Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"We Cannot let This Reprehensible Cartoon go Unanswered"
The Joint Chiefs of Staff write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post over a Tom Toles cartoon featuring a legless soldier that they found "beyond tasteless."
Editor and Publisher reports on the Post's reaction here; folks over at AmericaBlog are quite alarmed. Not sure I agree that this should be read as an egregious attempt at intimidation that rises to the level of attempted censorship; and those wishing to shout a hearty "God Bless America" can compare this reaction to an offensive cartoon to the one from Denmark that some saw as an insult to Mohammed, blogged by Cathy Young below and me here.
Still, it is at least fair to say that they 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, and just let it go by.
|2.2.06 @ 1:01PM|#
Or maybe they should express their views and have them debated, both pro and con, in an atmosphere of peaceful give-and-take in the US democratic tradition. Which is what is happening.
|2.2.06 @ 1:04PM|#
Albo---I have strong inclinations to agree. The difference that makes a difference here, I think, is the "government officials on government letterhead on govenrment time" part.
|2.2.06 @ 1:08PM|#
Let me preemptively point out my own stupid typo. In summary: we aren't paying them to write complaining letters to the editor.
|2.2.06 @ 1:09PM|#
So Albo, what was the pro cartoon that they printed? What ever happened to equal time?
|2.2.06 @ 1:16PM|#
Neither are most of our employers paying us to be here. But
here I am...
Yes, but you're not forcibly taking money from your employer, are
you? And if you are please tell me how.
|2.2.06 @ 1:21PM|#
After I saw the cartoon Wednesday, I couldn't figure out what they were so upset about. It's a fairly routine cartoon that I didn't find especially funny, but it had nothing to do with being offensive. It just wasn't that interesting to me. I can't imagine why they were moved to write the letter. I really don't care that they DID write a letter, though.
|2.2.06 @ 1:23PM|#
While I agree that this may be a waste of government resources, I can't get all that upset by it. After reading the letter, I don't certainly see it as any attempt at censorship. It's fairly innocuous, and shouldn't have taken more than a couple of minutes of our government's valuable time. Of course, being the government, it may well have taken 7 people working through the night getting overtime pay and a catered midnight snack...
R C Dean|2.2.06 @ 1:26PM|#
When the Joint Chiefs start rioting and calling for the
newspaper to be closed, the editor fired, etc., pls. let me
know.
Until then, whatever, dude. Just because the Joint Chiefs are
government employees doesn't mean they have to lay down and take it
from every two-bit cartoonist who can grasp a crayon between his
digits. If they want to write a letter of protest, fine. Still,
this kind of thing usually just brings more attention to whatever
you were protesting, so its not usually the brightest thing to
do.
Jeff P.|2.2.06 @ 1:26PM|#
The final issue of the Garth Ennis comic "303" from Avatar Press featured a certain chief executive being assasinated by an ex-military man. Given the shrieking the Right bellowed out over the "leftist" actions of Superman and Captain America in recent years, I was stunned that they did not jump all over this.
B.D.|2.2.06 @ 1:30PM|#
With all the talk of cartoonists today, one might think that they wield some major power over the opinions of their readers.
|2.2.06 @ 1:35PM|#
But why do cartoons hate America?
har, i got to say it finally.
Funny how the joint chiefs chose to focus solely on the 'callous
depiction' of a maimed soldier, and not on the actual point of the
cartoon... the callous treatment the Pentagon has shown to wounded
vets.
As my veteran marine drill-seargent dad would have said (in an
unintentional pun),
"enough of this mickey mouse shit! Get back to work!"
|2.2.06 @ 1:36PM|#
Stretch -- I don't rely on force so much as deception... just like our government ;)
|2.2.06 @ 1:36PM|#
The only thing "beyond tasteless" and "reprehensible" is having
to watch a decorated officer and the first Marine ever to become
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff turn into a Bush
administration hack.
Anyone with a mammalian brain and basic reading comprehension
skills knows the cartoon is harmless. The Joint Chiefs are just
trying to win the "who supports the troops more than the other
guy?" contest, probably at the request of Rumsfeld.
|2.2.06 @ 1:36PM|#
Umbriel, you are not acting in an official capacity. By putting
their letter on letterhead, and referring to "we," they are.
Ditto to RC. A letter from people who are on the Joint Chiefs?
Fine. A letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Uh uh.
