The University of Virginia’s newspaper, the “Cavalier Daily,” might have shot themselves in the foot after the editor in chief okay-ed the publication of a cartoon that is currently being called a racists cartoon. The cartoon, drawn by senior Grant Woolard, depicted, according to the “Washington Post,” “nine darkened figured with bald, enlarged heads, dressed only in loincloths, fighting each other over a tree branch, pillow, chair, boot and stool. The caption for the melee: ‘Ethiopian Food Fight.’” Woolard was fired immediately however the editor in chief, Herb Ladley, still remains at the head of command even though he has been pressured to step down.
Should he? Did Ladley or Woolard do the wrong thing? And, is it ethical to punish the cartoonist AND the editor in chief? Would the editor in chief of the “Foghorn” have okay-ed the cartoon? Well, first of all, I think it is appropriate for the cartoonist to have stepped down; I am simply perplexed about what went through his mind when he drew the cartoon. Perhaps it would have been understandable if he was a freshman—he’d be young and naïve—but Woolard was a senior! He’s endured four (well three) long years of college—an establishment that is supposed to mature an individual. At what point did he think it would be okay and appropriate? He would have a valid argument to say that controversy needs to be in the media—without it, we are lost to the bigger powers that run the media. But there are hundreds of ways to depict the famine in Ethiopia that would spark intelligent discussions. Now, people are up in rage about the image rather than looking at it’s stark reality.
Now, the difficult part: should the editor in chief step down? Well, there are two arguments, but I cannot argue the no because well, I think he should. Ladley admitted that the cartoon came across his desk at 12:30am—he was tired and even though he was tired, it still registered in his brain that this cartoon was offensive (he was quotes in the "Post"). Well then Ladley, duh! I think it is widely inappropriate for his tired brain, and or lack of articles in the newspaper to have allowed for such a cartoon to be published. Furthermore, cartoonist Woolard, was infamous for rather offensive cartoons. He should have then sat down with Woolard and said, “okay, you have to clean up your cartoons a bit if you want them to run in the paper.” There in lines the problem of the First Amendment—freedom of speech—however, if you’re the boss you can control this, and I say this only because it was an area that can weed out the inappropriate content and the appropriate connent. Furthmore, he can hold the cartoon until discussion with other editors because it would offend too many people not to do that (case in point). Fine if Woolard chose to publish it elsewhere, but just don’t publish it in a place like a university—too many individuals from a diverse background are there—the audience is wide. Had the cartoon been run in another publication, such as an independent “zine” then there is a smaller audience who might be more liberal and agree, “yea, the situation in Ethiopia is a bad one and something needs to be done.” The ethical thing would have been to hold the cartoon, discuss it with the rest of your staff and see what happens. It seems to me that Ladley was pressed for time and space with the paper and he needed to run it, regardless of what controversy would ignite.
Furthermore, Ladley put the reputation of his university’s paper on the line—he jeopardized his co-worker’s reputation and he technically got his co-worker fired because he allowed for such a cartoon to be published. I work at a paper, I know that everyone is like a family and I also know that the editor in chief has the final say. At the “Foghorn” we take utmost pride in being the newspaper for the students, by the students, and we try (very hard) to make it a respectable news source. Thus, I can confidentially conclude that our editor in chief would not have published the cartoon, regardless of the time or lack of articles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah I agree, the editor-in-chief should certainly step down (if he has not already)...I mean especially if he knew that this kid was well-known for drawing offensive cartoons. That should have been a red flag for him to really review the material before he published it (get second opinions). The time is irrelevant...it wouldn't matter if it was 4 a.m. and he was literally falling asleep at the desk, it would still be out of line. Any professional publication wouldn't be able to pull excuses like this, and although school papers are on a much smaller scale, if you want to be seen as a credible editor at a respected college paper, you have to be able to handle things like this. My thoughts are that this kid (the editor) wasn't taking his job seriously - like I said earlier, if he hasn't already he should step down and give the position to someone who would.
My short answer is that editorial cartoonists are supposed to have some modicum of judgment and intellgence. It sounds as if this guy doesn't -- though I would have liked a link to the cartoon. (And a link to the cartoon should be provided by critics.) Stupid work should result in termination. As for whether or not the editor should be canned, maybe Elizabeth or Corinna can dig up the "Letter to the Editor" a former Foghorn editor wrote to herself (in effect) several years ago and we can talk about what should have happened to her. The name will come to me if I concentrate. It was the year before Teresa became advisor. Also another point: Deadlines are a monster. The best-laid structure for evaluation of copy by several sets of eyes can go wrong under deadline pressures.
Post a Comment