CSotD: Optimism, cock-eyed or clear-eyed
Skip to comments
This blank panel represents several cartoons that got the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cake Shop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission wrong.
As said here yesterday, the decision was only about the hearing before that commission, not about whether the baker had the right to refuse service, though the confusion is not unprecedented.
In the 1966 landmark case, Miranda v Arizona, Ernesto Miranda had been arrested for a rape to which he confessed, and was subsequently convicted on the charge.
The Court ruled that the confession was improperly obtained because he had not been advised of his rights, and threw out the conviction, and we have ever since heard the familiar drone of "You have right to remain silent …"
We then heard the outraged screams that the Court had let a rapist go free, but they didn't, nor did they legalize rape.
They simply ordered a new trial, without the improperly obtained confession, at which Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years.
This is a similar case, in that the Court didn't offer an opinion about whether Masterpiece Cake Shop should make the cake, only whether the baker had received a fair hearing.
Also similar because people are upset over a ruling that the Court didn't make.
Two bits of good news: One is that there is a second case coming down the pipes, Arlene's Flowers v State of Washington, which is essentially the same.
A florist claims her arrangements are unique artistic expressions and therefore her First Amendment religious rights should trump the non-discrimination laws, but she doesn't seem to have the outrageous and inconsistent conduct of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to distract from the central issue.
Let's hope this one comes in clean and gets a hearing based on the matter of discrimination, because, reading between the lines of Masterpiece, the justices seem highly likely to uphold those civil rights laws.
The other good thing is that, while a lot of the erroneously reasoned cartoons popped up on Facebook and Twitter, only a couple have made it to official sites yet, offering hope that at least some cartoonists were able to see more of the coverage, recognize the error, and jerk them back before they became official.
After, all, a visit to your editor to pull a piece before it runs is not nearly as disruptive and controversial as a call to the pressroom to "Stop the Presses."
I've done both. Neither is fun.
But "Stop the Presses" costs the company money and you'd damn well better be able to justify it.
Going to your editor only costs you some pride, and it's better to admit your error to your boss than to display it to several thousand readers.
I'm hoping there've been a few of those embarrassed conversations.
Granted, I tend towards cock-eyed optimism.
Which is why I am a little, though only a very little, buoyed by the comments on Rob Rogers' latest cartoon, which appears on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's blog and, judging from some of those comments, may also have appeared in print, which would be a break in, if not an end to, the blocking by his own paper of his works.
(UPDATE: Yes, it did.)
I've already addressed the issue, which is well-reported here and commented on by the AAEC here, and, if I'm reading things right and this cartoon has been printed in the paper, well, that's a good thing but let's hold off on the confetti and champagne.
Rob reports that he's taking a few days off while things get worked out, so even an optimist can't find much of a pony in this pile.
The owners of a newspaper have a right to make content decisions, but there's a question of whether they should be reflecting the values of their community or attempting to lead it around by the nose. This looks like a case of the latter, and they should either wake up or get slapped down.
The uproar that has arisen will no doubt get management's attention.
In the end, however, it's up to the Picksburgers themselves to straighten this out, not a national audience that isn't likely to ever buy the paper or shop at any of its local advertisers.
We'll see.
Wanna do a graphic novel?
Cartoonists dreaming of graphic novels, or actually working on one, can get some advice, and maybe a good lead, as Gina Gagliano takes the position of publishing director at Random House Graphics, a new imprint.
She told me:
What I’m looking for at Random House Graphic is pretty broad!
Random House Graphic is specifically a kids comics imprint, but we’re looking at publishing graphic novels for kids starting with very young readers – age five – all the way up through teenagers in high school and college. I’m interested in both fiction and commercial nonfiction, across all genres.
I’m looking for graphic novels that are good and fun and smart and leave a lasting impression on you after you’ve finished them.
We’ll only be publishing graphic novels – no picture books, prose, or hybrid books.
She also noted:
I’m happy to get pitches from authors who have agents; but unagented authors are welcome to send proposals as well. I’ve worked with plenty of authors without agents in the past; in comics, not having an agent definitely doesn’t mean that you’re not going to get published.
And, she added:
I’m starting from square one! But Random House already publishes a lot of amazing graphic novels – including Jenni Holm and Matt Holm’s Baby Mouse, Jarrett Krosozcka’s Lunch Lady, Chad Sell’s The Cardboard Kingdom, and Judd Winick’s Hilo. I’m excited to be adding the books I acquire to such a fun program.
Here's the advice, and you certainly should get a better sense of what's going on before you submit anything: She's part of an ongoing podcast at The Beat which lays out how to go about the whole thing.
I wouldn't approach her without having listened to that.
Best "Stop the Presses" Movie Ever
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments 4
Comments are closed.