Political Cartoonist Gone

In a post a few days ago about editorial cartooning, I mentioned in passing that commentary via editorial cartoons was not only alive but quite well indeed, even if many newspapers no longer have an in-house editorial cartoonist. For many that may simply be the substantially altered economics of print periodicals. Many do run syndicated cartoons. And if you don't read printed news, as many do not these days, online cartoons are widely available and some end up as memes on social media. So happily, pointed comments via satire or humor with or without caricature remain embedded in our culture, no matter what the medium. And although text is arguably more important, visual messages sink deeper.

We saw again the importance of editorial cartooning a while back--certainly events made it clear how important a newspaper editor and publisher believe it to be. During a period of changing editorial stance of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from liberal to right-wing, the paper's editor and publisher came into conflict with long-time cartoonist Rob Rogers, who believed himself independent in the same way as editorial columnists are. After months of conflict with the the newspaper fired Mr. Rogers a few weeks ago. During the preceding several months the editor (and the publisher too) rejected no fewer than 19 cartoons by Rob Rogers, all of which had an anti-Trump flavor. The paper has become favorably disposed to Mr. Trump in recent years, praising the president in editorials and once claiming that charges of racism were "the new McCarthyism."

Clearly Mr. Rogers' adamant anti-Trump stance struck a nerve and the newspaper was equally adamant. Mr. Rogers' viewpoint over his years with the paper had been consistently liberal even as the editorial slant turned rightward. Further, he believed his voice was appropriately independent. The New York Times reported on the situation and quoted Mr. Rogers as saying “They clearly had a mission to change the editorial page and I wasn’t getting in line..." In that article, the editor says the problem was that the cartoons weren't funny, and according to him instead sounded only enraged. Furthermore the editor asserted that the cartoons were becoming monotonous. No intent to influence point of view, in other words. Perhaps, or perhaps not. Above is a typical recent cartoon posted on Mr. Rogers' website (not printed in the Post-Gazette).

While it's easy to be unhappy about Mr. Rogers' dismissal from the newspaper, it's also true that his voice will at least continue to be available in syndication and online and from that position he will be truly independent. Will he be as widely heard?