CSotD: Discourse in the Age of Snark and Commerce
Skip to comments
As I've mentioned here before, I don't often feature David Horsey's work because he accompanies his cartoons with a well-spoken rant that generally covers anything I would have said.
This particular cartoon-and-rant is no exception, but it does give me an opening to go off on another rant without violating the Prime Directive, which is to feature cartoons I liked rather than to drop snark on those I thought sucked.
I blogged about the Iranian elections recently, and wrote:
waiting for Western cartoonists to chime in on the story because most of
them won't and some who do will simply mock the elections as a sham
because, well, Iran is full of crazy bad guys in turbans and so there
you go. (Okay, so prove me wrong!)
Since then, the cartoons have begun to appear, and I was wrong — about "some." Only Horsey has gone against the prevailing tide of "it's all a raghead sham."
The same chickenhawks who were beating the wardrums when the Iranian government suppressed the results of the last elections are now working to suppress the impact of this one, and to undermine any attempts by the Iranian people to force their nation into the 21st Century.
Which might fail if they didn't have so many willing collaborators among those allegedly tasked with holding them accountable.
And it's not just Iran.
Maybe I'm just in a personal cycle where this stuff bothers me more than usual, but it sure seems that finding thoughtful political cartoons has been damned hard lately.
I'm really trying hard to say more today than, "You suck!" given that my distaste for people yelling "You suck!" is what launched this blog a little over three years and 1240-some posts ago.
But one of the cures for people yelling "You suck!" is, at least theoretically, to try not to suck, and I'm not getting a lot of cooperation from some people who, dammit, ought to know better and who, double-dammit, have previously done better.
Granted, refusing to do cartoons that suck can conflict with the mission of keeping your job and feeding your family, which is why we get Pearly Gates cartoons when any beloved public figure dies, and drawings of somber people saluting gravestones every Memorial Day and Veterans Day.
Two years ago, I did an entry on Ann Telnaes and her post-9/11 cartoons. It's worth revisiting that link, but the relevant point here is her frank admission that being in a two-income family gave her the freedom to draw cartoons that she knew editors probably weren't going to put in their newspapers.
Which means she got the release of venting on something she truly cared about, knowing that, at least on some occasions, only her on-line fans would get to see the results.
This is a luxury she readily acknowledged, just as she readily acknowledged that it is sure as hell not the way you prosper in syndication.
She's a Pulitzer Prize winner, but, once you've spent the stipend, you're as likely as anyone else to be eating beans and rice, since, as has been demonstrated, the opinions of the Pulitzer judges will not protect you against being laid off in an industry that truly and deeply and sincerely does not give a rat's ass about the quality of what they put out there as long as it attracts a crowd, any crowd.
Think I'm kidding? This is how bad it has gotten.
It's not just newspapers, of course. Look at your TV schedule, and, if you're a glutton for punishment, look at your TV.
It's been noted on the Daily Show that "The Learning Channel" is an ironic name for a channel devoted to making people stupid, and, come on, when the National Geographic is not just willing but eager to roll in the mire, who do you look to for anything?
So I guess I can't blame political cartoonists for grabbing the low-hanging fruit, not just with sentimental slop over dead celebrities and national holidays, but by doing gags in place of commentary and by riffing on buzz-worthy but phony scandals like Benghazi and the IRS/510c4 kerfuffle.
The practice of cheap gags and of pandering to sentiment instead of stimulating discourse is not new.
Twenty years ago, there were cartoonists who would rather make jokes about Bill Clinton's sex life and his love for junk food than comment on any of his policies. And there were cloth-eared editors who chose those gags because, y'know, cartoons are supposed to be funny, right?
I actually got in a near-fist-fight some years ago with an editorial page editor who got pissed when I showed him this Foxtrot and then had the nerve to express astonishment that he didn't get it. Which is to say, when he assumed the Roger Fox role for real:
Every time you think the bar can't go any lower, they bring out the shovels and prove that "rock bottom" is only a challenge, not a limitation.
This isn't just about Iran, but about the whole issue of how democracy can function in an atmosphere of willful ignorance and cynical, profit-driven misdirection.
It's not just whether or not we're going to be led by the nose into yet another Middle Eastern war. That doesn't matter, because there is no draft and so there's no danger of Congressmen's kids or the children of business leaders being sent off against their will.
And we'll run touching cartoons of proud, sad eagles saluting the graves of those who do end up going.
Under which we'll offer links about Miley Cyrus's sideboob, 10 Foods You Should Never Eat and that housewife in <yourtownhere> who makes $57,000 a year working at home.
Comments
Comments are closed.