N.Z. Herald covers up reasons for sacking anti-Zionist cartoonist

By John Braddock | World Socialist Web Site

New Zealand’s largest-circulation daily newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, last month broke a four-month silence over its sacking of cartoonist Malcolm Evans. Evans was dismissed in August following complaints from pro-Zionist lobbyists about his cartoons critical of Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

Evans had worked for the Herald for seven years, during which time he was the paper’s chief political cartoonist. He was president of the New Zealand Cartoonists Association and twice named cartoonist of the year. Evans’ sacking followed his refusal to accept an edict by the paper’s editor-in-chief, Gavin Ellis, that he stop submitting items on Israel.

The cartoon that brought matters to a head was submitted in June, equating the situation in the West Bank with that of an apartheid regime. Evans had drawn the word “apartheid” as graffiti on a crumbling wall, replacing the second “a” with a Star of David. The cartoon simply depicted a political truth—the dispossession and confinement of an entire population pursued as a matter of official policy—in an appropriately graphic form.

The Evans case is not isolated. Recent years have seen a concerted international campaign by the political and media establishment, notably in the US and Britain, to intimidate and silence all opposition to Israeli policy by slandering as anti-Semite any political organisation, commentator, academic or student group that criticises the Sharon regime. This stifling of debate and outright political censorship has intensified in the context of the US-led “war on terror”

____________

See www.evanscartoons.com/dismissal.htm for more

did you have a comment on the wrongful dismissal of the cartoonist?

Editorial cartoonists are hired and typically (not always) are viewed as having to reflect the editorial policies of the paper that employs them. If the cartoonist goes off the straight and narrow, eventually that results in being replaced.

I cannot think of anyone involved that measures up (or down
if you prefer) to that standard. I promise not to bite.

I actually like the site and much of its analysis - just not the ME views.

I won't say which one.

cartoonist?

I think it's an organ, just a different kind.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's an American term.

I wasn't aware anyone took that sort of gibberish
seriously anymore, but perhaps I should have known
some do. Maybe I'll spend a little time looking around
there.

"Trotskyist" is preferred, unless being uncordial and impolite is the intent.

Besides unwavering opposition to colonialist aggression and occupation, what blind spots would those be?

..with Cox and Forkum.

:beer:

of progressive ideas like LGF :eyes:

The cartoon for which Mr. Evans seems to have been dismissed from his position is this one. It displays a point of view that has been discussed here. The use of the Star of David as the letter a in the word apartheidmight be something to which some would take offense. The Star of David is a symbol of the Jewish faith, the Jewish people and the state of Israel. Taking it as a symbol of the state of Israel only, there is nothing offensive about the work other than some people take exception to Mr. Evans' view. Unfortunately, it is a symbol of more things than simply Israel. By itself, this may not have been worthy of dismissal; censure, perhaps, but not dismissal.

Cox and Forkum are seldom that ambiguous. In their drawings, Arabs are depicted with exaggerated Semitic racial features. They are never portrayed in a positive manner; in fact, they are always portrayed as terrorists and thugs. A good example is this cartoon of Arafat manning a polling place.

Non-Arab Muslims fare little better in the Cox and Forkum universe. They are seen as unwashed men with unkept beards waring rumpled traditional robes. The are seen as backward looking ideologues. Take, for example, this recent cartoon of an Iranian mullah taking an unreasonable position following the earthquake in Bam.

Now, it is true that Arafat is a crook, the Palestinian resistance movement is characterized by terrorism and Islamists are backward looking. However, this is not true of all Arabs and Muslims. There are, for instance, leaders among the Palestinians, such as Dr. Mustafa Barghouti and Professor Sari Nusseibeh, who are capable of leading a new Palestinian state in the direction of a modern, secular and progressive foundation. Such people do not exist in Cox and Forkum's world; if one had only their cartoons for a reference, one would conclude that all Arabs are possessed of a murderous insanity and that Muslims follow a religion that invariably conflicts with common sense.

In short, Cox and Forkum are racist and sectarian bigots. Their work is unambiguously hateful. I have yet to see a Cox and Forkum cartoon that is anything but offensive.

In concluding these remarks about Cox and Forkum, we might well guess what their attitudes are about liberal and progressive thought in our own society. To this, they are opposed. They have little more respect for the Democratic Party than for Arabs and Muslims. In this work, displayed prominently on the site of The Intellectual Activist (a real liberal and progressive publication, that) Cox and Forkum portray Democrats as Chicken Littles as television sets displaying news items refuting their points rain down on them. Of course, we should point out that the Saddam-al Qaida link story was discredited before the ink was dry on the issue of the Weekly Standard that ran it; I don't know whether Cox and Forkum would bother to point out that little fact.

