Political cartoons and perceptions of offensiveness in editorial media

Freedom of the Press and Cartoons as Political Statements

Allegorical interpretations of the public sector's opinions and feelings about the U.S. Government have been expressed as political cartoons since the beginning of our Republic. These political cartoons have been most often conveyed through the various newspaper media, and have long been protected under the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Especially early on in America's history as a Republic, freedom of the press was the primary mode by which public opinion and feelings about government were expressed, because newspapers were mass produced and were widely distributed thereby carrying ideas and expressions to a greater number of people who were spread out over a large geographical range. Political cartoons could be understood by people who could not read. They helped to create a forum for debate and a way in which people could relate their own ideas and feelings about government knowing that their ideas and feelings were shared by and with others even though they were lived in remote areas of the country and were far away from the city centers of culture and political activity. But political cartoons also served to influence the ideas and emotions of the public because of the debate they stirred in the public sector, and because they drew the reader or viewer into the concepts being conveyed. Even people who held no political ideology or who were inexperienced in the ways of government became critical thinkers of individual political representatives' positions on issues and government processes and legislation when their thoughts and imaginations were stirred by the images of political cartoons.

Protected by the First Amendment, political cartoons became a tool of those who labored to shape government by way of public opinion. Andrea a. Lunsford, Kirt H. Wilson, and Rosa a. Eberly (2008), in their book, the Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, say that the use of political cartoons in the United States is "a time-honored form of political rhetoric (p. 596)." They go on to say:

"The persuasive nature of political cartoons is perhaps more obvious than that of photographs: Editorial cartoonists, in particular, are assumed, and, indeed, encouraged to engage in social and political critique. Using the term graphic persuasion to refer to such efforts, Medhurst and DeSousa (1991) analyzed an assortment of U.S. editorial cartoons depicting the Ayatollah Khomeini and found three "commonplaces," another term for familiar to public to address scholars, with regard to how these representations were offered and assumed to impact viewers' understanding of Iranian politics (p. 596)."

If we look back at the nature of the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the Shah of Iran was dethroned from his "peacock throne," and the Ayatollah Khomeini succeeded him and installed a theocracy as the governing ideology and power in Iran; and subsequently to the time when the U.S. Embassy in Iran was overrun by Iranian student Islamic fundamentalists in protest of the U.S. backing of the Shah, allegedly delaying the onset of Islamic theocratic governance of Iran. We will find that political cartoons shaped the American perspective on Iran, and provided the foundation from which Americans built their understanding of Islamic rule in general as it is perceived by most Americans today.

Block 1979

The above political cartoon (by Herbert Block) was distributed by Field Newspaper Syndicate and published in the Washington Post April 8, 1979, following the Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile in France, to Iran. The cartoon depicts the "spiritual leader" looking sinister and cruel, and below his poster are the bodies of Iranians, presumably ideological opposition. One of the men is beheaded, while the other lies dead in the street. The caption below the image of the Ayatollah quotes him as saying

"There is no reason why a criminal should be tried in the first place . . . Once his identity is established, he should be killed right away (Block, 1979)."

There are many direct and subtle messages conveyed by the cartoon. First, that the Ayatollah Khomeini as a spiritual leader is an image that stands in stark contrast to the image most Americans would have of a spiritual leader, such as the much loved and always gently portrayed Pope John Paul II, who was head of the Catholic Church at the time the cartoon was published. The cartoon would have alarmed Catholics and other religious denominations in the United States because it would have aroused their fears and superstitions about Islam, especially surrounding the events leading to the Shah of Iran having been deposed by Islamic fundamentalists.

Secondly, the remarks of the Ayatollah stand in stark contrast to the freedoms held precious by Americans as individual rights. The presumably public executions of people because of their religious or political ideologies would alarm Americans who for the most part associate legal due process with not just Constitutional rights, but human rights. It is a violation of one of the most cherished American principles upon which the Republic was founded on. For Americans, Constitutional rights have long been held synonymous with human rights, and the Ayatollah's expressions are in direct contradiction of those human rights. Therefore, it would follow, that Americans would perceive the Ayatollah as representative of religious and legal persecution. For those reasons, Americans would fear and loathe the Ayatollah and the Iranian theocracy over which he presided, and would be indifferent to the cultural traditions of Iranians and others who follow the path of Islam. The stage was then set for a political standoff between the U.S. And Iran and any subsequent action, military or diplomatic, that the U.S. might initiate or take against Iran.

Understanding the power of political cartoon influences on the minds and ideas of Americans, we can now move forward and examine the rhetoric of other political cartoons that have influenced the ideas and opinions of Americans, thereby helping to shape American politics at home and in the world at large.

