Anto Mario
Recent Incidents Highlighting Censorship and Suppression
In January 2025, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes resigned from The Washington Post after the newspaper declined to publish her cartoon depicting tech magnates, including the paper’s owner Jeff Bezos, bowing to former President Donald Trump. Telnaes described this as the first instance where her work was rejected due to its viewpoint, expressing concern over the implications for a free press.
Internationally, cartoonists continue to face severe repercussions. In Saudi Arabia, Mohammed al-Ghamdi was sentenced to 23 years in prison, a stark reminder of the risks faced by satirists in authoritarian regimes.
The Decline of Editorial Cartooning in Traditional Media
The challenges faced by editorial cartoonists are not limited to censorship. The decline of traditional media outlets has led to a reduction in staff positions for cartoonists. A 2012 report by the Herblock Foundation found that there were fewer than 40 editorial cartoonists with newspaper-staff jobs in America, a steep decline from more than 2,000 such positions at the beginning of the 20th century. The situation has only worsened since then, with notable instances such as the firing of Rob Rogers from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2018 for penning anti-Trump cartoons.
The Impact of Market Forces and Self-Censorship
Economic pressures and the consolidation of media ownership have also contributed to the decline of editorial cartooning. As media outlets become increasingly reliant on advertising revenue and are owned by large corporations, there is a growing tendency to avoid content that might offend readers or advertisers. This environment fosters self-censorship, where cartoonists may feel pressured to tone down their work or avoid certain topics altogether.
The Role of Political Cartoons in Society
Despite these challenges, political cartoons remain a vital form of commentary. They have the unique ability to convey complex ideas quickly and memorably, often using humor and satire to provoke thought and discussion. Historically, cartoons have played a significant role in political discourse, from James Gillray’s depictions of Napoleon to the works of Honoré Daumier in 19th-century France. Their visual nature allows them to transcend language barriers and resonate with a broad audience.
The Path Forward
The current challenges facing editorial cartoonists underscore the need to protect and promote this art form. Media organizations must recognize the value of political cartoons and resist pressures that lead to censorship or the marginalization of dissenting voices. Additionally, there should be support for independent platforms where cartoonists can publish their work without undue restrictions. Society as a whole must remain vigilant against threats to free expression, understanding that the suppression of satirical commentary is often a precursor to broader erosions of democratic freedoms.
If the Times has a cartoon allergy, this is partly a matter of class. As an upscale newspaper, the Times prefers to present itself as objective and above the fray. By contrast, the publishers who have done the most to promote cartooning of all sorts, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, were media ruffians, guilty of “yellow journalism” and exciting plebeian anger.
As Bennet admits, the bluntness of cartoons goes against his sensibility. It is revealing that Bennet singled out for praise the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories in comics form about Syrian refugees that Jake Halperin and Michael Sloan did for the Times. These are excellent works of reported cartooning (in the tradition of Joe Sacco’s work), rather than satire.
Bennet’s sensibility is resolutely centrist. His op-ed page has been characterized by nostalgia for pre-Trumpian bipartisanship, with an extra dollop of love always given to Never Trump Republicans. It’s hardly surprising that someone as committed to elite concord as Bennet would be so uncomfortable with editorial cartoons, an art form that at its best is agitational, subversive, and nose-tweaking.
As former Nation publisher Victor Navasky notes in his 2013 book The Art of Controversy, editorial cartoons have the power to upset people that words rarely match. As a visual form, cartoons travel at the speed of light, whereas a speech travels at the speed of sound and written words are slowed down by the effort of the eye to riddle them out. As you plod word by word through this sentence, you can’t untangle the full meaning until you reach the end. By contrast, a cartoon hits you like a punch in the eye.
The element of caricature inherent in cartoons makes them even more dangerous. In intent, a cartoon is closer to a burnt effigy or a voodoo doll than it is to a reasoned essay. The goal is to wound—and that purpose is often achieved. Navasky quotes Napoleon as lamenting that the deft drawings of James Gillray “did more than all the armies of Europe to bring me down.”
King Louis Philippe jailed the cartoonist Honoré Daumier, with the French government claiming that while “a pamphlet is no more than a violation of opinion, a caricature amounts to an act of violence.” Hitler raved and frothed at David Low’s cartoons, earning Low a place on the hit list of those to be assassinated after the conquest of Britain was achieved.
Poor cartoonists! They have to fear not just the prissiness of a James Bennet but also the wrath of tyrants. These days, the steep decline of newspapers offers another threat, that of unemployment. Yet the impulse to deploy images in the service of politics continues, even if staff jobs are scarce. A new generation of alternative cartoonists has emerged who are most often to be found online. Distinguished names include Matt Bors, Tom Tomorrow, Eli Valley, Pia Guerra, Matt Lubchansky, Ruben Bolling, Kasia Babis, and Jen Sorensen.
This post was created with our nice and easy submission form. Create your post!
