IN MY OCT. 16 column ("Offended read-ers shouldn't assume editorial cartoons only aim at humor"), I had supported the use of an editorial cartoon in addressing the presence of an armed robber near Grounds. In particular, I took on the public perception that cartoons are always about humor, a perception that excludes cartoons from serious commentary, and belies the direct visual and visceral impact cartoons can have when commenting on matters of importance. The editorial cartoon had been more about warning the community to be alert than about humor, with no apparent "gag" or joke.
There is no denying that there are times when humor is inappropriate, when it capitalizes on an event in which there is no humor to be found. Last Monday's "Sketchy" serves as an example of when humor may go too far. "Sketchy" ran a comic at "half-strip" in "honor" of the U.S.S. Cole, the ship which was bombed in a Yemen harbor, resulting in the death of 17 American sailors and the wounding of 37 other shipmates. Just glancing at the first frame, the idea itself is not patently offensive, perhaps it is even touching. But the remainder of the strip provided no apparent commentary, instead utilizing the "half-strip" for the purposes of the old and tired "buried punchline" gag, where the phrase critical to the meaning of the strip is obscured by some device.
Mr. Zehmer's strip, in my opinion, crossed the line between poor taste and offensiveness. To capitalize on the death of U.S. military personnel, who are many miles from their homes and families, and who died in a horrific blast that penetrated the armored hull of their ship, for the purpose of an easy "gag" goes too far.
It is a strip that was truly shocking. It was not shocking in the way that avant-garde cartoons often are, stretching the readers perceptions of what constitutes a cartoon, or what topics a cartoon can meaningfully address. Instead, it was shocking in its callous and indifferent treatment of a tragedy. Had the strip been about the bombing of a schoolyard of kindergarten students, would Mr. Zehmer have done the same? I think not. Mr. Zehmer should have shown some common sense and restraint.
Another area on which I would like to comment is the lead editorial. The lead editorial is, according to The Cavalier Daily's style guide, "an unsigned editorial that appears daily on the left-hand side of the second-to-last page of the first section, expresses the institutional opinion of The Cavalier Daily. That opinion, written by the executive editor, is decided by the Managing Board." Part of Wednesday's lead editorial praised the P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society for choosing to refrain from the tradition of presenting one member of the University community with a smashed pumpkin, to represent their criticism of that individual as someone whose actions were somehow adverse to the University.
It is appropriate for The Cavalier Daily's Managing Board to comment on such an act by the society, and kudos to the P.U.M.P.K.I.N. Society for not being hidebound by a divisive and dubious tradition are appropriate as well. However, the P.U.M.P.K.I.N.s also award whole pumpkins to individuals and organizations in recognition of their positive contributions to the University. This year, the recipients included Brian Haluska, the Executive Editor of The Cavalier Daily, and the person charged with the responsibility for writing the lead editorial.
Was Mr. Haluska so bedazzled by the recognition of his significant positive contributions to the University that he felt compelled to give some positive attention to the P.U.M.P.K.I.N.s? Unlikely. Mr. Haluska, who is my primary contact for interaction with The Cavalier Daily, seems a thoughtful and professional individual who is dedicated to making the paper the best it can be. In addition, as the lead editorial reflects the institutional opinion of The Cavalier Daily, it is not Mr. Haluska alone who determines the content or viewpoint of the lead editorial. The problem remains that there is still a conflict of interest when an editorial praises not only an individual who is essential to the mission of the paper, but also the very person who plays a role in the creation of that editorial. It is critical that the Managing Board avoids even the appearance of bias, conflict of interest, or other impropriety.
The solution in this case is very simple: disclosure. The level of the conflict of interest here is relatively mild. It is not as if they were praising a company in which they held stock, or were providing significant positive coverage of University events in exchange for seats in the President's box at football games. The simple and appropriate solution would have been to disclose that the society had honored Mr. Haluska this year. An acknowledgment of this fact would have avoided the risk of perceived bias or conflict.
(Brent Garland can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | May 16, 2024Retirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | May 16, 2024My time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | May 15, 2024My time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
