Drawing the line on satire

The most potent editorial cartoons draw on witty satire, cruel caricature and wild exaggeration to amuse us, stir controversy and provoke debate.

These visual commentaries, likely the most well-perused element of this editorial page, are meant to lambaste and lampoon the pompous and the powerful, skewer silliness and ridicule the ridiculous to make a point and make us think.

Quite often, the best of them also offend – and even infuriate – some readers. Satire and humour are, after all, highly subjective and what's hilarious to one may be offensive to another.

Does that mean that editorial cartoonists are free to colour outside all the lines of ethical journalism in the name of free expression, or does creating what's been called "journalism's strongest weapon" also entail some level of journalistic responsibility?

Those questions raged through North America this week in the wake of the publication of the already infamous New Yorker magazine cover depicting Barack Obama in Muslim-style turban and robe and his wife Michelle as a machine-gun toting revolutionary. The caricature placed the pair in the Oval Office with a U.S. flag burning in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden hanging on the wall.

While the editor of the elite magazine defended the cover as, "satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama," the outcry from all sides of the American political spectrum branded it as tasteless, offensive and "totally inappropriate."

I largely agree and I likely wouldn't have published this incendiary cover image. Mainly, I share the views of the Star's two excellent editorial cartoonists, Patrick Corrigan and Theo Moudakis, that the New Yorker satire simply isn't effective.

"It certainly wasn't clever or thoughtful or witty or funny or anything else that a good cartoon should be," says Moudakis. "It's like drawing Stephen Harper as Hitler. Where's the joke in that?"

Corrigan thinks the satire lacks context and may be confusing. While the magazine intended to satirize those right-wing pundits who stereotype and distort the facts about the Democratic presidential nominee and his wife, in fact this portrayal made it appear as if the Obamas were the target of the satire.

I'm a big fan of the work of these two Star editorial cartoonists and generally believe that editorial cartoonists are among the most brilliant and creative of a newspaper's many smart journalists. I marvel at their ability to create witty, pithy art and comment on daily deadlines. In recent days, Corrigan's hilarious image of "Hellboy Harper" made me laugh out loud, while Moudakis' poignant portrayal of G8 leaders feasting as they exhorted one another to help Africa's poor, cut right to the heart of hypocrisy.

As public editor, I'm called on to answer for their edgiest work to readers who might find such commentary tasteless or unfair. I explain that the law and the Ontario Press Council gives cartoonists considerable latitude to create what's been called "a savage art" and that editorial cartoons are not meant to be taken literally. I also try to help readers understand that editorial cartoons, like columns, express the opinion of the journalist and do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the Star.

That doesn't mean that Star cartoonists can simply ignore journalistic principles of fairness and accuracy. Nor do they – or should they – have unfettered freedom to express extreme bad taste in their cartoons. Indeed, there are some lines that the Star's editorial cartoonists do not cross – particularly in regard to issues of race and religion – due to their own sense of what's appropriate for Star readers and also to editorial oversight.

Editorial page editor Ian Urquhart, who's responsible for approving the daily editorial cartoon, aims to allow the widest leeway possible. In a previous stint as editorial page editor in the 1980s, he "killed" little more than a handful of cartoons – either because he didn't find the satire effective, or because he thought readers would be so offended by an image that the cartoon would not make its point.

On balance, Star readers are well served by this. Though editors should not function as censors of an art and craft that is intended to be provocative, and even outrageous, there are times when it is indeed necessary to draw a line in matters of taste and fairness.

Often times though, we all just need to lighten up and laugh.

publiced@thestar.ca