And on the substance of the letter, in no way was this an attack on
the the troops. It's a cartoon about how the troops are being
screwed by the political leadership. I'm sick and tired of the
asshats in the administration hiding behind the troops every time
someone attacks the administration on policies and the orders they
give.
|2.2.06 @ 1:45PM|#
Does anyone know if the Post has published the (now infamous) 12-Mohammeds cartoon that has got the Danes all fatwa'd?
|2.2.06 @ 1:49PM|#
It would've been funny if they'd used letterhead and jointly
(yuck, yuck) signed a one-sentence letter: "We are not amused".
Lost opportunity, that.
Wonder if they feel a kinship with angry, Muslim anti-cartoon folks
about now?
|2.2.06 @ 1:51PM|#
With all the talk of cartoonists today, one might think that
they wield some major power over the opinions of their
readers.
Comment by: B.D. at February 2, 2006 01:30 PM
---
That's preposterous.
Comment by: Zonker at February 2, 2006 01:34 PM
"Wow." "Wow."
|2.2.06 @ 1:51PM|#
(Pertains to comics, so kind of off-topic)
Jeff P. - my friend turned me on to Garth Ennis with the limited
series Ghostrider that's about come to it's conclusion.
Good stuff.
|2.2.06 @ 1:53PM|#
With all the talk of cartoonists today, one might think that
they wield some major power over the opinions of their
readers.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if they held more sway than than
the writers.
Rick|2.2.06 @ 1:55PM|#
Brian - "government officials on government letterhead on
govenrment time"
When I read this, the first thing that sprang to my mind was the
anecdote about Condelezza Rice being accosted in a shoe store for
not being at work while the Katrina shit was hitting the fan.
It seems that we expect our high level officials to be not just
available 24/7, but actually active at work 24/7. It seems the
criticism can be thrown at them for being on the clock, or being
off it. It's gotten to the point where these people ARE the office,
for better or worse. I'm not sure that it's a valid criticism to
say that someone cannot make a personal statement from thier
position.
At any rate, I can't see how using the prestige or weight of a
public office to make such a statement is in any way an abuse - the
first amendment applies to them too. That said, they have neither
the authority nor the power to do anything more than sending a
letter.
The statement is far from censorship - and any media outlet, or
even individual blogger, that sees it as "intimidation" should have
a much stronger spine and thicker skin. It might be intimidating to
some people to recieve such a letter, but then some people consider
a spider 1/16" across to be intimidating.
I'd place the chances of Toles' being "disappeared" by the JCS at
somewhere VERY close to 0%.
Crying "censorship" over this is like crying wolf. If it happens
enough it makes the real thing, like Campaign Finance Reform, that
much harder to stop.
Windypundit|2.2.06 @ 1:57PM|#
I liked the letter.
It did not threaten or hint at a threat. It included no demand to
fire the cartoonist, to avoid such cartoons in the future, or even
to apologize. It merely expressed a harsh opinion.
I wish more people in government were that respectful of the First
Amendment.
|2.2.06 @ 2:03PM|#
And on the substance of the letter, in no way was this an
attack on the the troops. It's a cartoon about how the troops are
being screwed by the political leadership. I'm sick and tired of
the asshats in the administration hiding behind the troops every
time someone attacks the administration on policies and the orders
they give.
If you're going to comment on the substance of the letter, you
might actually want to read it. The Joint Chiefs made no claim that
the cartoon was an "attack on the troops", nor were the Chiefs
"hiding behind the troops" or any of the other nonsense you
allege.
|2.2.06 @ 2:03PM|#
"Until then, whatever, dude. Just because the Joint Chiefs
are government employees doesn't mean they have to lay down and
take it from every two-bit cartoonist who can grasp a crayon
between his digits. If they want to write a letter of protest,
fine. Still, this kind of thing usually just brings more attention
to whatever you were protesting, so its not usually the brightest
thing to do."
"It did not threaten or hint at a threat. It included no demand
to fire the cartoonist, to avoid such cartoons in the future, or
even to apologize. It merely expressed a harsh opinion."
That. Is. Not. The. Point. The point is that the Joint Chiefs spent
the time to write this little letter. If one, or all, the joint
chiefs had gotten together after work and penned this little thing
and signed it with their own names, fine. But acting as government
officials, on government time, on government letterhead, it DOES
make a difference.
Though, I don't share Doherty's level of alarm. Quite frankly, I'd
much rather the Joint Chiefs spend time writing letters to the
editor, than have them galavanting around the globe on
multi-trillion-dollar nationbuilding misadventures.
|2.2.06 @ 2:05PM|#
"Until then, whatever, dude. Just because the Joint Chiefs
are government employees doesn't mean they have to lay down and
take it from every two-bit cartoonist who can grasp a crayon
between his digits. If they want to write a letter of protest,
fine. Still, this kind of thing usually just brings more attention
to whatever you were protesting, so its not usually the brightest
thing to do."
