ARE WE CHARLIE?

jamaisnon3

“We’re behind you 100%”

First let me apologize to any “real” cartoonists who published something along these lines before me. I know it’s pretentious to think a real cartoonist would be thinking along the same lines as the likes of me, see the “about” for details. But just in case any of you have, let me know and I’ll spike this post.

The drawing could be wrong too. But I don’t think so; I did not see any mainstream—corporate multimedia—outlets based in the U.S. publishing any of the controversial covers; not the NYT nor the WP. I looked at the local rag’s site but got pushed to USAT and no surprise, nothing there either. They aren’t Charlie.

Not that the covers were hard to find; a simple search on the internet yielded a bounty of them. Plus a lot of U. S. websites posted the covers that offended the shooters and others, some even with informative captions. None of these as far as I can tell had print products or are owned by a company that does is there a correlation here or just coincidence? This is just another reason not to subscribe to mainstream outlets.

So why not publish the pix? Must papers first consider not offending readers who might be upset about the whole story? At the expense of those who expect nothing less? Yes, some of the covers ridicule living, dead and imaginary public figures often with puerile metaphors, but that’s not the point. Turn the page or click though if they trouble you. I do that with stories about rich people having fun.

The images are the reason this story is different from your average mass murder. Not showing them is committing a half truth, putting corporate “journalism”– I mean the editors and publishers here, not the real journalists who have to work for them–on the side of the politicians and terrorists they purport to cover. It’s not right but is not surprising either

I am not Charlie either. I have been working on a drawing that has a picture of a religious figure in it and for some time today I considered not publishing it. The figure is the Christian deity and is based on one of the best known images of this god: Michelangelo’s hobo in pink sweats. So it’s not the portrait that would offend Christian fundamentalists but its context; I have the god and a capitalist as hunters with government as a porter and liberty as the trophy kill being carried back from their safari.

godandcountryThe drawing–click on the inset to see it–shows nothing particularly sacrilegious; it just shows government being relegated to being the heavy lifter and the whipping boy intern as is convenient by both religion and capitalism. The idea came from this quote by the ill-informed but ever inventive myth-maker Ronald Reagan…

“Remember that every government service, every offer of government – financed security, is paid for in the loss of personal freedom… In the days to come, whenever a voice is raised telling you to let the government do it, analyze very carefully to see whether the suggested service is worth the personal freedom which you must forgo in return for such service.”

… I wanted to have you read it again with either religion or capitalism substituted for government. I was having a difficult time making it work, getting sidetracked by the separation of church and state, protestant work ethic, trickle down things so I was gonna give it up. I can’t—won’t—do that now.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-publication-debate/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/177802-remember-that-every-government-service-every-offer-of-government

Advertisements