Kris Krossed: Right-wing babble causes rabble
By Kristoffer Munden, Gavel Media Team, on October 28, 2009 12:54 AMBy Kristoffer Munden -
The Observer on Tuesday, Oct. 27, published the most despicable, misinformed, bigoted, and malicious cartoon I have seen in my life. The purpose of any news source is to encourage debate—not to stifle it through the publication of blatantly incendiary images.
The cartoon in question depicts an animalistic form with gruff hair and a snout holding a tube. The tube is between a pair of feet and funnels to a barrel that states, “Pro Choice ≠ Pro Abortion,” ostensibly filled with some sort of biological material.
Everyone, including whoever may have drawn this cartoon and made the decision to publish it, has the right to express their own opinion. They do not, however, have the right to publish an image that demonizes their ideological opposites. The cartoon portrays those who support the right to choose as something less than human (it’s impossible to tell exactly what the form holding the tube is). It also debases the position of those who support a woman’s right to choose by equating it with a desire to crudely terminate fetuses.
If this cartoon assumes that those who are pro-choice are less then human, then how can we expect any sort of informed debate? Should we just continue to take cheap jabs at the other side? Should we simply reduce the anti-choice position to a movement that seeks to subjugate women and force them to carry the children of rapists? Should progressive publications depict a cartoon that is similarly offensive? One problem—at the time of my writing this, I simply do not want to even suggest such a thing.
Obviously, this cartoon aims to be satirical. In this regard, it falls flat on its face. The point of any satire piece is to be thought-provoking. This cartoon, though, only goes for shock value.
The final troubling aspect of the cartoon is the fact that whoever drew it has refused to take responsibility for his or her own work. The cartoon is discreetly placed on the bottom right corner of page 15. I also tried to find the cartoon on The Observer’s Web site—can’t find it. This implies cowardice on the part of the illustrator. Own up to what you’ve drawn in every way—if debate is what you seek, then let’s talk.
The motto of The Observer is, “There is no freedom without the truth.” This cartoon has propagated a lie—a lie that has enslaved debate.
Or, maybe the editors of The Observer just didn’t see it—like last time.
*Views expressed in blog posts are not necessarily those of The Gavel.
Digg
Bookmark
Stumble
4 Comments
Phew! I’m glad someone other than me took issue with this. When I saw it in the Observer yesterday I was really confused as it is impossible to tell what the hairy thing holding the tube is, and what on Earth is supposed to be in the bucket, and if it was trying to depict what I thought it was trying to how even the Observer could step so far out of line. I also tried looking for the author of the cartoon, as that’s normally in some corner of the picture itself, and failed. A horribly offensive cartoon, published anonymously…this is why the Observer is not a serious news publication in any way. Or maybe we should be thrilled we have our own mini Fox News on campus.
The cartoonist is a professor and so he does his work anonymously.
The abortionist in question is supposed to just be a grungy looking person. I’m told he is a human by a friend of the cartoonist who spoke to him about it. It’s poor coloring in print.
And the “biological material” would be human body parts. Google image search abortion to see what I mean.
Thank you for writing this! I was appalled when I saw the cartoon last week and I am quite glad I am not the only one.
Though angered by the image, I fully support the First Amendment right of it to be published. That said, I was disheartened by the fact that the cartoon did not contain a credit. The public has a right to know who this person is (a professor at Boston College according to the comment above) so we have the opportunity to raise our objections to him or her. People should stand by their work.
Three things.
First, bravo to the students who took the initiative to launch the Gavel. It’s a much needed voice in the BC community.
Second, if a professor created the cartoon, then that’s all the more reason for him or her to stand by their work. Any kind of professional retaliation (ie, getting fired), would clearly violate state law, not to mention BC’s own stated commitment to the “presentation of opposing viewpoints and an openness to confrontation between ideas.” (See here: http://www.bc.edu/publications/studentguide/behavioralpolicies.html) Andrzej, could you elaborate on why this professor’s position supposedly gives him or her more of a reason to write anonymously?
Third, I take issue with Munden’s assertion in the third paragraph:
“Everyone, including whoever may have drawn this cartoon and made the decision to publish it, has the right to express their own opinion. They do not, however, have the right to publish an image that demonizes their ideological opposites.”
Why don’t they have this right? What if “demonizing” ones “ideological opponents” is a person’s chosen way of expressing their own opinion? Whether a professor or student made the cartoon in question, he or she is fully protected by BC’s own stated commitment to the “confrontation between ideas,” even if that includes making these tasteless depictions. It’s exactly how the marketplace of ideas is meant to function — when someone creates an image such as this, responsibly community members like Mr. Munden respond in kind. They point out how vile and counterproductive it is to demonize opponents in this manner. But on a campus that supposedly values the free exchange of ideas, political ends (as righteous as they may be) should never be mixed with the notion that certain voices (as offensive as they may be) deserve to be silenced.