Categories
Blog Featured

Nasty Sandra Fluke Cartoon

With the talk of Rush Limbaugh’s attack of Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke still making news, the only cartoon we received so far supporting Rush’s position has come from our conservative cartoonist, Gary McCoy. I thought this right wing cartoon was pretty nasty. In fact, it made me wince. But I thought I’d let you be the judge:


Here’s an example of the comments we received about this cartoon:

letdogsvote: “Cartoonist made “pro choice” women appear: fat, ugly, bitchy, slutty, selfish, and obnoxious. Whatever political point Cartoonist intended to make here has been caught up in his generalized portrayal of pro choice women.”

fnordtastic: “I am a firm believe in being able to laugh at yourself, but this cartoon is devoid if any humor.”

Flat Roger: “Gary McCoy continues his string of “hate pornography” with this one and shows he has the same lack of class and intelligence about the issues as Limbaugh.”

Bastard-Captain Queeg: “Were this an attempt at trolling, it’d be an easy 10/10. Sadly, the cartoonist is actually serious. Of course government should pay for birth control, it’s in their best interest to do so.”

Sarah Rimmington: “Wow. That cartoon is horrific.”

Ewen Cluney: “There are many issues where I am willing to accept that liberals and conservatives have a difference of opinion, based on different subcultures or different reasoning, but the portrayal of Sandra Fluke and her testimony (and for that matter the birth control issue in general) by Limbaugh and other conservative commentators has been outright factually wrong.”

Kirk Houser: “”Wince”? McCoy’s cartoon is nothing but “hate porn”. This is just as bad as Limbaugh. Hope the backlash is severe.”

What do you think about the cartoon? Comment below or post a note on our Facebook page.

RELATED:

A revealing portrait of Rush

Limbaugh apologizes for ‘slut’ comment

Our collection of Rush Limbaugh cartoons

Categories
Blog Featured

A Revealing Portrait of Rush

The big cigar and little “junk” in this Rush Limbaugh portrait made me laugh.  I told Taylor Jones that it was a great cartoon, even though there won’t be many newspapers that will print it.

I asked Taylor what his thoughts were behind the cartoon. Here’s what he wrote me:

Rush Limbaugh’s crude, on-air rant against Sandra Fluke had me flummoxed at first. How to handle such a subject in editorial cartoon form, especially since I’d been tied up with other work and was coming late to the Rush story? Then it suddenly occurred to me that the man is just plain gross, and that simplified my task. I began to picture Rush as the late, great portrait painter Lucien Freud might have. Only Freud wouldn’t have been nearly so kind.

…Besides, I thought the depiction of a naked Limbaugh would compliment my recent caricature of Rick Santorum with a giant condom pulled over his head.

My first rough sketches actually featured Rush in more full-frontal nudity. But then I figured that a three-quarter view would have more impact. Revealing a sort of less-is-more concept, if you know what I mean.

Categories
Blog Featured

Limbaugh Apologizes For ‘Slut’ Comment

Outspoken radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (click there to view our recent Rush Limbaugh cartoons) has apologized for referring to Georgetown University law school student Sandra Fluke, who is in favor of mandatory employer health coverage of contraception, as a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

Over the past couple of days Limbaugh has lost several of his advertisers over the controversy, including mattress manufacturers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, Quicken Loans and LegalZoom.

Here is Limbaugh’s full apology:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

He doesn’t sound very sorry to me.  Here is my most recent cartoon on Rush’s apology.

Categories
Blog Featured

Santorum feeds hungry Republicans

Here’s my newest cartoon about everyone’s favorite birth control warrior, former Pennsylvania Senator and Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum (view more Rick Santorum cartoons here). For a man who not afraid to tell voters what’s on his mind (no matter how looney), Santorum now regrets saying he wanted to “throw up” after watching John F. Kennedy’s speech to Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960.

Just for the record, here’s what Kennedy said in his speech:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

Wow, Kennedy didn’t want The Pope to control American politics. Harsh.

