« Prophet Muhammad: Ugly or Chick Magnet? | Main | Anti-Semitic Cartoons in the Arab World »

February 3, 2006

In Other Cartoon Related News...

The Joint Chiefs of Staff sent this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, after they printed this cartoon depicting Donald Rumsfeld and a quadruple amputee soldier.

The mere act of sending this letter has provoked various degrees of criticism. Atrios said it was "creeping close" to censorship, AmericaBlog said it was "intimidation" and Brian Doherty said, the Joint Chiefs "should have better things to do with their time and the better judgment to realize that such a letter could be read in a potentially sinister way."

In my view, this criticism of the Joint Chiefs is much ado about nothing. The whole point of a letters to the editor section is to give readers the chance to respond to what is in the newspaper. By criticizing the cartoon for being tasteless, the letter was adding another perspective.

As for having better things to do with their time, it's pretty understandable that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have an interest in maintaining morale on the home front and defending the dignity of soldiers.

When I was a business reporter, I'd get complaints all the time from companies who thought my coverage was unfair or overly critical. Sometimes I thought they were being irrational, and other times they made valid points. How is this any different? If the Joint Chiefs of Staff finds a cartoon offensive, how is it supposed to voice its opinion? By calling the editor personally? By issuing a press release? How would that be any different?

And this whole idea that it's intimidation is absurd. To intimidate, there has to be some sort of threat involved. But there was nothing close to a threat, and the letter went out of its way to acknowledge the Washington Post's freedom to criticize.

But I encourage you to read the letter to decide for yourself. I linked to the whole thing above. Here's how it ran in the Washington Post:


We were extremely disappointed to see the Jan. 29 editorial cartoon by Tom Toles.

Using the likeness of a service member who has lost his arms and legs in war as the central theme of a cartoon was beyond tasteless. Editorial cartoons are often designed to exaggerate issues, and The Post is obviously free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of the armed forces. However, The Post and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to readers and to The Post's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who volunteered to defend this nation and, as a result, suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.

Those who visit wounded veterans in hospitals have found lives profoundly changed by pain and loss. They also have found brave men and women with a sense of purpose and selfless commitment that causes battle-hardened warriors to pause.

While The Post and some of its readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, these men and women and their families are owed the decency of not having a cartoon make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.

As the joint chiefs, we rarely put our hand to one letter, but we cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.


PETER PACE

General, U.S. Marine Corps

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI JR.

Admiral, U.S. Navy

Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

MICHAEL W. HAGEE

General, U.S. Marine Corps

Commandant of the Marine Corps

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER

General, U.S. Army

Chief of Staff

MICHAEL G. MULLEN

Admiral, U.S. Navy

Chief of Naval Operations

T. MICHAEL MOSELEY

General, U.S. Air Force

Chief of Staff

Washington


Posted by Philip Klein at February 3, 2006 12:00 AM

Comments