Editorial interference
Who made the decision to alter the Pat Oliphant cartoon that was reprinted in the April 19 edition of the News & Record? In the original, which can be viewed at The Washington Post Web site, Secretary Rumsfeld is very clearly wearing the German Iron Cross around his collar, a device Oliphant has used in subsequent depictions of the Secretary of Defense. Do political cartoonists allow for editorial interference with what is, after all, their own editorial comment?
Scott Culclasure
Greensboro
Editor's note: On rare occasions, the News & Record edits small details in illustrations if they are considered gratuitous or offensive. If the entire thrust of a cartoon is considered objectionable, it is not published at all.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Great point Scott! The Puritans are here and doing well at the N&R. It was a poor decision by the News & Record to edit that out.
Posted on May 2, 2006 9:00 AM
While I strongly dislike Sec. Rumsfeld and feel he should be fired for incompentcy, I feel it would have been and is totally distasteful to imply that any person in government today, regardless if they ride the back of a donkey or an elephant, is aligned to the regime of Adolph Hitler. Of course those on the farleft with no respect even for the most disliked love such innuendos. Would an armband with the hammer and sickle on Nancy Pelosi be acceptable? Not in my opinion regrdless of how much I dislike her.
The N&R, as much as I find fault in many things they do, was right on this matter.
It would be distasteful and disrespectful to her position and would be offensive to many who think she hung the moon.
Posted on May 2, 2006 10:08 AM
Bad decision. It was a stupid cartoon in the first place and even stupider with the Iron Cross (another Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney-as-Nazi: yawn). But when the N&R makes itself the PC police and changes the meaning of what someone else has expressed (visually or verbally), that's wrong. It's the same as doctoring the language of a column. And if it's offensive, so what?
Posted on May 2, 2006 12:30 PM
When I say "so what," I mean that it's not like Rumsfeld partisans are going to bomb anyone or anything.
Posted on May 2, 2006 12:32 PM
"stupider"?
You're beginning to sound like Bush.
Posted on May 2, 2006 1:10 PM
Folks:
FWIW, as a life-long Republican and Pat Oliphant fan, I think we should lighten up.
First of all, the Iron Cross, as with most things German, predates the rise of Hitler in 1933 by more than a century. It is an icon of Prussian descent. One could posit that Prussia was a military dominated culture, and thus Oliphant's wit goes beyond comparing Rumsfeld to a Nazi (yes, yawn) to lampooning the military mentality, especially one led by a near octogenerian whose time to lead has come and gone long ago.
Second, Oliphant has a long history a biting criticism of both parties. He is the greatest poli-cartoonist ever.
Posted on May 3, 2006 7:54 AM
With access on the Internet, the N&R should have realized that someone would call them on this doctoring of a political cartoon.
I do agree with MrP, comparing any US politician to Hitler is out of line. I haven't seen anyone comparing Democrats in this manner. I understand the Iron Cross predates Hitler, but the meaning is still there ya know.
That being said, the N&R should have run the cartoon as it was and made themselves out to be part of the Bush Admin. = Hitler bandwagon, or they should have chosen a different cartoon.
Posted on May 3, 2006 1:17 PM
I suppose all you liberals are also for NR to run the Dutch cartoon that has Islam enranged?
Posted on May 3, 2006 6:51 PM