You see, Santorum wanted to hurl because despite what our Constitution says, he doesn’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.

“The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” Santorum said on Sunday.

Categories
Blog Featured

Five Frothy Rick Santorum Cartoons

It’s make-or-break time for Rick Santorum (who still can’t escape the infamy of his last name on Google). The culture warrior has risen in popularity among the Republican base by throwing out red meat pertaining to religion, birth control and slamming the president’s value system as a “phony theology.”

Can Santorum not only win the GOP nomination, but somehow unseat President Obama from office? Our cartoonists sure don’t think so. Here are five recent cartoons that sum up their thoughts…

David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Daily Star (click to view more by Fitzsimmons)
John Cole / Scranton Times-Tribune (click to view more cartoons by Cole)
Jeff Parker / Florida Today (click to view more cartoons by Parker)
Adam Zyglis / Buffalo News (click to view more cartoons by Zyglis)
Jimmy Margulies / The Record (click to view more cartoons by Margulies)

Click here to view more Rick Santorum cartoons

Categories
Blog Featured

Jeremy Lin Cartoons

Our cartoonists don’t draw many sports cartoons, but when a great story enters the zeitgeist, they sharpen their pencils and dig in. Jeremy Lin, the out-of-nowhere star player for the Knicks, has almost single-handedly reversed the fortunes of his team.

Check out what our cartoonists think of Linsanity with our new collection of Jeremy Lin cartoons!

Taylor Jones / Cagle Cartoons (click to view our Jeremy Lin cartoons)
Categories
Blog Featured

Whitney Houston RIP Cartoons

As everyone knows by now, talented musician Whitney Houston was found dead in her Los Angeles hotel room on Saturday afternoon.

It’s tough to sum up someone’s life in one, single image. Check out what our cartoonists came up with in our Whitney Houston RIP cartoon collection.

Cam Cardow / Ottawa Citizen (click to view our Whitney Houston cartoons)
Categories
Blog Featured

Different Takes on Death of Whitney Houston

Last night, many people were shocked to discover that famed by troubled singer Whitney Houston was found dead in her Los Angeles hotel room yesterday afternoon. Some cartoonists have been quick to respond, and while the first wave of obituary cartoons about famous celebrities are usually very positive, today’s cartoons seem to have run the gamut of emotions about the talented singer who wrestled with drug addiction most of her career.

It’s also interesting to note that all of the cartoons that have come in to Cagle.com so far have been from international cartoonists, which speaks to the degree of fame Houston achieved in her career.

First, is the typical nice, uncontroversial remembrance cartoon that most readers seem to enjoy, drawn by Australian cartoonist Peter Broelman:

Click to share cartoon

Next is a cartoon that attempts to access both the good and bad of Houston’s troubled career, drawn by another Australian cartoonist, Peter Lewis:

Click to share cartoon

Finally, is a cartoon by South African cartoonists Jeremy Nell that goes right for the jugular by tackling Houston’s drug addiciton head on.

Click to share cartoon

Which cartoon do you prefer?

Categories
Blog Featured

The New York Times Cartoon Kerfuffle

There was a “cartoon kerfuffle” this week as The New York Times announced that they would begin running traditional editorial cartoons again, in an email invitation to selected, top political cartoonists. It was good news that one of America’s biggest newspapers would again embrace our art form, but their offer was so lousy it only made the cartoonists angry.

What The Times proposed was having all the best cartoonists submit finished cartoons to them on Fridays, for publication in their Sunday edition. The Times wanted the cartoons to be exclusive to them; the cartoons could not be reprinted elsewhere. The Times would pick one of the cartoons and pay the winning cartoonist a paltry $250, sending him an exclusive contract only after he wins the selection contest; the dozens of losing cartoonists would get nothing. Of course, the cartoonists reacted to this offer with disgust, and the Internet has been buzzing with cartoon disdain for the arrogant New York Times the past few days.