"It did not threaten or hint at a threat. It included no demand
to fire the cartoonist, to avoid such cartoons in the future, or
even to apologize. It merely expressed a harsh opinion."
That. Is. Not. The. Point. The point is that the Joint Chiefs spent
the time to write this little letter. If one, or all, the joint
chiefs had gotten together after work and penned this little thing
and signed it with their own names, fine. But acting as government
officials, on government time, on government letterhead, it DOES
make a difference.
Though, I don't share Doherty's level of alarm. Quite frankly, I'd
much rather the Joint Chiefs spend time writing letters to the
editor, than have them galavanting around the globe on
multi-trillion-dollar nationbuilding misadventures. Yes, my tax
dollars paid for them to write this thing, but that's all my tax
dollars paid for. If they had used that time to, say, start a war,
then, well, I'd be paying for their time, AND I'd be paying for the
war.
|2.2.06 @ 2:30PM|#
'The Joint Chiefs made no claim that the cartoon was an "attack
on the troops", nor were the Chiefs "hiding behind the
troops"'
I don't know what letter jf's link takes him to, but the one I read
yesterday, and the one the link takes me to when I follow it,
includes these little gems:
"...such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to
defend this nation..."
"...we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so
selflessly serve our country the decency not to make light of their
tremendous physical sacrifices..."
Nope, no charges that the troops are being attacked there. And no
way a responding to a cartoon that disses the top brass by penning
an ode to the sacrifices of the troops counts as hiding behind
them.
Did YOU read the letter, jf? It's tough to believe you did.
|2.2.06 @ 2:31PM|#
Public relations consumes a huge portion of the government's budget. The Joint Chiefs may have wasted 15-20 minutes of their day writing a letter, but the government spends countless millions on anti-drug propaganda. The letter may not be acceptable to the absolute strictest of libertarians, but it's still one of the least offensive government actions imaginable. It's certainly not worth complaining about.
Jeff P.|2.2.06 @ 2:31PM|#
Umbriel:
Superman hates America
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9298
Captain America Traitor
www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-medved040403.asp
|2.2.06 @ 2:39PM|#
joe, the letter specifically and solely mentions the depiction of a multiple-amputee soldier in that cartoon and the use of the same. You can read between the lines all you want, but your interpretation exists in your own head, not in the words contained in the letter sent by the Joint Chiefs.
|2.2.06 @ 2:41PM|#
Words contained in the letter sent by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff:
"...such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to
defend this nation..."
"...we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so
selflessly serve our country the decency not to make light of their
tremendous physical sacrifices..."
Nope, I'm looking right at the lines themselves.
R C Dean|2.2.06 @ 2:43PM|#
You know, it is interesting that the most newsworthy cartoons
around, those Danish cartoons that have so many Muslim knickers in
a twist, haven't been publishing in our leading "news"
papers.
Come on NY Times/WaPo/LAT! Stand up for free expression! Speak
truth to power!
gaius marius|2.2.06 @ 2:44PM|#
Anyone with a mammalian brain and basic reading
comprehension skills knows the cartoon is harmless.
and this is the disquieting problem i see in this. this is
obviously a non-issue in the material plane. so just what are the
joint chiefs braying about?
in the end, an affront to holy militarism -- the notion that the
organized slaughter machinery of the state is a moral agent of
impeccable credential that is (or should be) above such bawdy
criticism as might emit from a doodle.
it seems to me that any nation in which a significant percentage of
the population would agree with the joint chiefs that the military
should not be so ciritcized -- not on empirical points, nor on
articulable ideological ones, but essentially spiritual
ones -- is charging pell mell into the maw of martial
self-immolation.
Jeff Smith|2.2.06 @ 2:45PM|#
A couple points on the time issue and then one other remark. The
joint chiefs and other high level government types work essentially
all the time. There is no time clock and no "on" and "off" time. At
a pretty deep level it does not make much sense to talk about their
being "on the clock" because they are never off of it. Also, they
spent about two minutes each on this. Someone had the idea, sent an
email, got replies, a staff person wrote it up, they all read it, a
couple small edits were made and some staff person carried it
around to people's offices to get it signed.
Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.
What surprised me is the picture of Toles. I always pictured him
looking rather like scrooge given the crabbed, nasty, ideological
and vaguely stalinist odor on most of his cartoons. Instead he
looks like someone from "That 70s Show".
