So the ill-advised Arizona Daily Wildcat cartoon is now national news, at least in media and LGBT circles.
A Change.org petition that calls for the figurative heads of the Arizona Daily Wildcat cartoonist, editor and copy editor (Huh? Copy editors don’t look at cartoons!) as of this writing has around 3,250 signatures. Jim Romenesko, the country’s pre-eminent media blogger, had the debacle as his top story earlier today.
Well, as a newspaper editor, a former student journalist and a gay dude (by default, the one of the most-prominent gay journalists in this dusty little burg), I feel the need to share my two cents. And the summary of those two cents?
Everyone needs to calm the heck down here.
Let’s consider some of the comments on our Facebook post about the issue.
The guy who wrote it got fired, cool. What about the editor who allowed it to be published? What about the publisher who allowed it to be published in his paper?
Yes, the cartoonist who did this cartoon was fired, and he probably deserved it. This toon crossed a line, to be sure, and crossing a line is OK, if that line-crossing is given proper context.
This strip did not do that. There was no context. It wasn’t funny. And I am concerned that the fired cartoonist, D.C Parsons, doesn’t yet understand all of that, based on his lame apology. He says, in part: “I have always used humor as a coping mechanism, much like society does when addressing social taboos. I do not condone these things; I simply don’t ignore them. I do sincerely apologize and sympathize with anyone who may be offended by my comics (I am often similarly offended by “Ralph and Chuck”), but keep in mind it is only a joke, and what’s worse than a joke is a society that selectively ignores its problems.”
If society were ignoring its problems, D.C.—problems, like, say, bias against gay folks—your ass would not be figurative grass right now.
However, I think the editor and everyone else at the Wildcat should get a bit of break.
Folks, this is a student newspaper. That means that, at its heart, the Wildcat is a learning tool. Writers, cartoonists, editors and photographers who don’t have experience go there to get experience. And when people are learning something as complex as journalism anew (and, yes, this shit is complex), they’re gonna make mistakes.
That strip should not have run, and based on her apology, it seems that the Wildcat editor, Kristina Bui, gets that now.
Let’s put this in context here. What’s more likely: The Wildcat is staffed by tone-deaf homophobes, or it’s staffed by overworked, unexperienced, semi-amateur journalists who, for whatever reason, really messed up here?
Here’s another Facebook comment:
uh, this comic wasn’t homophobic “in a way”. it was homophobic and disgusting in EVERY WAY. STOP DOWNPLAYING THIS.
I gave our previous post on The Range an edit, and I was the one who inserted “in a way” into David Mendez’s copy. Why?
Well, I am not sure this is full, complete homophobia . You know what’s full, complete homophobia? Someone getting attacked outside of a gay bar simply because they’re gay. Or legislation that targets gay folks simply because they’re gay.
A cartoon by a kid that appears in a college newspaper? Somewhat damaging and unbelievably dumb, yes. Homophobic? Not necessarily. Again, look at the context.
Another comment:
BFD.
You know what? This is a big deal—and that’s a very good thing. Lessons are being learned here, and I can promise you that the discussion of this matter—in college classrooms, at newspapers, etc—is happening right now. It’s a BFD, folks, and I am happy about that.
South Park must give you all heart attacks.
This comment, from TW contributor Casey Dewey, misses a point that I think sums up this whole matter: If you’re going to approach tough, controversial topics in a way that involves humor, you’d better do it well.
One of the reasons why South Park is so bloody brilliant is that Matt Stone and Trey Parker have an almost unparalleled knack at satirizing sensitive topics in a way that is funny and sends a message. (But even they, on occasion overreach—by, say, attempting to depict the prophet Muhammad in an episode, thereby subjecting employees at their network to legitimate threats of violence.) Same goes for the humor of George Carlin, Louis C.K. and other brilliant humor minds.
But for every Matt Stone or George Carlin, you’ll have a Michael Richards, or now a D.C. Parsons. Funny, pointed satire is very, very hard to do.
Enough with the petitions and the gnashing of teeth. What happened here is that a college kid, who probably didn’t exactly mean to be homophobic, tried to make a point with humor. He failed, badly, and got the punishment he deserved. And we all learned something as a result.
This article appears in Oct 18-24, 2012.
I’ll tell you what makes me angrier than the cartoon itself…that there are no “higher authorities” that actually DO KNOW WHEN SOMETHING IS SATIRE OR JUST A BAD IDEA before the cartoon or story sees the light of day or of a computer screen.
How the heck are these student journalists supposed to get educated at a UNIVERSITY paper if there is no one around to actually advise and educate on each and every article? If some coaching and teaching isn’t going on with the AZ Wildcat, then what exactly is the point?
Why should a callow and oh so unsophisticated, college kid (trying to meet a deadline along with everything else) and “…probably didn’t exactly mean to be homophobic…” get “…the punishment he deserved…” essentially a death sentence, but hey, who knows? Death to students, Jimmy Boegle?
Hear hear! Well spoken.
Again, context, Red Star: He was the cartoonist. He did his job poorly. He deserved to get canned for doing his job poorly.
@Jimmy Boegle, did he have an editor? An editor in the student paper that is trying to be all grownup and stuff and all, with all the rapid media changes…faculty adviser? Is not UA a school? Context, Jimmy Boegle, true context regardless of your personal hot buttons… the kid is a student, not a Wick Communications employee.
Thanks.
That makes no sense, Red Star. Adjust the meds, please?
Like I said on a previous FB post someplace this morning: “KIDS. What are ya gonna do?”