Mr. Evans' site runs a few other cartoons that relate to the conflict in the Middle East. It is clear that he is sympathetic to the Palestinians' quest for an independent state and that he regards the policies of the present Israeli government toward Palestinians as unjust. However, if he portrays Jews in a racist manner as Cox and Forkum depict Arabs, then he has omitted these drawings from this site.

Consequently, from the evidence that I have seen, any offense that can be taken against Mr. Evans is strictly political. One may disagree, but these are matters open to debate. Cox and Forkum deserve a harsher judgment.

fair, civil, and reasoned analysis here on the I/P board?

:wow:

Impressive!

:yourock:

It isn't whether you find cartoons racist or just unfunny or whatever. It has to do with whether the cartoonist, hired by a particular publication, is reflecting the policy/desire of the people who sign his paycheck, no?

(Note - this is also a separate argument from whether they should have fired him or not, which I view as an internal decision by the paper.)

had no right to fire him. The debate seems to be entirely
whether they should have done so, as you say; and that in the
context of the legitimacy of censorship of inconvenient
political points of view.

A newspaper has a right to express opinions IT supports on its editorial pages. One of the things on those pages is the editorial cartoon. It is typical for such cartoons to support the editorial policies of the newspaper.

1.A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material
and to remove or suppress what is considered morally,
politically, or otherwise objectionable.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0195700.html

censorship

1.The act, process, or practice of censoring.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0195900.html

The right to publish what you wish. You have no obligation to pay to publish an opinion that directly goes against yours.

If I hire a salesman to promote my business, I think I have a right to fire him if he promotes my competitor's products.

Now some here might accuse me of censorship too.

:shrug:

It has nothing in particular to do with employment decisions,
one way or the other.

I say tomahto.

Hiring or firing is a management decision. You have decided to re-characterize management's motive to fit your agenda.

It's your opinion and other's would disagree. Refusing to allow you your opinion is censorship but since you are not taking money from your pocket to pay this person, you have no say in his employment or lack thereof.

Freedom of the press means when you own the press you are free to publish what opinions you wish. This is NOT about bias in a news story, it's about the opinion page. They have every right to express whatever views there they wish.

page, then they are censoring those views.

Freedom of the press means you are free to publish
your views whether you own the press or not.

Editors and publishers choose what they will publish every single day. That does not mean that the stuff they DON'T publish is being censored. It means it does not meet the (pick one): goals of the publication, standards of the publication, views of the publication, size/space requirements of the publication, cost/benefit analysis of the publication, etc.

No one has stopped this idiot cartoonist from publishing his views. Had they done so, it would be censorship. If the state of New Zealand came in and made the newspaper withdraw the offending cartoon, that too would be censorship.

But this guy is free to publish whatever and wherever else he wishes. He simply lost his job because he didn't do what his boss wanted.

He is creating a company policy.

All publications have their guidelines. Does DU censor people when it won't allow the frivolous postings in the general discussion area? No. It has rules.

So too does this paper.

Unless someone outside forces the owner to keep your work out of print.

I have to own a newspaper or some such thing before
I can be censored?

If there is a widespread movement to censor you, that is a different matter. In journalism, we have another word for the exclusion of one person's works.

It's called editing.

An organized effort to stop publication or distribution of something is one thing. An individual circumstance where you are fired is another.

Was Tolkien censored by the 26 publishers who didn't like his work? Nope, he found No. 27. And changed publishing history.

If you fire someone because you don't want to publish
his content then you are censoring that content.

Tolkien wasn't employed by the 26 publishers who rejected his work, btw....

Violet...

God, it's a good thing few of you work in media. There is a lack of understanding about a basic concept like this. I can only imagine how difficult other things would be.

I pointed out to you that those publishing companies didn't employ Tolkien. And how do you know who does and doesn't work in the media? More importantly, what's it got to do with anything?

Violet...

Was still denied by 26 publishers and got work with the 27th. This cartoonist was fired by ONE, not 26. He can still get work.

It's pretty obvious few here work in the media by their comments.

Tolkien wasn't employed by those publishers, so therefore he wasn't fired from 26 publishers...

No offense here, but just because a lot of people disagree with what you say in this thread doesn't mean at all that they don't work in the media. And to be blunt, it doesn't take working in the media to understand about the things being discussed in this thread...


Violet...

Would sure help in this case.