The Times is arguably the most prestigious newspaper, and they have been without a staff editorial cartoonist for many decades – a sore spot for our beleaguered editorial cartooning profession which has been losing jobs at about the same rate as newsroom journalists, as newspapers’ fortunes have declined. Before dropping editorial cartoons entirely, The Times ran a weekly “round-up” of syndicated cartoons under the title, “Laugh Lines,” in which they selected funny cartoons that were like Jay Leno jokes, expressing no strong opinion, but good for a smile. Cartoonists suspected that the new cartoon in the Times would be the same, encouraging cartoonists to compete for The Times’ favor by submitting opinionless, funny cartoons that would further “dumb-down” the profession. The Times would also remove the artist’s signature from their editorial cartoons, an annoyance to the cartoonists.

Newspapers have gotten used to the idea that editorial cartoons are cheap, because of “syndication” where cartoonists distribute their cartoons to hundreds of newspapers through “syndicates” (businesses that charge very little for the cartoons). But syndication is no extra work for the cartoonist, distributing only cartoons that the cartoonist has already drawn for his own newspaper, and the syndicated cartoons are “non-exclusive,” that is, they can be purchased and reprinted anywhere, unlike The New York Times proposal for exclusive cartoons for only $250, with a contest between cartoonists who would spend time submitting and making changes for The Times’ editors, with only one cartoonist having his work printed and getting paid.

It is a sign of our times, of how far our cartooning profession has fallen, and of how callously editors have devalued our work that the Times would solicit cartoons under these conditions – and also a sign of how arrogant The New York Times has become, to assume that top cartoonists would participate. There has been some blowback, with prominent cartoonists writing letters to The Times dissing the offer and refusing to participate; one of my favorites came from award-winning Canadian cartoonist Cam Cardow who wrote:

“I suggest you take this idea back to the boardroom from which it was birthed and have it reconsidered. I would also humbly suggest that your editors take an afternoon off and head to the local library to study the contributions editorial cartooning has made to journalism and society. For one, you’ll be surprised to find out professional cartoonists don’t live in trailer parks, or panhandle at malls. Some of us even have all our teeth. Well, we Canadian do.”

I’m told that The Times is now “revisiting the policy.” I have a few suggestions for The Times:

1. Try reprinting the best syndicated cartoons again, with signatures of the artists in place, and without the title, “Laugh Lines,” so that cartoons which make a reader cry or think might get equal play in The Times as the little jokes.

2. Or, if you want an exclusive cartoon, trust one cartoonist and pay him or her fairly. Find someone whose point of view is in line with The Times’ editorial stance; commit to that cartoonist and give him the same freedom that you do with your columnists. After all, editorial cartoonists are graphic columnists, except that our work is more powerful than the words of columnists. Nobody tears out a column and sticks it to their refrigerator.

Added February 9, 2012:

I was pleased to read this letter from National Cartoonists Society President, Tom Richmond, to the New York Times today, opposing their editorial cartoon scheme. Visit Tom’s blog to read more of his comments surrounding the NCS position on the issue.

Ms. Aviva Michaelov
Art Director, New York Times
Opinion Pages | Sunday Review

Dear Ms. Michaelov,

I read with mixed emotions your letter of February 6th to a selection of professional editorial cartoonists calling for submissions for a new editorial cartoon feature in the Sunday Review section of the New York Times.

On one hand, I was pleased to see that the Times was bringing back an editorial cartoon to the Sunday Review. In this day of dwindling editorial cartoon voices in the press, such an addition, particularly in a publication as respected and read as the New York Times, is very welcome.

I was dismayed, however, in the way in which the cartoons were to be submitted, chosen and paid for. The editorial cartoonists are expected to submit finished cartoons completely on spec, and your editorial staff will chose one for publication each week. The submitting cartoonists are to agree that, if chosen, their cartoon becomes an exclusive to the Times, not to be reprinted anywhere. The cartoonist who’s work is chosen gets paid $250, and those who do not get chosen get nothing.

