Omaha World-Herald cartoonist Jeff Koterba’s October 19 cartoon lampooned the recent controversy involving the University of Nebraska – Lincoln’s decision to invite University of Illinois at Chicago professor Bill Ayers to speak at an education conference. In Koterba’s cartoon, he depicts a University official, beneath a “University of Nebraska – Lincoln” banner, saying “And now, as part of our conference to better understand the Mideast, a man we invited long before we learned of his controversial background…” Standing at the other side of the podium is Osama bin Laden.
My initial intention was to request comment about this cartoon from Koterba as well as several other related parties, but after a few rounds of emails with Koterba, I thought it might be more interesting to just hear the cartoonist’s thoughts. Unfortunately, Koterba did not respond to repeated requests asking for permission to reprint the cartoon with this discussion, so I have no visual aide to share.
The following discussion is from a series of emails sent between October 20 and 27. I’ve waited a week in anticipation of a response from Koterba, but I’m now assuming a week of silence means no response is coming. I will update this post if a response does come.
NEAL: I was thinking about writing a piece on your Sunday cartoon. As you may guess, I find it pretty objectionable, but before I write about it or contact others for their thoughts, which I intend to do, I wanted to first ask you if you could talk a little bit it.
Can you articulate what message you were going for and the thoughts behind the cartoon before you created it?
Do you feel William Ayers and Osama bin Laden are equivalents, and why or why not?
There are some very specific UNL administrators who have been involved in this situation, particularly in the defense of Ayers’ invitation, yet none were specifically identified or recognizably caricatured in this cartoon. Can you elaborate on that decision?
I know a lot of times when I’m working on a cartoon, I have several variations on a theme before I settle on my final idea. Did you have any other alternate ways of presenting this idea before settling on the one that ran?
Also, as this will be an entry with discussion about a particular cartoon, can I have your permission to post the cartoon along with the discussion?
JEFF: I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to guess that you would find my cartoon objectionable. May I ask why?
As for my intent, I certainly wouldn’t read any more into that which is right there on the surface. That is, the university invited Ayers who is known for his domestic actions of terrorism. But I wouldn’t say that Ayers and Osama are on equal footing. As a cartoonist, you certainly understand the use of satire in one’s work. In this case, I simply took the issue to its logical conclusion. Often in satire, to make a point, the satirist goes beyond what the reality is to cut to the truth of the matter.
However, nowhere in the cartoon do I indicate that Ayers shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Nor am I saying that Osama shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Again, that’s not the point of the cartoon.
And I didn’t specifically identify any particular UNL administrators because this cartoon isn’t exactly happening in real time. This scene is occurring in the world of satire, a parallel universe, if you will. Maybe it happened a few years ago. Maybe it’s happening in the future.
In the end, it’s just a cartoon.
NEAL: Regarding my comment “As you may guess, I find it pretty objectionable,” the “As you may guess” part was a failed attempt at lightening the situation, since you’ve noted I don’t always present myself as your biggest fan. Actually though, I didn’t say that I found the cartoon objectionable to just be mean – I actually wanted to make it very clear from the start that I didn’t care for it, because if you were going to take the time to respond to my questions, I didn’t want to take any chances that there would be any ambiguity of the situation. I wanted it to be very clear up front, so that if you wrote your answers and then I decided to write something about it, I didn’t want you to think I was deceptive and ambushed you or anything like that. I actually said that in an effort to be as fair as possible. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions, so I wanted you to know before typing the first letter of your response that I didn’t like the cartoon, but I’m trying to get your side of it. I think I’m kind of repeating myself, but I just wanted to make that point clear.
JEFF: Gotcha. And I appreciate your wanting to be fair. I am curious, however, why you didn’t care for it.
NEAL: As far as why I don’t care for the cartoon, I understand the use of satire and exaggeration to make a point, but I think there is also a responsibility that comes with each decision to exaggerate, and I don’t think there are many people, Bill Ayers included, who deserve to be equated with Osama bin Laden. I do feel the cartoon equates the two.
It also misrepresents UNL’s position. UNL knew precisely who Bill Ayers was. But like most of his contemporaries over the past two decades, they also know about his work and his professional expertise, and they invited him for a relevant speech. The only ignorance displayed by UNL was in failing to anticipate that Ayers would become a centerpiece of the presidential campaign and that political opportunists would hop on board.
Therefore, I disagree that the cartoon represents any kind of “logical conclusion” – when the logical foundations for it aren’t rooted in reality – and instead just seems to be inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.
With that said, I’m a little puzzled by your simultaneous suggestion that the cartoon be viewed as exaggeration and satire – which requires the audience to read into it a bit – yet denial that the cartoon carries any implication about whether Ayers or bin Laden should be allowed to speak, simply because the cartoon doesn’t explicitly say so.
So I have a few follow up questions:
1. We’ve established a few things that the point of the cartoon wasn’t, but I’m wondering if you could articulate what the point of the cartoon was.
2. I’m wondering if you’d be willing to elaborate on your thoughts about what a cartoonist’s responsibilities are when using potentially inflammatory images – whether it’s bin Laden, Hitler or the KKK – and maybe go through your thought process when you’re considering using one in a cartoon.
3. Also, to what degree, if any, do you try to anticipate reader reactions and interpretations? For example, I think the cartoon suggests it’s a terrible idea to let Ayers speak by mocking the judgment of the university, yet it is your feeling as the cartoonist that there is no such implication. Do you consider potential interpretations, and if so, do those potential interpretations ever play a role in how you fine tune the cartoon?
I think maybe it’s easy for readers to take for granted the many thoughts that are involved in creating a cartoon, which surely differ from cartoonist to cartoonist, and so I’m very curious about your thoughts on this. Thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Also, I don’t want this question to get lost in the shuffle, but can I have your permission to post the cartoon with the discussion?