My point about Tolkien is that he still had options even after being rejected by 26 different publishers. The cartoonist in question has MANY options. He was merely fired for not doing what he was told.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Similar rules apply.

New Zealand, last time I checked, is part of the world. Cartoonists, thanks to this thing we call the Internet, can submit work anywhere in the world. If the newspaper is doing it, so can the cartoonist.

And, yes he should have been sacked because he did something contrary to the position of the newspaper.

Mr. Evans has a website. I saw the cartoon that resulted in his dismissal on that sight and give my views of it in post number 7.

Cox and Forkum also have their own website on which they are free to post whatever racist trash they wish. And they do. I also give my views on their work in post number 7.

Since posting that about this time yesterday, we have had a major discussion about what is censorship, but no one has taken me to task about my views on either Mr. Evans's work or that of Cox and Forkum.

On the other hand, I don't think it is fair to compare a website to a television network or a major newspaper in terms of its ability to reach an audience. The homogenization of news and opinion in America is a concern. The fact is that Bush was able to invade Iraq because Americans were misinformed.

I agree that, to use your words, "the homogenization of news and opinion in America is a concern." I would go farther and say it is an international concern.

But with the Internet, there are infinite other options for the cartoonist. He could start a competing publication online (lowers costs considerably), he could e-mail the cartoon, etc. Or, he could do the most likely thing and simply get a job at another publication.

I am not one to judge Cox and Forkum because I haven't made any effort to do so. And, honestly, the more I am harangued here to do it (not by you), the less likely I ever will.

Personally, I do find comparisons of Israel to South African apartheid to be beyond the pale of respectable political discourse. So I am quite pleased Mr. Evans was fired.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Tinnypriv

But that's not the issue. As you said in another forum, that's a bit of a casual attitude towards job loss that's being displayed...

The issue is whether or not he should have been sacked. You think he should have been, but would you feel that way if he'd been sacked for drawing cartoons critical of the Palestinian leadership?

Haranguing??? I suggested ONCE in post 93 that you read Mr. Rabbit's post and click on the links. One suggestion is not haranguing, so I hope yr not referring to me...

Personally, I do find comparisons of the situation in the Occupied Territories (which isn't Israel) to Apartheid South Africa to be pretty spot on. As I recall some who fought Apartheid in South Africa believe that apartheid is occuring in the Occupied Territories, and as they're pretty well qualified to speak about apartheid, their arguments are a lot more compelling than a constant refrain of 'No it's not! No it's not!'


Violet...

I'm a lot more sensitive to job loss in bulk than one guy getting fired for what I consider to be deserved reasons.

Actually, if it was the policy of the paper, of course he should have been, "sacked for drawing cartoons critical of the Palestinian leadership."

the news (read 'journalism') should not be a product. Part of the reason for this mess.

Bill

The CARTOON was not news, it was opinion. Opinion, as we all see here, can we be a product and a successful one.

Why can't news and information fall into the same category. I live in Virginia and I pay for news local to me. If I want news from other places, I have to pay for that or find those who will provide it for advertising.

How would you do it?

They have a right to publish as they please,
and in doing that they chose to censor this fellows
cartoons. You seem to be confusing the question as
to whether they have a right to censor this
fellow with the question as to whether it is censorship.

Have you ever worked at publication of any type? I have, a bunch in fact. Owners of the publication establish ways of doing things. Employees follow those rules. Or employees become EX employees.

It is not censorship. It would fall under employment (or contractual) standards and 'justified' termination - ie: if the diversion from the 'editorial' policy warranted the cartoonists sacking.

I would hope that the paper stated that editorial policy (ie: we do accept of publish criticm of Israel foreign policy) from the get go, not to mention in their paper, so emplyees and readers are able to make decisions based on that policy.

For what it's worth, I've worked in and out of publishing for a few decades. My experience is that journalists, writers and artists (my trade) are constantly bridling against the bit of editorial narrow-mindedness. Editors very rarely want to ruffle reader or more importantly, advertiser feathers and as such, always try to stay 'safe'.

But the cartoons typically reflect the editorial viewpoint of the paper, not the news pages.

And no newspaper I ever encountered lists all of its editorial positions anywhere. Such things tend to morph over time.

I agree that bosses like to play it safe. That comes from wanting to keep their jobs or keep their readers and bosses happy.

If you don't know what the views of the boss is on the I/P conflict, then how can you claim that the guy was sacked because he wasn't complying with the mandate of the boss?

Violet...

Criticism of Israel can no doubt be found in news stories which are supposed to be balanced.

