Newstradamus

Eric Allie/Caglecartoons.com

Once again, the Times-Standard runs a conservative oriented editorial cartoon, and I hear from a few liberals who say we are shameful, and should apologize. (A couple of letters came in today, and we'll publish them this week.) Last year it was a cartoon poking at the abortion issue that raised hackles. On Saturday, it was one taking a shot at the worshipful adoration of the followers of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (above).

No doubt the cartoonist was a bit rough, likening the Illinois senator's followers to Jim Jones cult zombies, but that's what editorial cartoons do — challenge how one views the world. We're certainly not going to give up our efforts to ensure our opinion page is a forum for all ideas. How boring would that be if we did?

Besides, "drinking the Kool-aid" has become a common pundit euphemism for buying into somebody's ideas or message. And Obama — a veteran of Chicago politics — is no shrinking violet. He can take it, even if some of his supporters can't.

Editorial cartoons aren't like those on the funny pages, although it may be tempting to avoid angering sensitive readers by picking cartoons that are more like a Jay Leno joke than serious commentary. It's like a newspaper's attitude overall: If you're not as aggressive as you can be in covering the news and exploring the widest range of community opinion, then why exist?

So we're going to keep selecting cartoons that tick people off, and not apologize for it. But it raises some interesting questions for which I have no definitive answers. Maybe readers of this blog have an opinion:

• Why is it that I always get flak from liberals when we run an edgy cartoon from a conservative artist, but rarely the other way around? The liberals, of course, don't cry "shame!" when a cartoonist implies President Bush is a criminal or an idiot, but conservatives don't either. Is it because the Times-Standard is perceived by many (but far from everyone) as being a "liberal" newspaper, and thus an anti-conservative cartoon affirms that perception and an anti-liberal one shocks those on the left?

• Is the belief in the First Amendment really so shallow in those who object to cartoons? When they demand an apology from the newspaper, is this code for advocating censorship? Some editorial page editors DO self-censor, choosing only cartoons unlikely to offend. I tend to go the other way, looking to test the boundaries of our tolerance for freedom. Although I wasn't an editor at the time, I would have considered publishing or linking to the controversial "Muhammad" cartoons a few years ago. Readers deserved to know what the fuss was about. (The cartoons actually were benign.)

• Do people have a lower tolerance level for cartoonists' takes on local issues? As noted in an earlier blog, City Councilman Larry Glass called the Times-Standard "despicable" because it published a reader's cartoon depicting Glass (as well as businessman Rob Arkley) as babies. Too bad. We welcome cartoons from readers about local issues, and I invite more of them. (Unfortunately, I've had to pass on a couple of anti-police cartoons from a local man because they were too graphically violent.)

• When people are upset by a cartoon, why do they also reject our disclaimer that ideas on the opinion page aren't necessarily ours? If we publish it, we endorse it, is their belief. What nonsense. With that flawed logic, we'd be compelled to toss into the trash a large percentage of the letters to the editor and My Word guest columns. If that's what you want, best move to a totalitarian country where the politics of the power elite match yours.