I look at the Wildcat every day but don’t bother with the comics, so I guess I really missed something. Is there a link to see what everyone is talking about?
Wow, sounds like a lot of cheap excuses out of you, fella. It is homophobic in EVERY WAY, and his callow youth will be a bit de-callowfied (sp) by the national ass-drubbing he’s getting right now. Hope it sucks for him.
Fruit roll-up.. Hahaa.
This kid is an idiot. Fired, yes, also, change your major there junior.
Perhaps a job with the Tea Party would better suit your “talents”.
@Jimmy Boegle…
That makes no sense, Red Star. Adjust the meds, please?
(Posted by Jimmy Boegle on 10/18/2012 at 2:53 PM)
That’s juvenile, insulting, cowardly and hackneyed. Best you can do? That’s all you got on the run?
Why not ask relevant questions?
Downtowner, there’s a link to the image right here: http://i.imgur.com/2Dzst.jpg
regarding your comments on Matt Stone and Trey Parker, “(But even they, on occasion overreach—by, say, attempting to depict the prophet Muhammad in an episode, thereby subjecting employees at their network to legitimate threats of violence.)”
WHAT??????????
This is like telling a gay person they should have expected to get beaten up because they overreached by walking into a hard-core biker bar.
There’s more to this un-funny comic strip than just un-funnyness. The deeper issue is that any reader viewing it that day who has a hatred of gays suddenly had his feelings validated by what perceives to be a legitimate news source. Should the Wildcat have a disclaimer on the front page to indicating, “These are student created articles and content and, since there is no oversight by any ‘real journalists’ you shouldn’t take anything you read in here seriously”.
Jimmy,
I think the Weekly has it’s own cartoon which finds a way to walk a fine line between inappropriate and hilarious. Red Meat often uses child abuse and animal killing as a medium for humor. Does the weekly get complaints about this? Or does Max just walk that knife edge so well that it has never become an issue?
I love Red Meat, it is not social commentary, it is just dark laugh-out-loud humor. Has Max Cannon ever done a comic you refused to publish?
Can you imagine this cartoon in the student paper at Harvard? BYU? Virginia Tech? Berkeley? Temple U?
I read a description of the cartoon (said description ended with the word “roll-up”) and it didn’t seem so bad as to be worthy of all the noise. But then I followed the link Mr Mendez posted here. The last panel with all the laughter was what really made the strip seem nasty, not just a bad joke. It also made it seem deliberately so.
I think the comic was mean and stupid and I’m glad the guy was fired. It must feel terrible to be him right now. How embarrassing. Do we know if he has learned his lesson? Should we stop beating him up? Which crime is worse, saying somehing tasteless and insensitive getting it published in front of hundreds of people and then calling it just a joke, or beating someone up outside a bar? Both crimes are worse in different ways. I’m glad Americans are upset by this. We should be.
I fail to see how the cartoon is only homophobic “in a way.” There’s not really a gray area. You either are, or you aren’t, and if you don’t think a cartoon joking about a father offing his own son and the “relieved” non-LGBT son coming back with a homophobic slur doesn’t fit that definition well then I have to wonder exactly which journalism school you attended. The cartoon was as “vile and unacceptable” as Ann Coulter’s equally repugnant tweet.
Humanbean: Nope, I have never rejected a Red Meat strip. Kelly Parker Badeau: I am a graduate from Stanford University, class of 1997, in history and communication.
This cartoon was published in a university paper in a state that elects people like Joe Arpaio, Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer. Is anyone really that shocked that it was published? I’m not.
Political cartoons are supposed to be witty, make a point, and make you think. This “cartoon” does none of that. So this is really grade school journalism that should never have been allowed to appear in a University newspaper. But then we are talking about Arizona…so maybe its considered “hip” by many people in this state. By the way, I live in Tucson. Maybe the LGBT community should just call it what it is–ignorant 6th grade crap, where 12 year olds try to impress each other with “potty humor” to cover their own fears. The cartoonist gets an F and needs to sit in the corner and think about what he did. Don’t give this more power than it deserves.
I’m not sure “homophobia” really applies to this cartoon. A phobia is an irrational, overpowering fear of something. This cartoon doesn’t really tell me the cartoonist has an irrational, overpowering fear of gays. It tells me the cartoonist has poor judgment in what is funny and appropriate (this cartoon is neither). It portrays someone with an extreme hatred of gay people, which is not the same as a phobia of them, and it resorts to low-brow humor derived from using a slur in the play on words.
The editor should never have allowed this one to see print, and the cartoonist should have realized the “joke” he was trying to tell was outside the bounds of acceptability and taste. Whether they should be branded as “homphobic,” however, would require far more information than a single tactless cartoon.
Way to go, Jimmy. Another well thought out comment. To some of the posting folks, ALL Republicans or Tea Partiers are not homophobes. Only the narrow minded ones, just as not all liberals are socialists. Some folks need to grow up and realize the world is changing and we all must learn to live with the changes, it part of life.
All you did was take a few random comments off the internet to excuse this behavior, and ended up contradicting yourself several times. The excuse is that there is no excuse. She, the editor, just needs to suck it up and do the honorable thing and resign. Half-assed apologies will get you no where. You have no right being in journalism if you excuse this coward’s behavior. What ever happened to honorable journalism?
The fact that the word “homophobic” is a standard description of a person sickened by the homosexual lifestyle shows us who is in charge of the discussion. When the term “homo-nausea”, a much more accurate word is popular then normal people will have equal footing. Until then, our PC mania will prevail. Just because you make me sick doesn’t mean you scare me.