The editorial/opinion pages of the paper are the sole purview of the management to express their own opinions about anything they wish. Even those that aim for a wide variety of opinion typically expect the editorial cartoon (which represents the newspaper) to coincide with the views expressed in editorials (which also represent the newspaper).

Balanced reporting of the news reports it as it is. For instance, if it's reported that the IDF dropped a one-tonne bomb on a residential area which resulted in the death of innocent adults and children, that's not unbalanced reporting or being critical of Israel. In that case, to be seen as balanced would be not to report what happens, right?

I see. So as the Jerusalem Post is owned by a conservative with right-wing views, all editorial content in that paper reflects the views of the conservative owner? I think I worked that one out a while ago, though it does seem to escape the comprehension of some. My point is that the 'owner' in this case is an international company, and that as it was publishing his cartoons on the I/P conflict before a bunch of fools decided to try dictating what people can and can't read, that the views of the 'owner' was one where they weren't particularly interested one way or the other on what was published...

Violet...

As is quite obvious from the endless banter here, there are two or more ways to look at anything. Some publications choose to look at things from a certain perspective and apply that perspective to everything they cover.

A sports publication would cover an international event by looking at how it impacts sports. When 9/11 interfered with the football season, that was part of what was covered.

Other publications see the world through the eyes of their world view. Some are liberal, some conservative. Some pro-Palestinian, some pro-Israeli. How you view the dropping of a bomb to kill a major terrorist probably impacts that.

The likely options that would have caused more death, probably also have something to do with it.

All you are saying is some publishers censor views they
don't like, and you can be fired if you piss the boss off.

If outsiders censor views they don't like, you can call that censorship. But when a publisher is intent on expressing a certain view and those within the organization don't obey those rules, then it is common sense to fire them.

You have an inherent right to free speech. An attempt to squash that is censorship. You have no inherent right to have your cartoon published in a particular newspaper OR be paid for it.

If the publisher is deliberately suppressing views he
dislikes, that is censorship.

The publisher lacks the ability or authority to censor this cartoonist. All he can do is say that the artist disobeyed company policy and was fired for it.

The publisher has complete authority to do whatever the
heck he wants to, including censoring the content of his
publiciation, and firing the cartoonist for violating his
policy of censorship.

Either through ownership or responsibility. It is his/her job to decide what goes in. It is the job of employees to obey that.

Failure to do so results in a rapid exit.

You're both right and you're both wrong.

Muddle is using a narrow definition of censorship; Bemildred is using a broad one. Thus, according to Muddle, only the government can censor; according to Bemildred, almost anybody can.

I might have been more inclined to agree with Muddle in days of yore; however, nowadays, I agree with Bemildred. The reason is that now as never before political power rests with corporations. At the time the First Amendment was written, anybody could print what he wanted on a printing press. There was nothing concentrated about what then passed for mass communications. Today, mass media is concentrated in fewer and more homogeneous hands.

The concentration of corporate power in the communications industry is a threat to democracy. Democracy assumes an informed publican and therefore depends on mass communications getting out information and different points of view and letting the each individual citizen sort it out. Today, fewer people are making the decision what to communicate and they have very similar views and interests. This is one of the reasons why Americans had so many misconceptions about the Iraq prior to the invasion.

I am saying that this publisher lacks the ability to censor.

Governments can censor. Large groups can censor. A point I made clear.

Being nixed from one publication makes this guy simply a malcontent. And, frankly, one I would have fired myself if he did a cartoon that went against company editorial policy.

You totally underestimate the power of the Internet. ANYONE can publish anything like never before. Look at DU, if you need a good example of that fact. The mere fact that this story not only made news, but we have all seen the offending cartoon is more proof than you should ever need.

This cartoonist lost ONE job. Too bad. Next time, perhaps he will do what he is told to do by his boss.

I urge people to turn off the idiot boxes and get their news from the Net.

I agree with you that there is a difference between a private publisher dictating editorial policy and a government enforcing national conformity. However, nowadays the private publisher often represents the interests of a transnational corporation. When does that become the "large group" of whom you speak? We are living with that now. To a democratic society, this kind of corporate censorship is as dangerous and undesirable as government censorship.

Of course, that's why I tell people to turn off their television sets and get their news from the Net.

The cartoonist was not banned from a chain or a group or from publishing in his nation. He merely was fired for what amounts to insubordination.

Bosses have and need the right to fire employees for doing whatever the hell they want.

I will say, were I a publisher, I wouldn't hire him in a month of Sundays. There is no "I" in team.