Political Cartoons and Freedom of the Press

Freedom of speech exists through the free press, and both are Constitutional guarantees to these rights for Americans. Constitutional rights, however, are subject to interpretation. For instance, freedom of speech does not allow a person in a crowded movie theatre to yell, "Fire!" When the personal freedom of an individual puts the freedoms of society as a whole or in part at risk, then the right of the individual is legally weighed against the rights of society as a whole. Therefore, it is illegal to yell, "Fire!" In a crowded theatre, because it is putting at physical harm and risk the greater society that is in the theatre. So, legally, the rights of the individual are weighed against the risk society as a whole is subjected to as a result of exercising personal rights.

The right to freedom of the press by way of satirical depiction of individuals and government has been challenged from time to time in the United States. One such case, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, tested the Constitutionality of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In this case, Hustler Magazine, a magazine that deals with risque and sexually explicit images targeting men as its consumer base, but which also combines those risque images and images with articles on contemporary issues such as politics and religion, was the unlikely champion of freedom of the press. While many people, especially women with traditional values, would not subscribe to Hustler Magazine, the magazine has a consumer base, and its owner/publisher, Larry Flynt, is an American success story in entrepreneurship.

The case involved a satirical depiction of another American success story, that of the American religious leader Jerry Falwell, whose power base amongst political conservatives and especially "Bible Belt" Christians, had evolved beyond his successful televangelism program to form the politically powerful "Moral Majority (Lively and Weaver, 2006, p. 79)." Falwell was also the founder of Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia, and he was widely published in books and publications. But the Moral Majority, representative of religious and traditional Americans who believe that traditional American values like faith and family are deteriorating in American society, was certainly the basis of Falwell's wide-spread success and even his own personal wealth. The Moral Majority took Falwell beyond his own religious group, uniting a constituency founded on traditional values that surpassed religious affiliation. Their purpose as a political group is to influence lawmakers by the strength of their voting power to enact legislation that they believe prevents the erosion of traditional values, and to oppose legislation, such as abortion, that they believe undermines those values. They are, even today, a powerful political action group backed by the wealth of their membership which is, for the most part, middle class Americans.

As the national leader of the Moral Majority, Falwell became a widely recognized public figure whose image became synonymous with the traditional values of his membership and other conservatives (p. 79). Hustler Magazine represented an expression of free speech and free press that Falwell held as contrary to American values and traditions. Authors Donald Lively and Russell Weaver describe Hustler Magazine as Falwell's "antagonist (p. 79)," no doubt representing for Falwell abuses of our Constitutional freedoms.

"In 1983, Hustler Magazine decided to parody Falwell using a Campari Liqueur advertisement. The actual Campari ads portrayed interviews with various celebrities about their 'first times.' Although the advertisement actually focused on the first time that the celebrities had sampled Campari, the ads portrayed the double entendre of the first time that the interviewees had engaged in sex. Hustler mimicked the Campari format and created a fictional interview with Falwell in which he stated that his 'first time' was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse (p. 79)."

The Oregon Commentator, May, 2007

There is probably no limit to the outrage that was felt by Falwell, and by his support base, both of which would have been offended, first, by using Falwell in any way to entertain the subscribers to Hustler Magazine. The image, however, depicts a relaxed, even family-like, photo of Falwell resting his chin on his hand. In the right-hand section of the ad, is the Campari Liqueur with glasses of presumably the alcohol in two of the ways it might be served, and then, at the left margin, the name "Campari," with the words, "You'll never forget your first time (the Oregon Commentator, 2007)." The page also contains a mock and fictitious interview with Falwell in which it is suggested that Falwell's "first time" was with his mother in an outhouse. The ad, taken as a whole, suggests that not only did Falwell have an incestuous encounter with his mother, but that he was "a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk (Lively and Weaver, p. 79)."

Our legal system sometimes eludes our own personal sense of dignity and moral values; and in this case Falwell could not sue Hustler for defamation, because that legal cause requires "a false assertion (p. 79)." At the bottom of the, Hustler covered itself using a disclaimer that read, "ad parody -- not to be taken seriously." Hustler, thereby, established its use of the inflammatory material as a parody, an abstract expression of its reaction to Jerry Falwell in his role as a champion of American faith, family, and tradition. It conveyed Hustler's idea that Falwell was flawed, human, and, horrifying as it might be to his support base, had originated from a sexual act, and ostensibly an act that required some sexual imagination and fantasy as might be depicted in the magazine. Also, that Falwell his self probably had sex, and perhaps even suggesting that Falwell could not attract the sensual, sexy women depicted in the magazine, and, therefore, would have sex with the one woman who truly loved him, despite his narrow-mindedness -- his mother.

Our legal system does, however, if one looks hard enough, offer a number of other ways to deal with this kind of inflammatory depiction. Falwell brought suit against Hustler Magazine and its owner/publisher, Larry Flynt, on grounds that the magazine had intentionally harmed him by inflicting upon him mental distress (p. 79). Indeed, one can easily concede that Falwell's distress was great given that his constituency was a post World War II public morality whose sensitivities were protected even by the television industry, which required its public television dramatizations of people in bedrooms, on beds, to have one foot out of the bed and on the floor (Chunovic, 2000, p. 17).

