Folly in the Fourth Estate: Editorial Cartoons and Conflicting Values in Global Media Culture

Christopher J. Gilbert
{"title":"Folly in the Fourth Estate: Editorial Cartoons and Conflicting Values in Global Media Culture","authors":"Christopher J. Gilbert","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The editorial cartoon is a touchstone for matters of free expression in the journalistic tradition. Since their early inception in the politically charged engravings of 18th-century pictorial satirist William Hogarth to the present day, editorial cartoons have shone forth as signifiers of comic irreverence and mockery in the face of governmental authority and in the more generalized cultural politics of the times. In democratic nations they have been cast as a pillar of the fourth estate. Nevertheless, they—and the cartoonists, critics, commentators, and citizens who champion them—have also long stood out as relatively easy targets for concerns about where the lines of issues such libel, slander, defamation, and especially blasphemy should be drawn. This goes for Western-style democracies as well as authoritarian regimes. In other words, the editorial cartoon stands at a critical nexus of meaning and public judgment. At issue from one vantage is what it means to promote the disclosure of folly as the foolish conduct of public officials and the stupidity of institutions that are thereby worthy as objects of ridicule. From another vantage, there is the matter of what it is to deplore the comicality in journalistic opinion-making that goes too far.\n To approach editorial cartoons from the standpoints of free expression and press freedoms is to verge on conflicting values of civil liberty in and around the so-called right to offend. This was true in the age of Hogarth. It was true in the days of famed French printmaker and caricaturist Honoré Daumier, who was imprisoned for six months from 1832 until 1833 after portraying Emperor Louis-Philippe in the L Caricature. It is also particularly true today in a global media age wherein editorial cartoons, whether or not they are syndicated by official newspapers, can traverse geographic and other boundaries with relative ease and efficiency. Furthermore, the 21st century has seen numerous cartoon controversies vis-à-vis what many commentators have referred to as “cartoon wars,” leading to everything from high-profile firings of cartoonists (including in the United States) through bans and imprisonments of artists in Middle Eastern countries to the 2015 shootings of cartoon artists at the headquarters of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, if the threshold of the free press is the killed cartoon, the limit point of the freedom of expression is the killed cartoonist. Hence the importance of looking beyond any one editorial cartoon or cartoonist in order to contemplate the comic spirit in certain historical moments so as to discover the social, political, and cultural standards of judgment being applied to the carte blanche of journalism and the comic license of those using graphic caricatures to freely editorialize their takes on the world—or not.","PeriodicalId":307235,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The editorial cartoon is a touchstone for matters of free expression in the journalistic tradition. Since their early inception in the politically charged engravings of 18th-century pictorial satirist William Hogarth to the present day, editorial cartoons have shone forth as signifiers of comic irreverence and mockery in the face of governmental authority and in the more generalized cultural politics of the times. In democratic nations they have been cast as a pillar of the fourth estate. Nevertheless, they—and the cartoonists, critics, commentators, and citizens who champion them—have also long stood out as relatively easy targets for concerns about where the lines of issues such libel, slander, defamation, and especially blasphemy should be drawn. This goes for Western-style democracies as well as authoritarian regimes. In other words, the editorial cartoon stands at a critical nexus of meaning and public judgment. At issue from one vantage is what it means to promote the disclosure of folly as the foolish conduct of public officials and the stupidity of institutions that are thereby worthy as objects of ridicule. From another vantage, there is the matter of what it is to deplore the comicality in journalistic opinion-making that goes too far. To approach editorial cartoons from the standpoints of free expression and press freedoms is to verge on conflicting values of civil liberty in and around the so-called right to offend. This was true in the age of Hogarth. It was true in the days of famed French printmaker and caricaturist Honoré Daumier, who was imprisoned for six months from 1832 until 1833 after portraying Emperor Louis-Philippe in the L Caricature. It is also particularly true today in a global media age wherein editorial cartoons, whether or not they are syndicated by official newspapers, can traverse geographic and other boundaries with relative ease and efficiency. Furthermore, the 21st century has seen numerous cartoon controversies vis-à-vis what many commentators have referred to as “cartoon wars,” leading to everything from high-profile firings of cartoonists (including in the United States) through bans and imprisonments of artists in Middle Eastern countries to the 2015 shootings of cartoon artists at the headquarters of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, if the threshold of the free press is the killed cartoon, the limit point of the freedom of expression is the killed cartoonist. Hence the importance of looking beyond any one editorial cartoon or cartoonist in order to contemplate the comic spirit in certain historical moments so as to discover the social, political, and cultural standards of judgment being applied to the carte blanche of journalism and the comic license of those using graphic caricatures to freely editorialize their takes on the world—or not.
第四等级的愚蠢:全球媒体文化中的社论漫画和冲突的价值观
社论漫画是新闻传统中言论自由问题的试金石。从18世纪讽刺画家威廉·霍加斯(William Hogarth)充满政治色彩的版画开始,直到今天,社论漫画在面对政府权威和当时更广泛的文化政治时,作为喜剧不敬和嘲弄的象征而闪耀。在民主国家,他们被视为第四阶层的支柱。然而,他们——以及漫画家、评论家、评论员和支持他们的公民——长期以来一直是人们关注的相对容易的目标,这些问题包括诽谤、诽谤、诽谤,尤其是亵渎的界限应该画在哪里。这既适用于西方式的民主,也适用于专制政权。换句话说,社论漫画站在意义和公众判断的关键纽带上。从一个有利的角度来看,争论的焦点在于,推动公开政府官员的愚蠢行为和机构的愚蠢行为意味着什么,而这些机构理应成为嘲笑的对象。从另一个角度来看,有一个问题是,对新闻舆论制造中过于滑稽的行为表示谴责是什么。从言论自由和新闻自由的角度来看待社论漫画,就是在所谓的冒犯权及其周围,接近于公民自由的相互冲突的价值观。这在贺加斯时代是真的。1832年至1833年,法国著名的版画家和漫画家多米埃因在《L漫画》中描绘路易-菲利普皇帝而被监禁了6个月。在今天的全球媒体时代,这一点尤其正确。在这个时代,无论是否由官方报纸联合发行的社论漫画,都可以相对轻松和高效地跨越地理和其他界限。此外,21世纪出现了许多漫画争议,如-à-vis,许多评论家称之为“漫画战争”,从高调解雇漫画家(包括在美国),到中东国家的艺术家被禁和监禁,再到2015年法国讽刺杂志《查理周刊》总部发生的漫画艺术家枪击事件,无所不有。的确,如果说新闻自由的门槛是被杀害的漫画人,那么言论自由的极限就是被杀害的漫画家。因此,为了思考特定历史时刻的漫画精神,从而发现社会、政治和文化的判断标准,以及那些使用图形漫画来自由地编辑他们对世界的看法(或者不是)的漫画许可,超越任何一幅社论漫画或漫画家的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信