Neither Bemildred nor I are saying that the Herald had no right to fire Mr. Evans. However, I do agree with Bemildred that it is censorship.

The only difference is that the publisher of the Herald has a right to censor his own newspaper; the government does not.

A broader issue arises when major news outlets fall into the hands of a few, homogeneous hands. Then the absence of diversity of news and opinion resulting from corporate censorship becomes a threat to a democratic state.

That is the crisis I see in American journalism today.

It isn't censorship when it is your own publication. Editors AND publishers set the tone and content for their products. That is their job. If they decide to exclude something, it isn't censorship. It's judgment.

We are agreed that the Harald did nothing illegal in firing Mr. Evans for expressing a view contrary to editorial policy.

Beyond that, this has been nothing but a discussion on semantics.

I see censorship in the world and this ain't it.

Nothing penetrates.

Muddle's point of view seems to be that if you are the management,
then by definition whatever you do is not censorship, even though
otherwise it matches up with the definition of censorship. There
have been hints that only governments can commit censorship, but
I haven't been able to elicit an explicit claim of that.

Apparently if you are the owner/publisher you can do whatever you
like and nobody is supposed to say anything unpleasant about it.

where the few make rules for the majority, and nobody dares question authority, despite the obvious totalitarianist structure. (but we're supposed to cheer for how wonderful Democracy is thriving)

I think it means what it says.

If you like, I will stipulate that censorship may be
part of an editor's job, but that doesn't somehow make
it not censorship, if he's supressing content because
it is deemed politically unacceptable, as opposed to
just crappy writing or irrelevant drivel.

An editor's job is to edit. He or she decides what goes in the pages of a newspaper or magazine.

He or she also instructs staff to do as they are told. When they do what THEY want, they get fired.

That is a good thing. It's how businesses work.

The definition for "censor" and "censorship" is not the right
one for discussing whether this is censorship?
I guess that clarifies where we are here in this discussion.

Not unlike the Muslim fundamentalists they so delight in bashing.
Very well done, Jack.

TOLERATED here? I will never understand that. They're anti-democrat, conservative, RW, bigoted and racist towards Arabs/Muslims! If there is a NO-NO for certain anti-Israeli sites, why not for C&F???

Is actually less strident than the sort used by Israeli human rights groups¹, as I'm sure you know.

As usual, doctrinal constraints in the United States are more restrictive than those in Israel.

-----

1. For example, "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa" ('Land Grab', p102, B'tselem, May 2002)

It seems perfectly OK here for the pro-Palestinian forces to make comparisons of a democratic state to both apartheid South Africa and totalitarian East Germany. Why it is allowed baffles me.

Yes, we could make equally insidious comparisons about the Palestinians, their leadership, their support of terror, their massive number of terrorists, their terrorists blowing up of babies, their abuse of women and their terrorists use of them to blow up innocents, etc.

Only one thing, THOSE actions are all so heinous that they defy comparison.

the IDF kills 3 times more innocent people, and that can't be compared, right? Palestinians still somehow die in less pain or what?

The IDF kills terrorists who are planning on murdering civilians. Those same terrorists hide in populated areas to ensure that, no matter what, they maximize the deaths of innocents.

but Palestianian CIVILIANS (you know kids, women and all those unarmed Palestinians that IDF calls collateral damage even when they'r targetted)

The Palestinians shut down the terrorists themselves. Perhaps, because of their local knowledge and community involvement, THEY might be able to wipe out terrorists with fewer civilian deaths.

But I don't have the book with me. See ya tomorrow.

First some context for the remarks (this is by Ben-Gurion):

"Two hundred and fifty thousand Jews of Tel Aviv and suburbs, core of country's social and industrial life, and thirty thousand Jews in Jerusalem, mostly working-class quarters, isolated from all normal contact with the outside world, facing complete breakdown ... of civilised life apart from food supplies and medical skeleton service. Industry crippled, trade paralysed, unemployment threatening to become catastrophic ... Workers cut off from places of work, childen from schools"

(i.e. the situation the Palestinians face. In fact, the Palestinians face worse)

Ben Gurion continues:

"These restrictions have not affected terrorists nor stopped their outrages but have instead increased resentment of hard-hit population, creating fertile soil for terrorist propaganda, frustrating community's attempt to combat terrorism by itself ... Martial Law (*i.e. "closure") absolutely futile and senseless unless really meant to punish whole community, ruin its economy and destroy the foundations of the Jewish National Home"

Sounds quite logical. Exactly why the Jewish authorities in the mandate refused to bring known terrorists to justice (i.e. "police themselves" in your parlance).