Falwell was successful in his suit, and a jury awarded him compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000, and punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 (Lively and Weaver, p. 79). It was not, of course, the financial win that Falwell was most interested in, but the win involving the control the decision exercised over freedom of the press and free speech when it came in conflict with the values and traditions of his constituency. The challenge was one that Flynt was not prepared to accept, and Hustler appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which delivered a blow to Falwell when it reversed the lower court, and issued the following opinion:

"In answering the question in the negative, the Court emphasized that the First Amendment emphasizes the 'fundamental importance' of allowing people to express themselves 'on matters of public interest and concern.' The Court also recognized that 'robust political debate' is likely to result in speech that is critical of public officials and public figures 'who are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions, or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.' Moreover, those who comment on public affairs are generally against liability (p. 79)."

Other cases in American law have gained further ground and established precedents in protection of free speech and free press. The Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254), set limits on the amounts that could be awarded to a public figure who successfully challenged the press for libel or defamation. Joining in their opinion, Justices Black and Douglas said:

"The half-million-dollar verdict does give dramatic proof, however, that state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials. The factual background of this case emphasizes the imminence and enormity of that threat. One of the acute and highly emotional issues in this country arises out of efforts of many people, even including some public officials, to continue state-commanded segregation of races in the public schools and other public places, despite our several holdings that such a state practice is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Montgomery is one of the localities in which widespread hostility to desegregation has been manifested. This hostility has sometimes extended itself to persons who favor desegregation, particularly to so-called "outside agitators," a term which can be made to fit papers like the Times, which is published in New York. The scarcity of testimony to show that Commissioner Sullivan suffered any actual damages at all suggests that these feelings of hostility had at least as much to do with rendition of this half-million-dollar verdict as did an appraisal of damages. Viewed realistically, this record lends support to an inference that instead of being damaged Commissioner Sullivan's political, social, and financial prestige has likely been enhanced by the Times' publication. Moreover, a second half-million-dollar libel verdict against the Times based on the same advertisement has already been awarded to another Commissioner. There a jury again gave the full amount claimed. There is no reason to believe that there are not more such huge verdicts lurking just around the corner for the Times or any other newspaper or broadcaster which [295] might dare to criticize public officials. In fact, briefs before us show that in Alabama there are now pending eleven libel suits by local and state officials against the Times seeking $5,600,000, and five such suits against the Columbia Broadcasting System seeking $1,700,000. Moreover, this technique for harassing and punishing a free press -- now that it has been shown to be possible -- is by no means limited to cases with racial overtones; it can be used in other fields where public feelings may make local as well as out-of-state newspapers easy prey for libel verdict seekers (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 2010, found online)."

The decision not only supports freedom of speech and the press, but it causes the public official or person whose fame or celebrity is used to shape public policy, or, indeed, who might be responsible for the behavior of individuals working under them to enforce or carry out public policy, to accept their role in the public light as a precarious one in terms of how their role might be perceived by the public or interpreted and described by the press.

Silencing Free Speech and Press

When Bill Clinton ran for the office of president, he ran as the model of American family values. In that effort, his daughter, Chelsea, was visible during his campaign, completing the picture of the ideal American family. However, later, after Clinton was elected president, the Clintons issued a directive that their daughter, Chelsea, would be off-limits to journalists (U.S. News and World Report, 1996, p. 32). While American values had evolved such that film, television, and other media are more sexually explicit than they were in the mid twentieth century, and especially in the early 20th century; the press respected the Clinton's wishes. Of course, any member of the press with a White House press pass would, because not to do so could impact that journalist's work. Perhaps they would be overlooked during eventful news conferences, or would not be called "off the record" for breaking stories or insight to existing news reports. Additionally, journalists seemed to have a conscience where Chelsea Clinton was concerned. She was an awkward and not very attractive young girl when the Clintons took up residence in the White House. It would have been socially inappropriate, perhaps even unacceptable to parody the adolescent in ways that might impact her confidence and self-esteem. After all, former President Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy, was proof enough of the harm that the press could inflict on a presidential daughter.

The original cast of the comedy television show, Saturday Night Live, in 1976, spoofed a photograph of the presidential first family. In the photograph, Amy's eyes were closed, and she became the subject of the SNL casts' parody when Jane Curtin, in her role as a network newswoman, reported:

"Our top story tonight: [Photo of a smiling Jimmy Carter carrying dry cleaning bag over his shoulder] Still trying to make up his campaign deficit, President-elect Carter has taken a part-time job delivering dry cleaning in the Washington area. ...[Photo of the Carter family: Jimmy, Rosalyn and daughter Amy -- Amy's eyes are closed and she covers her mouth with her hand] as a security measure to avoid any leaking of White House information, the Secret Service has stapled Amy Carter's eyes shut and epoxied her hand to her mouth for the duration of Jimmy Carter's term. ... A decision on what to do with Amy's ears will be made shortly (Saturday Night Live Transcripts, 2010, online)."

