Jonathon Swift Group Work #2

Jonathan Swift – Group Work #2

1. Go through Gulliver’s Travels (whichever parts that you have read). Can you find any incidents, situations, characters, that could be related to specific any incidents, situations, characters of today? Though it’s a question, I expect you to find at least three: give both the original Swift text and what your group believe it describes today. Feel free to work separately and come together with your results.

2. Now, split the two attached sheets among your members, take a few minutes and read them, keeping in mind everything that we’ve said about satire (mark them up accordingly). When you come back together answer the following discussions. Though you don’t have the actual Royko column, you do know some of what he said – he also used a number of disparaging remarks in describing Hispanics.

2A. Are either Royko’s column or the political cartoon mentioned examples of satire? Be specific in your answer and use your handout (and other group work on Swift) in answering this question. Quote from the definition of Satire as well as from the two attached columns.

2B. What do each of these (and treat them separately) have in common with Swift’s work (be specific)? Are there any differences? How does the nationalities or ethnic origins of the authors (Swift, Ebele Onwueme, Royko) play a part in the controversy surrounding their work? How is Swift different, then? Now a bit more subtle: what effect does the the author’s ethnic origin have on the satire targets (for instance, Swift targeted the English, not the Irish with “A Modest Proposal.”) Who will read (and possibly be affected) the satire?

2C. Should work such as Royko’s or Swift’s be suppressed – either by the public at large or by their respective newspapers? In the summer of 2008, The New Yorker magazine featured a cover that portrayed Barack and Michelle Obama as terrorists – the outcry from the public was immediate and furious – with calls for a boycott of the magazine.- The Obama Campaign said this:"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.

On the other hand, a senior editor of The New Yorker said this, “Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover,"Explain which side you agree with and why? Though this is a very emotional issue try to be as specific as possible in your answer. Be sure to not be dismissive of the hurt that words (or pictures) can generate.

3. How important is it to know the target of the attempted satire? Be specific. Is the target clear in the two modern examples? Why or why not? For example, in the political cartoon the target (as stated by the cartoonist) is the use of deception (photo montages) to give incoming students an impression of diversity. What is the effect of that “nonclarity?” What if a reader saw the target of “A Modest Proposal” as the eating habits of the rich English rather than their treatment and dismissal of the Irish poor? Or The New Yorker cover as targeting the Obamas imagined leftist ties?

4. What is the fundamental difference in reading a piece of satire written two hundred and fifty years ago with reading something that satirizes events today? What specific pieces of “A Modest Proposal” or “Gulliver’s Travels” could you see as being offensive to people when they were written. Find at least one specific quote from someone who objects to Royko’s column or Onwueme’s cartoon and relate it to an incident, event, or character from Swift that they might have said the same thing about. Should satire be taught as something distant (should all literature)? Finally, poll your group members (and write down one specific idea from each) on the following question: Should society avoid publishing and/or reading ideas and commentary that may offend? Why or why not? Are “reader representatives” (see Hass column) a good idea?

5. Pull out your group work handout from “A Modest Proposal” – what link can you link to that sheet’s question #6. Have what you read and talked about today changed how you answered that question – be specific (think of your two readings). Metaquestion: How does good satire accomplish that same kind of change – and one last very tough idea: what does creating that change have to “get past” (think of what you wrote down in answering questions from today & your previous group work).

Chicago columnist Mike Royko has influenced a number of Latino journalists and columnists over the years with his humorous, often biting columns usually in defense of the working class.

But his spate of columns in February that led to massive protests by Chicago's Latino community has also left more than a few industry followers disillusioned.

"When I've applied for various jobs, people always ask who I emulate and I've always mentioned Royko," said Angelo Figueroa, a columnist for the San Jose Mercury News and editor of its Spanish-language weekly El Nuevo Mundo. "I won't be doing that anymore."

Figueroa said he found Royko's columns insulting, particularly the Feb. 27 column that Royko characterized as a sarcastic endorsement of Pat Buchanan for president. In it he wrote, "There is no reason for Mexico to be such a mess except that it is run by Mexicans, who have clearly established that they don't know what the heck they are doing." He also wrote, "Just name one thing that Mexico has done this century that has been of any genuine use to the rest of this planet. Besides giving us tequila."