More Ben Gurion, to British officials explaining this stance:

"The (Jewish) Executive considers the policy at present by the Mandatory Government ... to be primarily responsible for the tragic situation which has developed in Palestine. The Executive cannot agree that it can in fairness be called upon to appear in the invidious position of assisting the enforcement of that policy"

(i.e. the occupation, preventing Jewish immigration¹ and all the rest).

As is often the case in the I/P conflict, you can change a few names and see uncanny parallels. No doubt if you were a British official at the time, seeing your colleagues murdered, you'd be saying these exact same things to the Jews.

I'm afraid it seems history doesn't judge that stance as being remotely useful, at least regarding the establishment of the State of Israel. :shrug:

Still, you can be the judge of that.

-----

1. I have a small personal connection in this regard. A family member was allocated the task (in his words), of "stopping the Jews" at Haifa in 1948. He had little training and only a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic.

If YOU try to censor me or vice versa, that is censorship. If an employee tries to do other than a boss mandates, that is something you get fired for.

As well you should.

incapable of committing censorship?

It is firing someone for disobeying company policy.

If one group owned ALL the media in a nation (including Internet sites) and the cartoonist had been blackballed from all such opportunities, I might agree with you.

That is not the case here.

But suppressing views you don't like in your publication
is censorship.

It is your publication. Now if the government MADE him do it, that would be censorship. No one, other than the owner of the publication, has any say in what is run or not. As such only the owner can be censored.

How do you explain the old hollywood censorship board?
Censorship is the suppression of content, anybody can do it.

There is no industrywide move to censor this cartoonist. THAT would be censorship also.

No, editors "suppress" content all the time. It is their jobs. It was the job of the cartoonist to generate content the boss wanted. He did not. He was fired for not doing it.

Especially these days with the Internet.

Keeping you out of one publication isn't even a minor dent in your publishing opportunities.

If someone is censored in one outlet and cleverly finds
some other place to get his work into circulation, does that
somehow magically mean that he was not really censored in
in first place?

Is 2 + 2 = 5 today because you say so?

By that ridiculous definition, anyone fired at any publication anywhere is "censored." Talk about dumbing down a definition.

to shut him up. It is you who does not want to consider
any subtleties in the situation.

When I was an editor, if someone fired me, I lost my voice. Oh well.

You automatically shut them up FROM YOUR PUBLICATION. The cartoonist was not blackballed throughout the industry. He simply lost a job.

We've probably given it more thought and discussion than it got in his company.

if they meant to shut him up.

They meant to fire him.

;)

If an employee tries to do other than a boss mandates, that is something you get fired for.

Gotta wonder if this guy was breaking some sort of employment rule, why the newspaper published the cartoon in the first place. I would think a cartoonist doing political cartoons is exactly what that employee was paid to do...

Violet...

Cartoons typically reflect the views of the paper they represent. Clearly, it seems this did not. It was the responsibility of the cartoonist to ensure they did so. He did not.

He was fired.

Your head will stop hurting when you stop banging it against the wall.

Never trust older men who cosy up to you and offer friendship. They're always out for something else. Of course, being my mum, I never listened to her anyway...

Violet...

If his cartoons didn't reflect the views of the owner (which in this case isn't one person but a conglomeration including a massive Australian media company), then why did the paper publish them in the first place? Or is it that the boss (that should be bosses seeing we're talking about a multinational company) just happened to have a genuine change of view after pressure from a bunch of idiots who can't cope with looking at things they disagree with? If the views of the boss are so fickle, then why is a cartoonist expected to be the one responsible for keeping up with all the fickle views of the 'boss'?

Yes, Muddle. Everyone knows he was fired. The issue is whether he should have been fired. You say yes, but I strongly suspect that if this had been done to someone publishing cartoons critical of the Palestinians, some folk here would be wailing away about how he shouldn't have been sacked. Me, I don't have to worry about that because no matter what the cartoon was critical of, my stance stays the same. He shouldn't have been sacked...

Violet...

Or this was the last straw, which is more likely.

Creative folks do what they want. Sometimes they don't learn that isn't the way business works.

Yes, he was fired for not doing what he was told to do. Likely, this was far from the first time. It was simply the worst time.

No matter what, my position stays the same. You draw what the boss tells you. If you don't, you are gone.

Therefore the views of the 'boss' was supportive of his stance on the I/P conflict. After all, if it wasn't the 'bosses' stance, then the 'boss' wouldn't have allowed it to be published, right?