JEFF: I’ll try to get to get to all of your questions when I can…but before I continue, I feel I must get clarification on a couple of points. Can you explain why you don’t think it’s fair to equate Ayers with Osama bin Laden?
Also, do you deny that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist?
NEAL: Sure, I’d be happy to elaborate.
Ayers did bad stuff, and I think I’d have a tough time being his friend considering he hasn’t denounced what he did. But since that time, he’s become a valuable member of society. Democrats and Republicans alike have come forward in defense of him in recent weeks; Democrats and Republicans alike have worked with him over the past few decades. Even William Ibershof has acknowledged Ayers has become a “responsible citizen.” Ayers was invited to UNL because of his work in education — nothing to do with his past. I think Chancellor Perlman made a good point when he said “Repentance can come by deeds as well as by words.”
Bin Laden, on the other hand, orchestrated attacks that resulted in more than 3,000 American civilians — targeted civilians — and continues to plot against the U.S. and incite others to join his battle. He’s continuing a commitment to violence that is causing unrest in many parts of the world. There are very few people with whom a comparison to Bin Laden would be appropriate, in my opinion, simply because of the degree of his terroristic acts and the continuing nature of the war he wages.
So why compare the two? Surely no one who knows the whole story about Bill Ayers is going to look at the two men’s records and objectively conclude they are any kind of equivalent.
Unfortunately, at that point, the conversation seems to have ended.
In the absence of a continued discussion, I wanted to try to relate this to a cartoon from my own past. I was reminded of a cartoon from May 2007 in which I depicted a KKK lynching when responding to actions of the Unicameral in denying discrimination protection to homosexuals. My editor and I spent a good amount of time discussing the cartoon, talking about what the message was, anticipating response and fine-tuning the cartoon. We wanted to be in a situation where, if the cartoon was going to be misinterpreted, we could at least rest assured knowing we made every effort to make the cartoon say what I wanted it to say.
I wanted the cartoon to demonstrate that one can’t get away with performing a bigoted act simply by saying “I’m not a bigot.” I felt the cartoon displayed that. But we were well aware that offended parties might interpret the cartoon to suggest the Nebraska legislature was an equivalent to the KKK. I can’t speak for the Journal Star, but I can say that — though that wasn’t the desired message — it was a conclusion I was willing to own up to. I had to be willing to accept an erroneous interpretation because, quite simply, it was an obvious one.
So the cartoon ran, and as predicted, a state senator complained to the Journal Star publisher about the cartoon, saying
The cartoon suggests that those who object to the policy of creating a new statutorily protected class in employment law based on sexual preference are on a par with murderers, lynch mobs, or klansmen … The Legislature would not identify sexual orientation as a protected class, but do you believe the senators and Nebraskans opposed to LB475 are interested in murdering people because of their sexual orientation!? If a picture is worth a thousand words, then that picture had better be scrutinized as to which thousand words they are worth.
It’s a conclusion and an argument I disagree with, but it’s a conclusion and an argument that I anticipated. I simply couldn’t employ such powerful imagery without thinking about the possible repercussions and taking responsibility for them.
I don’t think any cartoonist can reasonably be held responsible for every unintended interpretation of a cartoon. But when extremely charged and defamatory imagery is used, I believe the responsibility to anticipate and defuse unintended interpretations is amplified.
Honestly, since my first day at a college newspaper in 1999, I don’t think I’ve ever been comfortable hiding behind an excuse like “It’s just a cartoon” — not when real people’s real reputations are on the line. It’s not an excuse I’d feel comfortable with when using the imagery of the KKK, nor would it be an excuse I’d be comfortable with when comparing someone to Osama bin Laden.
The problem I have with the comparison is that in his other life, Ayers is a noted education reformer and bin Laden is what? Comparing the acts of terrorism is fine with me, in terms of the satire. True, bin Laden has murdered thousands, if not tens of thousands, and Ayers bombs did not kill anyone, but I can see the connection, in a totally satirical and stretched way. My question is what would the University invite bin Laden to talk about besides terrorism? Islam? His views of Islam directly lead into the terrorism he supports. Ayers views of education have no extreme connections that I can see.
And I’ve asked this in previous discussions…suppose bin Laden was to find a cure, or a new treatment for a widespread disease like cancer or AIDS. And suppose he was invited to speak at the UNMC about this new cure/treatment. Highly unlikely scenario, I know, but for the heck of it, let’s just suppose this happened. Would we want bin Laden to come talk about his research knowing that he intentionally killed over 3,000 U.S. civilians, policemen, and firefighters?
I feel that, for the sake of argument, we can equate this scenario with the Bill Ayers scenario. While many may believe that what Mr. Ayers did was not that bad (I disagree), his contributions to society are also not all that groundbreaking. Conversely, what bin Laden did was very bad (I think we all agree), and a cure to cancer/AIDS would be EXTREMELY groundbreaking…so the bad:good ratios would probably be comparable.
Neal, why do Jeff’s responses seem so flippant? Does he have some sort of problem with you? Also, isn’t it unusual for people in your profession to view their work as “just a cartoon”? Doesn’t that line of thinking undercut the relevance of your entire profession?
Well, in fairness to Jeff, I’ve been pretty critical of his work here on this site. He and I seem to have very different perspectives on cartooning. I think many would think he’s got every right to be flippant toward me, even though I do try to ask legitimate questions.
I completely agree with you on the “just a cartoon” part, though, and I think that’s probably the biggest surprise lesson from this conversation. That attitude devalues the power of cartoons, and it also absolves the cartoonist of any responsibility (though probably only in his or her own mind).