pay me a pretty decent salary to get me to read such biased rubbish.
When you read the Seattle dailies, there is a palpable sense of left leaning authority throughout. Occasionally it subsides to a more balanced view, but as they have gone down in readership their writing has become more indignant. As some have noted, that's probably just catering to the remaining readership that prefers to remain in an echo chamber, but it's not good business.
More than anything, I just find it cowardly and pathetic. Why are those on the left afraid of airing their arguments in full sunlight? And why do they maintain a front to any opposing point of view? I think it's mostly that their profession is very tied to a daily awareness of their own philosophy in a way that most professions are not. For those in the left media profession, the thought of changing their philosophy to the point that it would have a serious detrimental effect amongst their peers and their professional life is far too painful to comprehend. So they just continue down the road on the left, trying to avoid any alternate viewpoints as much as possible. Especially the viewpoints that are so well grounded that they are hard to ignore.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 21, 2007 09:47 AMGood points. I find your reference to cowardice on the part of the journalistic left especially telling. As someone who works in the hallowed groves of academe, I experience such cowardice on an almost daily basis: cowardice mixed, I might add, with the bullying of students -- or other essentially powerless constituencies -- who dare to express dissenting opinions.
But I remind you that this sort of behavior is inspired not by some intrinsic evilness on the part of our leftward friends. It is, rather, an expression of their mistaken notion that we on the right are the real cowards and bullies, supporting as we do traditional institutions and opinions which, in their eyes, are to blame for the misery and suffering of the world -- conveniently ignoring that these traditional institutions are also the source of what meaningful progress has been made in combatting the world's ills.
And because our friends on the left swallow this "progressive" viewpoint, they feel justified in combatting the evil of conservative orthodoxy (which is, of course, the ultimate insult to their own, very rigid orthodoxies) by any means possible -- including, and sometimes nearly exclusively consisting of -- the cowardice which you so accurately describe as the daily reflex of left-wing journalists and their angrily nodding core readership.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 21, 2007 10:03 AMI have a quick off topic question for you. You mention the "bullying" you see of students in academe. Has any of them ever tried to use this states "anti-bully laws" against the faculty. Just thought it might be fun to use the lefts social laws against them and see the outcome.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 21, 2007 10:20 AMThanks. I could not agree more. I don't think that those on the left are inherently evil or bad people. I know many good people that don't share my political views. But I absolutely agree that they've been conditioned to believe that anything that challenges the orthodoxy is bad.
That's the state of Global Warming. It's absolutely unthinkable to those on the left, that there would be any questioning of the science, even though that is the very definition of science. You could easily find a left leaning scientist at the UW, that was say, researching cancer. That person would continually question and rigorously review his findings and the findings of others on a daily basis in the hopes of reaching the best conclusion to eradicate cancer. But that same person would be unwilling to question the orthodoxy of Global Warming, or Affirmative Action, or whatever, even given their understanding of science.
It's the inability to apply concepts equally that is the hallmark of the left. I agree that there are some on the right who fall in to the same trap, but the left has taken the right to task on this for so long, that the right has largely changed. And yet the left will never apply it to themselves. A great example is the racism of affirmative action.
And it creates a ridiculous sense of disproportion and hypocrisy that is ultimately doing more to undermine the left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 21, 2007 10:26 AMIf I were the PI and I were seeing declining membership, I would create a controversy and create a buzz that would separate me from the others and improve circulation. In the old days, I would criticize the government; but today, I don't know. I bet I could create a few million a year by making the ratio of conservative to liberal editorials and cartoons and columnists 50-50. Boy, would that create a maelstorm. I bet it would even improve readership.
I think Jim Miller is on to something. Let's see if the PI can see the value of Jim's idea.
Posted by: swatter on February 21, 2007 10:28 AMHere's the direct link to the Ramirez cartoon you reference.
Posted by: Patrick on February 21, 2007 10:36 AMP.P.S. Eric Devericks at the Times doesn't do a horrible job. Though he seems to have soured on "W" these past few years, he does still get in a few jabs against the Nanny-crats and "progressive" Left. And regardless of whether I agree with the editorial opinion expressed in his cartoons, probably 90% of the time I find them humorous.
Posted by: Patrick on February 21, 2007 10:41 AM"12th commandment"? Which bible are you reading?
Posted by: Kent on February 21, 2007 10:46 AMhttp://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/stantis/stantis1.asp
Posted by: RBW on February 21, 2007 10:56 AMOne cartoonist who's not afraid to satirize Obama is
McCoy's one of the most conservative cartoonists in the nation. But don't let the Times know or they'll probably pull his daily strip The Duplex from their pages.
Thanks to Patrick for catching that.
I would agree Devericks can sometimes be good -- and have said so in the past.
Posted by: Jim Miller on February 21, 2007 01:06 PMExcept they replaced Rosie's face with Nancy Pelosi's, and it said "We CAN'T Do It."
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on February 21, 2007 04:26 PM(Do an image search if you haven't seen the original Rosie the Riveter. It's a great painting.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on February 21, 2007 05:15 PMI do however, watch with glee as the P.I. slides into oblivion. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of buffoons.