The work of creative professionals today is under siege, being constantly devalued through a multitude of fronts, not the least the internet. Writers, artists, cartoonists, designers and other creatives who are attempting to make a living with with their talents and hard work face increasing assaults by “clients” who seem to expect them to do work for either very little pay, or only the hope of being paid. Being asked to do spec work is nothing new in the cartooning world, but when it comes from a publication like the New York Times and it is specifically aimed at some of the industry’s top professionals, it is alarming.

The Times is arguably the most well-known and prestigious newspaper in the United States. It should be championing and supporting the work of the industry’s top professionals in all facets of journalism—reporters, columnists, feature writers, editorialists, and—yes . . . cartoonists. An initiative like this does the opposite. It contributes to the devaluation of the work of editorial cartoonists not just in the offer of extremely low pay and the submission of finished work without the expectation of ANY pay, but in the very nature of editorial cartoons as an individual voice of real opinion. Editorial cartoonists are visual columnists who have specific voices, and “competitions” like this discourage that individuality while encouraging the pursuit and of whatever joke might give the jury the biggest chuckle of the week. To stage such a competition among an amateur public would be one thing, to ask a specific group of well-established and professional editorial cartoonists to do it is quite another. That is a slap in the face to their work and profession.

While I applaud your desire to once again feature individual editorial cartoons in the Times, I sincerely hope you will rethink this approach. It would behoove the Times to conduct a search among the countries best editorial cartoonists for one that has a voice that is in keeping with the editorial position of your newspaper, and then commission them to produce a weekly cartoon for which they are paid a living wage for exclusive rights. Such a change would support the professional of cartooning and journalism, and be in keeping with the reputation of theNew York Times as one of the world’s leading newspapers.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Sincerely,

Tom Richmond, President
National Cartoonists Society

 

Categories
Blog Featured

Planned Parenthood Cartoon Riled Up Our Readers

There has been an intense debate from both sides of the political aisle over the decision, and reversal, of Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut their funding to Planned Parenthood.

Click to enlarge

One of our strongest conservative cartoonists, Gary McCoy, drew the cartoon to the right, juxtaposing Susan G. Komen’s mission to aid women’s health with the fact that Planned Parenthood performs abortions.

It’s a tough cartoon, as are most cartoons dealing with abortion, and several of our readers wrote in about it. Here are some of the opinions we received:

Rob C.: “This cartoon is obviously by a right wing evangelical. Obvious because he uses the term “pro-abortion” rather than the correct term “pro-choice”.  As with many of his ilk, he wants government out of people’s lives but, wants government to dictate his beliefs. I think the dictionary defines him as hypocrite.”

Bruce G.: “The cartoon was totally off-the-point but not surprising given how far off-base politics has gotten these day.  Komen wasn’t paying Planned Parenthood for abortions but for other testing.  Unfortunately, rhackos (right-wing whackos) think: Planned Parenthood = abortion. Not valid!  Planned Parenthood provides a lot of services for women, including abortions.  Go back to Venn diagrams folks — there’s some overlap but they’re not equivalent.”

James B.: “Apparently it is allowed to murder unborn babies while trying to cure cancer? Hypocrites!”

Phil K.: “While giving startling visuals, it factually devoid of any real accuracy.”

Vicky K.: “Since none of the funds received by Planned Parenthood from Komen were used for abortion, the cartoon was foul.  Perpetuating a myth for political purposes is dispicable.”

Paul K.: “This is the most absurd cartoon you have ever shown. I am always fine with differing views, but this is ridiculous. Taking a serious health issue like breast cancer and politicizing it with their emotional issues of abortion is outrageous. It is sickening and represents how broken things are right now – you should not be encouraging this kind of gutter politics in my view.”

Let us know what you think! Comment below, or post your thoughts on our Facebook page.