Jeff
gaius marius|2.2.06 @ 3:00PM|#
It's a cartoon about how the troops are being screwed by the
political leadership.
i would submit that this bit probably got a laugh out of those
servicemen who saw it.
it is amazing to me to look back at the first world war -- less
than a century ago -- and read the literature of george bernanrd
shaw, siegfried sassoon, wilfred owen, robert graves and finally
erich maria remarque which were not only mildly critical but openly
savaging and subversive of the entire belligerent military and
political construct -- not to mention disdainful of the very people
they were ostensibly defending.
what is allowed has changed quite a lot.
|2.2.06 @ 3:07PM|#
If you do not comply with my demands, I shall injure you mercilessly with my cartoon-drawing skills!
|2.2.06 @ 3:28PM|#
gaius marius,
Yes, we have greater freedom of speech today. After all, we have no
current example of what happened to The Masses.
|2.2.06 @ 3:35PM|#
Can't work up any outrage over this - I suppose that says
something good about how citizens don't fear the military here. On
the other hand, "The Joint Chiefs of Staff" AKA the leaders of the
most powerful Military ever shouldn't be e-mailing
cartoonists.
Put me down in the "Against recieving letters from Generals in
their official capacity" column.
|2.2.06 @ 3:38PM|#
My best friend is a Muslim and he can take a joke...but
apparently there is no such thing as comedy in the muslim world...
now its all making so much sense.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
|2.2.06 @ 3:43PM|#
what is allowed has changed quite a lot.
Remember when they put Ted Rall in jail for his cartoons?
|2.2.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Ya'll seem to be missing the implied threat made by the JCs' letters. News media rely on access to news-makers for their stories. Anybody who doesn't get that the JCs very subtly told the editors of the Post (and every other media outlet)that "you're pissing us off and you'd better knock it off or you'll lose access" misses the point. I don't think the censorship argument is that far-fetched.
|2.2.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Ya'll seem to be missing the implied threat made by the JCs' letters. News media rely on access to news-makers for their stories. Anybody who doesn't get that the JCs very subtly told the editors of the Post (and every other media outlet)that "you're pissing us off and you'd better knock it off or you'll lose access" misses the point. I don't think the censorship argument is that far-fetched.
|2.2.06 @ 4:30PM|#
What's the big deal? They (or a secretary) spent time to write it. Your. Point. Is. Pointless. They probably have a whole PR department that deals with the media. Why aren't you all upset about that, if this one fickin' letter is so offensive?
MP|2.2.06 @ 4:37PM|#
"you're pissing us off and you'd better knock it off or
you'll lose access" misses the point. I don't think the censorship
argument is that far-fetched.
loss of access does not equal censorship
|2.2.06 @ 4:50PM|#
Welcome back, Gaius! I take it Babia Maria is finally sleeping through the night?
|2.2.06 @ 4:53PM|#
loss of access does not equal censorship
Technically true, but I find it disturbing that in a supposedly
free country with a supposedly free press, a government that is
supposedly accountable to the people will only give information to
news outlets that promise to discuss things in the way said
government sees fit.
|2.2.06 @ 4:54PM|#
Will Allen,
I haven't written anything to suggest that upcoming dismemberment
of servicemen is either good, or deserved. You, on the other hand,
described upcoming slaughter of Palestinians as both. Rather a
significant difference. But nice try. If you're eight.
|2.2.06 @ 5:48PM|#
"... a government that is supposedly accountable to the people
will only give information to news outlets that promise to discuss
things in the way said government sees fit."
That's why good news organizations file FOIA requests, lawsuits,
and quote anonymous sources. Never ask a government official
anything. Because a government official won't tell you
anything.
|2.2.06 @ 5:50PM|#
gaius,
I recommend Randolf Bourne's essays of the WWI era. These were
compiled in an excellent book - I believe the title was "Untimely
Papers"
His essays were radical and provocative - enough to get him thrown
into the federal hoosegow.
|2.2.06 @ 6:14PM|#
What next? Do they pull Johnny Got His Gun off the
bookshelves at Border's? Do they try to stop MTV from playing
Metallica's One video?
Wouldn't put it past 'em...
|2.2.06 @ 6:31PM|#
The real outrage should be directed at the Bush Administration, the Pentagon and the Republican Congress that has used our troops as human shields against the political ramifications of their poor decision making. Wouldn't the ultimate support for our troops be to bring them home to their families and give up this illegal war of choice.
|2.2.06 @ 6:50PM|#
I have strong inclinations to agree. The difference that
makes a difference here, I think, is the "government officials on
government letterhead on govenrment time" part.
