← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · amundsen
Thread ID: 5760 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-03-23
2003-03-23 15:11 | User Profile
Daniel J. Friedman's [url=http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2003/03/18/cartoon.html]Cartoon[/url]
Mar. 21, 2003
Administration blasts Diamondback cartoon
By Jason Flanagan Senior staff writer
University officials, student leaders and a U.S. congressman blasted The Diamondback yesterday for publishing an editorial cartoon about the death of American pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie, calling the cartoon tasteless and the newspaper an embarrassment to the university.
Officials were outraged by the March 18 editorial cartoon, which depicted Corrie, who was killed Sunday in Gaza after a bulldozer ran her over, as showing "stupidity" for protecting a "gang of terrorists."
Their opinions reflect most of the approximately 2,000 e-mails and hundreds of phone calls The Diamondback received in the last three days. Students staged an overnight sit-in protest Wednesday and returned yesterday to demand a printed apology, as well as an article honoring Corrie, before they moved to Washington to protest the war in Iraq.
Ann Wylie, chief of staff for university President Dan Mote, called the cartoon "tasteless" and "crude." She called the newspaper an embarrassment and questioned the reasoning behind publishing the cartoon.
"Mote feels exactly like I do," Wylie said. "We're embarrassed. The Diamondback embarrassed the university. People across the world think the University of Maryland is supporting this. [The Diamondback has] damaged me by publishing something as distasteful as this.
"I believe [The Diamondback] has the right do it. The issue is, why did they do it?"
Jay Parsons, editor in chief of The Diamondback, defended editorial cartoonist [u]Daniel J. Friedman[/u] and the newspaper's decision Wednesday, saying the cartoon is an expression of freedom of speech. He said he would not apologize for publishing the cartoon because it would deny First Amendment liberties.
Parsons called the administration's criticism contradictory after Mote supported freedom of speech in a letter regarding the war in Iraq.
"What is an embarrassment is that we have university administrators who do not practice what they preach," Parsons said. "The entire university community received an e-mail from Mote promoting tolerance of differing viewpoints. But not one day later, does he and other administrators retreat to pressures that are coming in from the outside. I think it's hypocritical and goes against everything that higher education is all about."
Mote could not be reached for comment despite repeated attempts.
Journalism school Dean Thomas Kunkel said the cartoon was "offensive," and he would not have run the cartoon if he were a Diamondback editor. While stressing that the paper had the legal right to publish the cartoon, he said the freedom to publish did not make it the right decision.
"I think everyone needs to understand, it doesn't mean that an organization has an obligation to publish anything," Kunkel said.
Journalism school Associate Dean Chris Callahan followed Kunkel's lead.
"It was cruel, hurtful, racist and not something I would want in my publication," he said. "But does The Diamondback have the right? Yes. 100 percent, yes."
Parsons said editorial policy only prohibits material that is libelous or incites violence - attributes not in the cartoon, he said. Parsons said the newspaper's lawyer found nothing libelous about the cartoon.
But Callahan and Provost William Destler disagreed with the policy; Callahan said no major newspaper would have such flimsy standards, and Destler condemned the editors for making a heartless decision.
"That is a dangerously low standard, which is precisely what led to the publication of this offensive, insensitive and hurtful cartoon," Destler said in a written statement. "Are editors not also responsible for ensuring a degree of fairness, good taste and sensitivity?"
Jackie Jeter-Hunter, assistant director of undergraduate admissions, said the department has not received any negative feedback concerning the cartoon, and no incoming freshmen have retracted their applications because of the cartoon.
Corrie, who worked with the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement, was killed while attempting to stop an armored Israeli bulldozer from razing a house in Gaza. News reports are conflicting; some say the driver purposely ran over her, while others say Corrie was caught in some debris when trying to flee. Israeli officials told the Associated Press the death was an accident and they would conduct an investigation.
The cartoon has also received criticism from U.S. Rep. Albert Wynn (D-4th District), who represents central Prince George's County and northern Montgomery County. Wynn talked to an outraged constituent and shared that person's concerns with the cartoon's statement.
"This cartoon has ignited somewhat of a firestorm of controversy," Wynn said. "I can get a good laugh at tasteless cartoons as much as the next person, and I'm not trying to be heavy handed ... [but The Diamondback has] a responsibility to act responsibly."
Dozen of students continued to protest outside The Diamondback's newsroom yesterday, some saying they would continue to protest at the newspaper's office even if no one is there until an apology is made.
"We're getting the message out, even if they're not here - it's symbolic," said Justin Valanzola, a junior special education major. "We're here to do something. We can't be apathetic anymore."
University Police spokeswoman Maj. Cathy Atwell said there were no arrests or serious problems involving the protesters, though they did not apply for a permit. Several officers were needed to quell and maintain the group, which created temporary voids in the police coverage, Atwell said.
Student Government Association President Brandon DeFrehn said the cartoon was done in "very poor taste" and "unnecessary." He applauded the students' mobilization and encouraged similar student movements on equally important issues. The protests were far larger than movements against tuition and fee hikes.
"I think it was great for students to protest," DeFrehn said. "I would like to see more kinds of protests and activism on issues. Those kind of things send a message. When people don't show up for tuition task force meetings, it sends a message that it's not an issue important for students."
Annapolis Bureau Chief Mark Davis contributed to this report.
[url=http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2003/03/21/news3.html]Article[/url]
2003-03-23 17:12 | User Profile
The cartoon simply calls the American woman stupid for standing in front of a bulldozer to protect "terrorists." Politics aside, it's a stupid cartoon. There's no wit in it; it's just name-calling.
As for politics, yes, the woman was stupid. But, not for standing between a bulldozer and alleged terrorists. But, for expecting the Jew in the bulldozer to act with some compassion.
A better political cartoon would be to have two frames. The first frame with picture of the bulldozer in the process of running over the American protester (pictured with her holding an American flag to illistrate that she's an American). The second frame with a picture of that guy in Tiananmen Square stopping a column of tanks by standing in front of it (the tanks should be slightly piled up to illistrate that they've stopped). And, the caption should read:
stu÷pid÷i÷ty (stoo-pid'i-te) n. 1. The quality or condition of being stupid (a good cartoon lets the reader draw the conclusion). 2. A stupid act, remark, or idea. 3. Expecting an Isreali to have as much compassion as a Communist.
Actually, only a stupid cartoon would use the word "stupid." Instead, one frame should simply be labeled "Israelis" and the other "Communists."
2003-03-23 19:46 | User Profile
**Journalism school Associate Dean Chris Callahan followed Kunkel's lead.
"It was cruel, hurtful, racist and not something I would want in my publication," he said. "But does The Diamondback have the right? Yes. 100 percent, yes."**
Racist?
Do I understand this correctly? This associate dean is noting a racial difference between (1) the Jewish bulldozer driver and/or the Jewish cartoonist and (2) Euro-American victim Corrie? And indicting the cartoonist for Jewish racism?
Is there another way to interpret this comment?
2003-03-24 10:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Mar 23 2003, 13:46 Do I understand this correctly? This associate dean is noting a racial difference between (1) the Jewish bulldozer driver and/or the Jewish cartoonist and (2) Euro-American victim Corrie? And indicting the cartoonist for Jewish racism?
Is there another way to interpret this comment?**
Even though the main actors in the cartoon are a White girl and a Jewish bulldozer the cult of victimology is never about White victims when another race is involved.
The dean was no doubt referring to the 'terrorist' label as an example of anti-Palestinian racism. To the liberal mind the fact that the cartoon may be racist is infinitely more significant than the death of a young White girl.