"I always admired his writing style and use of humor," said syndicated columnist Roberto Rodríguez. "But this wasn't effective humor. The bigger problem was that he didn't understand the gravity of what he said. He could have apologized but instead he added fuel to the fire."

Figueroa said he was equally offended that Royko's editors let the columns run. "As a columnist, there are always some things that you write that you may regret. But this was more than going out on a limb. It was jumping off a cliff."

That piece and subsequent Royko columns on Florida's Cuban community and so-called apology columns led to demonstrations March 1, March 3 and March 22 by members of the city's Latino community.

A March 5 letter from NAHJ President Gilbert Bailón to Chicago Tribune executive vice president and editor Howard Tyner called Royko's column "an irrational tirade laden with racist remarks about Mexicans and Mexico (beaners, sleaze bag rulers, surplus citizens, corrupt narco-state).

"As journalists we recognize good satire and sharp political commentary," Bailón wrote. "His recent columns were more of a diatribe. His apology made matters worse."

Unlike the demands made by community leaders and protesters, Bailón's letter did not ask that Royko be dismissed but did seek more oversight of Royko's columns by editors.

NAHJ Executive Director Zita Arocha met with Tyner March 21 in Chicago and urged him to recruit more young Latinos to work for the paper, promote Latinos to management positions and offer professional development opportunities to those already working there.

"I had a sense that he took our concerns and recommendations seriously," Arocha said. "He didn't indicate whether the company will implement our recommendations."

But he did say the paper would open its doors to students participating in the NAHJ student campus and newspaper projects, she said. Prior to the Royko incident, the paper had pledged to fully support the NAHJ convention. It is also sponsoring a plenary session on "New Media."

Still, the paper's statement of support for Royko's Feb. 27 column in the initial stages of the controversy led 14 Latino staff members to sign an open letter to Tribune President and Publisher Jack Fuller and Tyner registering their "disbelief and deep distress" with the paper's position.

"I have no illusions that this will hurt the Tribune's credibility in ways that will take a long time to overcome," said George de Lama, associate managing editor for foreign/national news/ an 18-year Tribune veteran and one of those who signed the letter.

"This is a difficult issue for the paper," he added. "They are trying to balance our staunch support for the First Amendment with what is beyond the bounds of common decency. Initially they handled it clumsily."

Royko's remarks did not go unnoticed by advertisers. About 12 advertisers pulled ads from the paper's free Spanish-language weekly newspaper "Exito." Exito Editor Alfredo Lanier said the paper has regained many of those advertisers. Lanier, Tyner, Fuller and Exito Publisher Luis Lewin have been meeting with community leaders since the initial protest.

"There may be a silver lining in that it has brought people together who have never sat down with each other," Lanier said. "It's painful shock treatment but over the long term it sensitizes you to the things that need to be done."

Questions regarding controversial cartoon by Jen Hass

As the newly appointed Reader's Representative for The Minnesota Daily, my job is to explain the policies and inner workings of this organization to the public, as well as to clarify and criticize the paper's professional and ethical decisions. There hasn't been much time to kick up my feet, snooze off or eat bon-bons so far. In fact, I've been positively bewildered. Sorting through letters and phone calls on Nader, no-fire zones, Canadian health care and the whole debate over Carlson students being brainiacs or blockheads takes a lot out of a person.

The most intriguing of all these topics, however, surrounds the recent controversy over an editorial cartoon published by the Daily. To bring everyone up to speed, a cartoon published on the Daily's Oct. 17 editorial page depicts the president of a university with his white face and hands painted black. He is talking to his receptionist, saying, "No calls this morning. I have to go pose for one of those P.R. photos showing what a diverse university we have!"

Its intended purpose is to mock decisions made at higher-level institutions of education to cut and paste photos of African-Americans on to their marketing material that usually exhibits only white students. About a month ago, just this type of scandal unraveled at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the cartoon artist, Pete Wagner, sees this type of trend gaining popularity.

