Cartoons can be a tricky issue for editors. It’s not enough
that they should simply be funny, and indeed some of the best are not. To be truly effective, cartoons need an edge. They should be provocative.
Accordingly, editors need to cut cartoonists a lot of slack.
They will sometimes publish cartoons they know some readers will find
offensive, and that they may even find offensive themselves.
The Media Council, formerly the Press Council, takes a liberal
view of cartoons (by which I mean liberal in the classical rather than the lame, woke
sense) and so do the courts. When Labour MP Louisa Wall took the Otago Daily Times to court over two Al
Nisbet cartoons which she considered racist, Justice Matthew Muir agreed that
they were insulting but held that they didn’t breach the Human Rights Act.
Whatever you thought of the cartoons, the decision
could only be seen as a victory for free speech and a defence of the right to
upset people. Regardless of their ideological persuasions, cartoonists would very
soon be extinct as a species if they were denied that right.
Having said all that, sometimes a paper publishes a cartoon
that seems to strike a sour note with almost everyone. The Garrick Tremain
cartoon published this week by the aforementioned ODT was such a cartoon.
It lamely attempted to make humour of the measles epidemic
in Samoa. But the deaths of 55 children are no one’s idea of a joke and the cartoonist couldn’t even claim to be making a point. Both the editor of the paper and
Tremain himself admit it was a bad lapse of judgment. Tremain says it was a limp
joke but he can’t wind the clock back.
Will that satisfy the vigilantes crying out for utu? Not a
chance. They won’t rest until they have someone’s head on a platter.
The ODT’s apology,
they say, is not enough. It never is. Among other things, they want the paper’s
staff to undergo racism training. But where does race enter into it? The
cartoon would have been offensive regardless of the ethnicity of the measles
victims.
Auckland University of Technology journalism lecturer
Richard Pamatatau has joined the pile-on, saying the ODT has a history of publishing racist cartoons and Tremain should
be dumped. I wonder, am I the only one troubled by the irony of a journalism
lecturer calling for someone to be silenced?
Pamatatau says Tremain’s cartoons are not what cartoons are
supposed to be, but he’s no more entitled to present himself as the arbiter of
what cartoons should say than I am.
Bottom line: being offended from time to time is the price
we pay for freedom of speech, a quid-pro-quo that most people in a liberal
democracy are happy to accept.
I would certainly far prefer to go on being offended – as I
often am by cartoonists – than concede to people like Pamatatau the right to
determine what views I may be exposed to. Given a choice between bad taste and
puritanical censorship, I’ll take the bad taste every time.
