Washington Post Removes Hamas Cartoon After Backlash From Staff and Readers

[Twirling Time]

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.

 

[WriteThinking]

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.

Well, that link was in reference to a comic strip. That's not exactly the same thing as an editorial-page cartoon/commentary that is supposed to be offered by the paper and its editorial board, not an individual reporter/writer.

And I'm sure every paper has such a policy. All organizations/companies have policies, ready for most any eventuality. I would love to know how often it's ever been enacted previously, particularly in regard to an editorial-page cartoon.

 

[goalmouth]

Like ashhloe Johnny Hart's anti-semitic and anti-Islam B.C. strips.