Seeing yr claiming that it's likely not the first time he was not doing what he was told to do, how about coming up with some evidence to support it? Gosh, maybe he took some pens home from work! That's gotta be a sackable offense!

Sorry, but many employers in this part of the world don't live by yr position. Here at least, they'd get in very hot water if they did what you support. Interesting position anyway, seeing as how only last week I told my boss to get lost when he tried to make me do something I knew was going to blow up bigtime. I'm still here *gasp*, and my boss ended up doing it and it blew up in his face :) If he'd tried to sack me, he'd have had the Union down on him like a ton of bricks....

Violet...

Publishers rarely if ever see content before it is published. So things that are in disagreement with policies of the operation slip through and are corrected after the fact.

Likely that the cartoonist was warned on those occasions.

I am basing that comment on years of experience in newspapers and media. Creative people, especially artists, often do exactly what THEY want. Management that employs such staff knows this. Some issues inevitably erupt. For such an issue to result in firing usually means it wasn't the first time.

I love your work story. We have people here who also tell their bosses they won't do projects. We call them unemployed.

And if as you claim, only an owners opinions should be published, then the editor would be aware of this and stop anything before it was published...

Most unlikely that the cartoonist was warned before. Of course if he was, feel free to actually provide something to support that claim...

Yr not the only person here who's worked in the media....

We're not talking about the US. We're talking about New Zealand, which has very similar workplace practices as Australia. But interesting that you think I should have been sacked. Fortunately my employer recognises the value of highly skilled and experienced staff....


Violet...

Cartoons are a creative work that takes time. It can often be one of the last things to make deadline.

And, you are also assuming the editor didn't get into trouble as well. Likely, he/she did.

Having employees is always a balance between what you need and what you can tolerate. It is the classic cost/benefit analysis.

For me, there are limits to that. When employees openly rebel, then they damage the whole workplace and morale throughout.

Damn, that's news to me!! Muddle, you have to realise that NZ is NOT the US when it comes to the workplace. In fact it's much more like here, and when someone makes blanket statements about how people will be fired if they don't do everything their boss says, I'm going to point out that yr very wrong. Employees aren't mindless bots who are just there to follow orders without thinking. The reason union membership is strong in NZ and here is because despite the belief of conservatives, employees do have rights and one of those rights is to refuse to carry out some orders. A common weapon when industrial action is taken is to refuse to carry out some management orders. Another one is to stop work. And I'm pretty damn sure there's legislation in place to protect me from being sacked for frivolous reasons. I'd be interested to know what legislation exists in NZ, so I might go search for it. I kind of suspect that there, like here, he wouldn't have been protected because he's employed under a contract...

What I do know is that after the sacking, no NZ cartoonist wanted to work under the conditions that Evans would have had to work under, which is why the cartoons that appear in the NZ Herald are done by a foreigner who didn't even move to NZ to take up the job....

I've seen some attempts in this thread to portray his sacking as being like the sacking of someone working in a car dealership or something. Total tripe and I'm surprised people can't see the difference. We're talking about the media, and I think it was Jack or bemildred who pointed out how for a healthy democracy to survive, the population has to be well-informed and able to make decisions, and that's where the media comes in. If the media is owned entirely by someone like Rupert Murdoch and only his views on issues are all the population is ever exposed to, and he tells the population what the issues are and what they think about them, it doesn't matter that everyone has a vote, that's not a democracy as far as I'm concerned. Which is why you'll find things like Crossmedia Ownership Laws in some countries, and why Canadians were up in arms when a journalist was sacked from one of their newspapers for voicing opposition to the owner of the newspaper. It's not a matter of saying people can be sacked. It's a matter of whether or not people agree that people should be sacked...

Violet...

Yes, I know NZ is not the U.S. I checked the map to be sure.

No, even here, employees are not mindless bots. But employees DO have a responsibility to do their job as instructed. Even the unions of the world can't justify doing otherwise.

Yes, employees should not be sacked for frivolous reasons. This was far from frivolous. This was taking a position counter to that of the newspaper.

Perhaps there were no NZ cartoonists who were as good as the foreign cartoonist they ended up with?

The population HAS been well informed on this issue. THAT points to the power of the Internet. The cartoonist will survive. Democracy is protected. Life goes on.

I wasn't talking about geographical differences. I was telling you that in NZ as well as here there's quite a few situations where employees would definately not get the sack for refusing an order. And that's apart from the fact that many of us are allowed some independent thought in our workplace. And the situation with Unions, and probably legislation protecting the rights of employees is completely different from in the US...


