Obeying in Advance

On Friday, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes quit The Washington Post. At issue was a cartoon she submitted (her sketch is at the right) that they flatly refused to run. Not suggested modifications, not edited, just flatly refused to run. Full stop. Telnaes relays what happened here. She doesn't say the specific reason(s) she was told they wouldn't run it, but believes that it was axed because it depicts Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Patrick Soon-Shiong, Jeff Bezos, and Mickey Mouse supplicating themselves to Donald Trump. That it's making fun of several very powerful people, and the Post would rather be timid and not risk offending any of them for fear of reprisals.

The Washington Post editorial page editor, David Shipley, who axed the cartoon said in a statement that Telnaes' cartoon was rejected not because of the targets but because it was redundant relative to two columns on the same topic, one of which has not yet been published. This is gaslighting. Shipley did not specifically point to the articles in question, but as near as I can tell, the one he claims was already published is this one from December 19, over two weeks before Telanes even submitted her idea. (Sorry, I can't find a non-paywalled version.) It's not an opinion piece, just some white-wash reporting on billionaries bending their knee at Mar-a-Lago. If you think two pieces over a three week period from which you can infer corruption of the wealthiest businessmen in the country at the behest of the President-elect is too much, that seems to me like Shipley, by his own admission, is doing precisely what Telnaes says he is doing. His claim that "the only bias was against repetition" is bullshit.

You don't need me to praise Telnaes holding to her ethics by quitting a newspaper that is 'obeying in advance' and undermining their "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tagline. Pretty much every account of this I've seen so far has already done that. What I haven't seen is anyone trying to fact-check Shipley's response to prove that his attempt to make it a "he said/she said" argument is disingenuous. Shipley is trying to portray Telnaes as an overly emotional woman whose actions are rash and irrational. I don't really know Telnaes well, but I have met her and I can tell you that Shipley is full of shit. Plain and simple. The issue is not one of "repetion" but of trying to avoid offending several immoral and insanely wealthy people. Telnaes' read on why her cartoon was axed is 100% correct and Shipley's explanation is gaslighting.

That Telnaes' cartoon was rejected should tell you about The Post's position on reporting the truth, regardless of who it offends or embarasses. That no other news organizations seemed to even try to fact-check Shipley's account should tell you what their positions are on the truth as well.

Related Items creator newspaper strips