Just When Is A Cartoon Offensive?
By Thomas D. Segel (02/04/06)
Harlingen, Texas, February 3, 2006: The Tom Toles political cartoon depicting a soldier as a quadruple amputee appeared in the Washington Post on January 29. Since that day, less than a week ago, there has been a continuing drumbeat by the media defending their right to place such hurtful and denigrating political commentary in print.
[url=http://thomasdsegel.com/offensive-cartoon-cr.jpg]Example Image[/url]
Strong objections have also been registered from readers, advertisers and the general public, but it has not altered the Washington Post position. There was even a strongly worded letter from General Peter Pace, Chairman Of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the members of that body.
In the letter, which was printed by the newspaper less any apology for the cartoon, General Pace says, “Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon is beyond tasteless.” The general also says, “Those who visit with wounded veterans in local hospitals have found lives profoundly changed by pain and loss. They have also found brave men and women with a sense of purpose and selfless commitment that causes truly battle-hardened warriors to pause.”
The cartoon and the words of General Pace have circulated through the military community with jet-like speed. Also being strongly commented upon by active duty military, reserves, National Guard personnel, veterans, military retirees and their families are the self-serving defenses of the cartoon offered by the American media.
Though the media elite may shrug off the feelings of the military community, a new and equally offensive version of that Tom Toles cartoon may have greater impact. It may also provide those so-called “First Amendment Defenders" with a much-needed taste of reality. Circulating across the Internet and being passed on again and again by the warrior class is a side-by-side version of the cartoon. In the first frame is the drawing as created by Tom Toles. To the right of it is a second version of the cartoon. In this frame a member of the media, so identified by an ABC logo, replaces the wounded soldier. The person re-captioning the cartoon has printed the wrong name, writing Woodward, instead of the wounded reporter, Woodruff. The words of the Rumsfeld character have been changed to read “You’ve really racked up quite a bill for your grandstanding stunt.”
There is additional text added to the two drawings. In the original depiction is says, “The Press didn’t seem to think that this cartoon is offensive.” In the recreation it reads, “I’m betting they wouldn’t like this one.” For the military community...that just about says it all.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Thomas D. Segel