A number of letters expressed the indelible harm created by this cartoon. Ebele Onwueme, a University student, pointed out in a letter published Oct.19, "... the use of caricature not only opened up old wounds, but seemed to be a slap in the face as well, even if the author was trying to point out an obvious discrepancy on diversity issues." A number of staff members added Oct. 20, "The message was disrespectful of all African-Americans on this campus, and frankly of people of all races and ethnicities who reject derogatory images of African-Americans." By their view, diversity is shown as nothing more than a minstrel act.

Since the publication of this cartoon, important editorial policies have been scrutinized. Before this incident, a political cartoon was rarely sent back to the artist to be re-created, toned down or manipulated in any way. Either it was accepted or rejected by the news editor in order to respect the nature of the cartoonist's work as an independent commentator on political events.

However, the Daily now applies a set of criteria to each cartoon, subjecting it to editing like the rest of the paper's content. For instance, the cartoon should be timely and address current political issues, the purpose of the cartoon should be clear, and the cartoon should be relevant to the audience. If these criteria are not met, the cartoon can be sent back for revisions and resubmission.

By these measures, Daily staff members explain that the Oct. 17 cartoon does not pass muster. Because of its lack of timeliness and its vague purpose, numerous individuals in the University community believed that President Mark Yudof was pictured in the cartoon, which was not the case. Also, since one event being referred to by the cartoon at the University of Wisconsin had occurred weeks before, the meaning of the message became somewhat lost among the Daily's audience.

Pete Wagner defends his work by emphasizing the value of an open marketplace of ideas and the merits of free speech and press. He considers these criticisms "intellectual McCarthyism" and an attempt "to succeed in infecting the population on and off campus with satirical illiteracy by demonizing anyone who disagrees with their particular prescription for curing the disease of racism in America," which is to throw any caricature of face-painting out the window.

By this logic, damning a negative image does not end racism by any means. In fact, Wagner claims such reactions have been "proven by history and by social psychological and communication research to do nothing but add fuel to the power of those same images." Wagner also believes this type of censorship produces a chilling effect in society, depriving others from expressing themselves freely both as artists and political commentators.

The concept of political correctness obviously does not transfer well into an editorial environment. But caricatures are a legitimate feature of political commentary, according to the University of Minnesota's media ethics professor William Babcock. He adds, "The editorial cartoonist's job is to make a point with exaggeration." In this area of the newspaper, both the audience and publisher agree that greater latitude shall be given to the writer or artist to use more dramatic imagery and language than are present in news stories. Even biting commentary has a purpose that might otherwise be missed if it is sanitized for the audience.

Perhaps from a certain perspective this is a tasteless cartoon, but the idea of "tasteless" is difficult to pin down. Is it tasteless to depict anyone painting their face, even if its intent was to denounce institutions that makes themselves seem "diverse" when in fact they might not be, as in this case? If we reject this cartoon, should we also reject a recent film directed by Spike Lee called "Bamboozled," that also depicts face painting? Should anything feared to cause "offense" to any group or individual be pulled before publication? To all of these questions, I vote a resounding "No."

Yet I agree that this cartoon harkens back to "Amos and Andy" type of caricatures that might well be better left forgotten. This cartoon is not overtly racist by any means, but it nevertheless demonstrates an oversight in the media that produces injury to its readership. Professor Babcock stresses that the media should, in any case, carefully examine news content, whether it is located on the front page or the editorial page -- including cartoons. Additionally, he argues the media should not assume the audience knows as much about political and social issues as people working in the news industry and tailor messages accordingly. Hopefully, improved clarity and inspection of media content will lead us down a path of mutual understanding.

Even so, we will never be in complete agreement on what makes up the totality of "offensive" cartoons, caricatures or news content. Nor can we expect fallible creatures such as editors, writers and cartoonists to imagine all of the possible interpretations of their work, especially given the limited amount of time that they have to re-create the newspaper each day.

Given all of the complexities of race, fairness and editorializing, it is a small miracle that any event, idea or picture is ever sufficiently relayed to the public at large through a newspaper. But it is our duty as students and citizens to call attention to what might be considered derogatory and to remind the media of our standards for respecting diversity. To call for the outright censorship of any and all images of a certain racial tone is overstepping our bounds. My suggestion is to use incidents such as this to discuss the historical, contextual and symbolic interpretations (and misinterpretations) of images so we can arrive at better solutions to racial tensions that might otherwise be ignored.