The parody was an effort to show the ineptitude of President Jimmy Carter, who was, and still is, a man of strong religious convictions. Carter's campaign was hugely successful, because he represented the American dream: an entrepreneurial peanut farmer from Georgia who held strong religious and family values, and who at the time of his election to the office of president, was middle aged, with an attractive wife and a young daughter, Amy. Amy was often photographed by the media in what were intended to be family and value oriented photo-ops. However, those occasions were often parodied in the press, especially as the Carter administration began proving itself to be politically inept. That ineptitude was highlighted by Carter's failed efforts to rescue American Embassy workers being held hostage by student Islamic fundamentalists following the return from exile in France of the Ayatollah Khomeini, to Iran after the Shah of Iran had been dethroned and exiled from the country.

There are other occasions when public figures have aptly defied the powers of free speech and the press. During her run for the presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton successfully caused GQ (Gentlemen's Quarterly) magazine to kill a story that would have reflected negatively on Clinton's campaign, and, therefore, her bid for the Democratic Party's nomination of her as their choice for presidential candidate (Smith, 2007, online). The magazine, which had an upcoming feature on former President Bill Clinton, was told to kill the negative piece on Hillary Clinton, or lose access to the former president (Smith, online). The magazine, probably measuring revenues over the story on Hillary vs. The piece on Bill, conceded (Smith, online).

Another and more recent event of the power of free speech and free press standing down surrounds the story of a political cartoon of the Islamists' spiritual leader, Muhammad. In the Islamic tradition, depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are prohibited, because, it is widely held, such depictions would create an importance surrounding the Prophet, even worship of the Prophet, who is below, not above, God. Although the Prophet Muhammad illuminated the spiritual path to God, he is not God, and images would only serve to create confusion over the hierarchy. More importantly, however, is the fact that the Prophet is indeed the illumination of the spiritual path to God, and for that reason it would be deemed inappropriate to use his image in ways that would demean or otherwise inappropriately reflect on him in that regard. The respect that is often afforded groups and individuals based on their religious stature and the ways in which the public hold them out as special in that regard, was boldly violated by Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, a news publication. The series of images published by the publication are shown below:

Jyllands-Postenm, 2006.

The images depict what might ostensibly be perceived as Muhammad, or even perhaps any other Muslim or Muslim cleric, but the message conveyed is that the images are in fact Muhammad. They convey the message that Muhammad's illumination has become dark by interpretation and application of Islamic fundamentalism. That Muhammad is not the symbol of spiritual enlightenment, but is symbolic with the dark forces of terrorism, even demonic forces.

Understandably, the images infuriated Muslims the world round. Not only do they suggest that all Muslims are terroristic by function of their practice of Islam, but the images are the ultimate transgression against Islamic faithful, even those opposed to terrorism. While many Westerners could relate to the depictions as being offensive, because religious freedom is as much a Constitutional protection as is freedom of speech and press; they nonetheless found themselves in a quandary of sorts when it came to exercising freedom of speech and the press vs. religious freedom. These Constitutional rights were being pitted against one another, and the end result, in the West, was a stand-off. For the most part, the American press elected not to run the cartoons, but did report extensively on the story.

The considerations that led the American press not to widely reproduce the cartoons was perhaps less thoughtful of religious freedom and respect and more so of good business sense and a desire not to be targeted by terrorists. The internet, however, has no end of sites that are not business related, but which express their creator's feelings and opinions, and the cartoons can be easily found on the internet, thereby demonstrating that freedom of speech and the press cannot be easily quieted.

Political Cartoons

Since the beginning of our Republic, one of the most frequently depicted images of American politics has been that of Uncle Sam. Created early in the 19th century, Uncle Sam was the representation of American government. Appearing in his original form, Uncle Sam was serious, aged to an impression of worldly-wisdom, and dressed in a star spangled top-hat and tux of red, white, and blue. His original image is shown below:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition

The term "Uncle Sam," is reported by the Columbia Encyclopedia (2010, online) as having originated in 1812, in conjunction with the War of 1812 (online). The image quickly became synonymous with all things American, and, as such, Uncle Sam has since become the target of any satirical representation intended to be a commentary on the American government, and the American mood, as a whole. His image was depicted as a means by which to inspire enlistment in the Army, but has perhaps been more frequently used to satirize the folly of the American Government. The following images show the range of Uncle Sam as the military recruiter, and in depictions representing the American attitude towards the government.