Ah, yes ... these bureaucrats shouldn't have been goofing off,
frittering away the day hunched around the table in the War Room
passing around draft after draft (no pun intended) of their angry
letter to the Post when they should have been
concentrating on a plan for an orderly withdrawal of troops from
Iraq (say, into Iran?)
Sheesh. Rarely will I stick up for senior military officials, but
it bloody well is their job to stick up for the troops
they must order into harm's way when they think those troops are
being demeaned or unfairly treated. Second, dollars to donuts, they
didn't write the letter. Some lowly three star general probably got
the assignment; they approved and signed it. Third, these guys put
in amazingly long hours. (God forbid they chatted about the Super
Bowl on company time, too!)
And use of official letterhead? Right. They probably should have
chipped in to buy a postcard, instead.
Anthony Gregory|2.2.06 @ 6:54PM|#
"What next? Do they pull Johnny Got His Gun off the bookshelves
at Border's? Do they try to stop MTV from playing Metallica's One
video?"
I, for one, wish that MTV would start playing Metallica's
One video, or even some of the "Black Album" stuff. Or even any
videos at all. Does MTV have anything to do with music anymore?
|2.2.06 @ 6:57PM|#
DA, I think you're missing the point. This isn't a budgetary or
wasted money issue. It's about the fact that the Joint Chiefs of
Staff felt the need to take an official position criticizing a
cartoon that was critical of Rummy and the administration. They
could have written the letter on a Sunday morning instead of
sleeping in and it would still be a problem.
And joe's right - the notion that the cartoon is critical of the
troops is ludicrous. An eight year old might reach that conclusion,
but the Joint Chiefs of Staff are presumably a little smarter than
that; they're hiding behind the troops.
|2.2.06 @ 6:59PM|#
The Joint Chiefs aren't attempting censorship, they're
attempting *spin.* Toles' cartoon pointed up the criticism of the
Bush administration that it's hurting the troops by stretching them
too thin. The cartoon also mocks' Rumsfeld's response to the
criticism. In other words, the cartoon portrays the
*administration* as insensitive to soldiers.
The Joint Chiefs' letter shifts the terms of the debate by making
an idiotic accusation which Toles and his supporters nonetheless
feel they have to take the time to rebut. The discussion shifts
from the callousness of the administration to the [so-called]
callousness of the cartoonist. The administration goes from defense
to offense. Mission accomplished.
|2.2.06 @ 6:59PM|#
DA, I'm sorry, I just saw that you were responding to Brian Doherty's "we aren't paying them to write complaining letters to the editor" posts specifically, and not to the general criticism on the thread. I should have read your post a little more closely.
|2.2.06 @ 7:01PM|#
I see from the article that a Disabled American Veterans spokesman is *not* offended by the cartoon. He misinterpreted the cartoon's message, but the basic point is that a lobbyist for the supposed targets of the cartoon -- disabled veterans -- isn't working bothered by it, showing that this is a case of synthetic outrage by the Defense Dept.
|2.2.06 @ 7:40PM|#
It clearly is a critique of Rummy's attitude toward the military in the face of evidence that they are stretched to the limit. It indicates Rummy's disregard for individual sacrifice and his horrendous policies which have left the military broken.
Matt|2.2.06 @ 8:13PM|#
If the complaint is that government employees should be doing
something more productive, I'm surprised one would start with this
example.
Employees of a company got mocked in the paper and their bosses
wrote a letter to the editor in their defense. Seems like good
management and morale maintenance to me.
(I know, I know, "How was that mocking?!?!?" Take it up with the
Joint Chiefs, not me)
|2.2.06 @ 8:20PM|#
If the JCS wanted to intimidate a newspaper they would be extremely foolish to do it publicly. There are plenty of ways they could communicate displeasure and/or threats privately, without fear of censorship accusations.
|2.3.06 @ 12:12AM|#
The cartoon was extremely snotty, and the response from the
Joint Chiefs was entirely appropriate. Criticism isn't
censorship.
-jcr
|2.3.06 @ 3:55AM|#
I was just surprised that a group of senior government officials didn't know that a newspaper's managing editor has no authority over the editorial pages.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.3.06 @ 10:28AM|#
I've seen tasteless, and that ain't it.
Wish he could come out and play ball though. We need a third
base.
|2.3.06 @ 4:11PM|#
Wish he could come out and play ball though. We need a third
base.
When he goes swimming we call him Bob...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245