Actually, that is a frivolous reason for sacking anyone, considering that in NZ it's not like the I/P conflict is the only issue being addressed by cartoonists...

No, NZ cartoonists refused to touch the job because none of them wanted to work under the conditions that the employer was dictating. Perhaps you would like me to find an article about it for you? Me, I'm wondering how someone in Rockhampton can do the job as well as a local...

You think the population has been well-informed on this issue?? Until only two years or so ago, I was so 'well-informed' by the mainstream media that I had a completely different stance on the issue than I do now that I'm more widely read on it. And internet access doesn't mean jack-shit when it comes to whether people are well-informed or not. Most people using the internet won't venture past the latest cricket or rugby scores, or maybe have a squizz at the porn or do a bit of internet banking. Again, I can provide you with some links confirming this if you try to argue it...


Violet...

It's why I won't work in a place with them.

The I/P conflict is NOT the reason this guy was sacked. He was sacked because he did something other than he is supposed to do.

Well, I am sure the other NZ artists felt they were making a principled stand. They were replaced by someone else. Will it be as good? Who knows.

You misunderstood what I meant about this issue. I meant, that obviously we all know about the cartoonist and have even seen the cartoon. So he must not be getting censored very much because he is still getting the word out internationally.

1. There is no claim of "comparison", from either B'tselem or myself. There is a claim that the system in the territories (the distinction you miss) is "reminiscent" of the Apartheid regime, which is of course accurate. If you believe I have quoted out of context, review the document yourself. Regardless, that is irrelevant to what I was addressing (doctrinal constraints in the U.S. and Israel).

2. In this context, nobody is "comparing" Israel to apartheid South Africa. What is being noted instead is that there is a rough equivalence between Israel and South Africa, in relation to the similarities regarding the Occupied Territories and Apartheid.

3. It is unedifiying to watch people compare B'tselem to "pro-Palestinian forces", so I'd advise against it, unless you want to align yourself with ultra-nationalist, chauvanistic elements within Israel. Moreover, I assume that you're whistling into the wind with these comments, rather than directing them at me, since by any measure I am neither "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian", and have never compared Israel to "totalitarian East Germany".

4. As for your Palestinian comments, I hardly see the need to comment, since you're bringing them up as a diversionary tactic. There are more than enough topics within which it is appropriate to discuss some of their (atrocious) crimes.

1. So now the term is "reminiscent?" So, the organized attempts by the Arab world to get rid of Jews both in their own nations, the West Bank, Gaza and Israel itself would then be "reminiscent" of what nation?

2. Of course people are comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa. That is just semantics to claim otherwise.

3. Any comment that mentions the Berlin Wall DIRECTLY compares Israel to "totalitarian East Germany." Any comment that mentions South African apartheid in reference to Israel DIRECTLY compares Israel to them as well.

4. I did not bring up the Palestinian comments as a diversionary tactic. The pro-Palestinian DUers (and around the world) get away with tons with these bogus comparisons, but scream if like comparisons are thrown back at them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And numbered them to make it easy for you.

1. I'd be interested to see some examples of these organised attempts, Muddle. If yr talking about racist thugs persecuting people, then Israel has some of its own doing the same to Arab Israelis. Also, I hope when you talk about the West Bank and Gaza, yr not talking about people wanting the settlements dismantled and the settlers sent packing back to Israel...


2. People are comparing specific actions, in this case apartheid. I can't see how that can be mistaken for thinking that people are claiming that the govts are being compared on a wider scale...

3. Gosh, and I thought comparing the fence to the Berlin Wall was because in some parts of it, it makes the Berlin Wall look like a tiny little retaining wall in someone's garden. If you believe any comparison means someone is calling Israel a totalitarian government, yr wrong. It's the comparison of one structure to another, and has nothing to do with the Cold War or the form of govt in the USSR at the time...

4. Yes, you did...


Violet...

"Yes, we could make equally insidious comparisons about the Palestinians, their leadership, their support of terror, their massive number of terrorists, their terrorists blowing up of babies, their abuse of women and their terrorists use of them to blow up innocents, etc."

Yes, that is what C&F does - so you agree then?

So I can't comment.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:thumbsup:

it has nothing to do with anti-semitism. If only the N.Z. Herald would be as honest ...

Sorry for not making myself clear.

I'd be interested in knowing, and also in knowing how you'd find bigotry in that cartoon, yet see none at all in the Cox & Forkum cartoons that you appear to be a big fan of...

Violet...

criticizing Israeli aggression is not anti-semitism, remember.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

;-)

you don't think the cartoonist is anti-semitic now?