Washington Post Removes Hamas Cartoon After Backlash From Staff and Readers

[Mr. X]

From The Wall Street Journal:

WSJ News Exclusive | Washington Post Removes Hamas Cartoon After Backlash From Staff and Readers

 

[Slacker]

The cartoon ...

 

[QYFW]

Can't be a good liberal or journalist these days if you're not offended by people being mean to terrorists.

 

[Songbird]

Phenomenal cartoon and reminds me of something I saw in recent days.

 

[I Should Coco]

Phenomenal cartoon and reminds me of something I saw in recent days.

Between layoffs and thin skinned newspaper editors, there won’t be any political cartoons in five years.

 

[WriteThinking]

The Post's editorial editor, David Shipley, missed nothing.

There's nothing racist about that cartoon. It's a depiction of facts -- of what happened, frankly, with the "editorial" part being the sarcasm included in the bubbled commentary, "How dare Israel attack civilians."

It's a perfectly legitimate part of a newspaper's editorial/opinion page.

The newspaper gave in because people complained enough -- and that's relative, as I guess it doesn't take much these days -- not because their complaint was actually correct, or legitimate.

To me this is the paper just trying to do what it thinks is politically correct, and is the equivalent of giving naysayers their way like Walmart does with a complaining customer just to make them shut up, and/or to make a problem go away.

 

[Azrael]

I'll take the contra here.

Even if you recognize the individual Hamas spokesman being caricatured - and I'd guess most readers don't - the comic trades on some pretty racist stereotypes.

And the panel would work just as well without the caricature.

 

[WriteThinking]

I'll take the contra here.

Even if you recognize the individual Hamas spokesman being caricatured - and I'd guess most readers don't - the comic trades on some pretty racist stereotypes.

And the panel would work just as well without the caricature.

So, who is it, and why does it matter? The cartoon is an accurate depiction of the behavior that started the war and raised Israel's ire.

 

[Azrael]

So, who is it, and why does it matter? The cartoon is an accurate depiction of the behavior that started the war and raised Israel's ire.

You're sort of making my point for me.

Even if you know the specific Hamas spokesman being mocked here, the comic depends too much on racist stereotypes.

Again, the comic works fine as a commentary on Hamas and human shields without the default to glowering, big-nosed Arab villains.

In fact, it probably works better.

Worth asking if the editorial cartoonist would ever think to do the same to the politicians of Israel and the leaders of the IDF.

 

[User 11148]

Again, the comic works fine as a commentary on Hamas and human shields without the default to glowering, big-nosed Arab villains.

I suppose a caricature along these lines ...

... would have been the only thing that wouldn't trigger those who complained. But maybe that eyebrow is too stereotypically heavy?

 

[Azrael]

But maybe that eyebrow is too stereotypically heavy?

Not all unibrows . . .

 

[Mr. X]

WaPo Took Down Hamas Cartoon Amid Staffers' 'Deep Concerns,' Internal Memo Indicates (freebeacon.com)

 

[Shropshire Slasher]

A little late to take it down now, isn't it? We can see the cartoon and talk about it.

It's the Streisand Effect. Could have just let it stay and would've caused barely a ripple. Probably not even a post here — unless someone linked to it on the International thread.

 

[Slacker]

A little late to take it down now, isn't it? We can see the cartoon and talk about it.

It's the Streisand Effect. Could have just let it stay and would've caused barely a ripple. Probably not even a post here — unless someone linked to it on the International thread.

Yep. Story led me to track down the cartoon. ... The editorial cartoon. ... Which is commentary. ... Which can lead to intelligent discussions.*

* AMONG OTHER THINGS. YMMV. ... WARNING: CONTENTS ARE HOT. HANDLE WITH CARE.

 

[Alma]

A little late to take it down now, isn't it? We can see the cartoon and talk about it.

It's the Streisand Effect. Could have just let it stay and would've caused barely a ripple. Probably not even a post here — unless someone linked to it on the International thread.

I imagine the opinion editor did so to keep his job.

 

[QYFW]

I imagine the opinion editor did so to keep his job.

And protect democracy.

 

[WriteThinking]

You're sort of making my point for me.

Even if you know the specific Hamas spokesman being mocked here, the comic depends too much on racist stereotypes.

Again, the comic works fine as a commentary on Hamas and human shields without the default to glowering, big-nosed Arab villains.

In fact, it probably works better.

Worth asking if the editorial cartoonist would ever think to do the same to the politicians of Israel and the leaders of the IDF.

You didn't really answer my question.

And, I don't know, lots of people have big noses. It's certainly not the first thing I think of when I think of, or try to recognize an Arab villain. It's certainly not the key to this cartoon. The Hamas acts of war are, and they are what's being depicted.

To answer your last question, of course the cartoonist would do the same to an Israeli (or any other) politician if it makes the point. Editorial-cartoon drawings are always exaggerated. It helps make the point -- whatever it is -- better, more strongly and more accurately. If Hamas, or anyone, doesn't want a cartoon to be, as you contend, racist, or disparaging in any way, well, perhaps it should not be starting a war, let alone perpetuating it with degrading, specifically terrorizing acts of violence against humanity.

 

[Azrael]

The relevant editorial question is this: could a reasonable person find the panel racist?

Obviously, some did.

 

[WriteThinking]

The relevant editorial question is this: could a reasonable person find the panel racist?

Obviously, some did.

The even more relevant question is whether a newspaper -- particularly a solid-news one like the Washington Post -- would have previously ever given in and pulled such an editorial cartoon. I think not.

I could see such a paper also running a similarly strong cartoon from a more Arab-sympathizing, or at least, a less Israeli-favorable point of view. But not pulling this one.

 

[Azrael]

The even more relevant question is whether a newspaper -- particularly a solid-news one like the Washington Post -- would have previously ever given in and pulled such an editorial cartoon. I think not.

I could see such a paper also running a similarly strong cartoon from a more Arab-sympathizing, or at least, a less Israeli-favorable point of view. But not pulling this one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...he-dock/df7eec28-5223-4158-bf71-f37732cd0a0a/

The Post, from time to time, decides not to publish a particular comic if it is deemed unsuitable for one reason or another. This can be a good thing; guardians of the news sections keep watch over everything, including the comics, that gets published. Some readers call this current act censorship. The Post calls it editing.