Zimpapers Logo

Above is a cartoon published at the height of the Salarygate scandal which also coincided with the Zifa elections. It is the prerogative of the editor to approve or reject a cartoon

Editorial cartoonists do not always have the best of relations with the editors that approve their work.
Once an editorial cartoon is drawn, the cartoonist normally takes the composition to editors for approval.
It is the discretion of the editor whether or not to approve the cartoon.
For that reason, cartoonists sometimes feel that the decision to reject their work is not always the best for their art.

Cartoonist Nina Paley declared, “I am highly politicised and reflect my political concerns rather than the concerns of the paper or the editor”, while another cartoonist, Jimmy Margulies, in an apparent reference to his fellow cartoonists, stressed, “many people are using their creativity to sell other people’s messages, and I don’t want to do that; as a cartoonist, I use my creativity to sell my own message”.

These two are some of the few editorial cartoonists that are given “free reign” by their editors. There are also some that work with somewhat reluctant editors.
John Trever of the Albuquerque Sentinel is one. Although he occasionally runs a sketch past his editors for an opinion, Trever makes his own decisions about what and how he draws.

Others, however, do not enjoy the same privileges. Asked if he feels editorial cartoons should follow one format or the other, Mike Smith, another editorial cartoonist, instead remarked: “The real debate should be over the level of guts the editor has to run what the artist creates.”

The uneasy relationship that exists between the artist and the editor is well chronicled, as “personalities or specific topics aside, there are intrinsic conflicts of interest between cartoonists and editors”.

Some researchers suggest the simmering tensions are in part caused by the clash of professions, as a cartoonist who is primarily an artist, has to send his or her work to an editor, a trained journalist, for approval.

Because editors are word people, they are more comfortable with words and “the civilisation that language brings”.
Signe Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Daily News says her editor rather unwittingly calls her “Attack Quaker”, one preoccupied with aggressive methods of editorial cartooning.

However, editors’ stance is not at all surprising, as they by and large, tend to avoid offending readers.
Cartoonist Linda Boileau sees the problem as emanating from the significance of the editorial cartoon to the newspaper.

She views the editorial cartoon as “the heart of the paper, prominently featured on the editorial page where the newspaper displays its conscience”.
Because of this, she argues, editorial cartoons invariably attract the attention of the editors.

It is not all gloomy for the cartoonists though. Mike Shelton of the Orange County Register admits, “editors do disappoint in some cases“, but “sometimes they surprise me – sometimes they print cartoons I thought never would get printed”.

Cartoonist Wilkinson’s assertions that “my cartoon is strictly my own production, tolerated but not necessarily endorsed by the paper” provides ample evidence that though censorship exists at this level, some newspapers do publish some cartoons that may not have been enthusiastically embraced by the paper.
To circumvent the problem of censorship at work, some cartoonists do a bit of “marketing”.

Dana Summers of the Orlando Sentinel admits that she “usually sells the idea that she likes the best and they usually choose it”.
Steve Sack from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, though stressing that the decision is always his own, says “he likes to avoid making up his mind until he hears what others have to say”.

Sack, however, admits, “no matter what you do, somebody will always have a different opinion”.
Every editor is different.

In Zimbabwe, I have personally come across a wide range of newspaper editors.
Some are overtly disinterested in the art form and find the responsibility of deciding whether or not the cartoon is good enough for their paper a rather tedious exercise.

For an editorial cartoonist, such editors have no ability to inspire them to do better because there is no exchange of ideas or opinions on the general appearance of the cartoons.

Editors know the direction their papers would want to go and they know the editorial policy by heart, therefore their opinions on editorial cartoons would be invaluable.

Other editors show enthusiasm and are willing to give their opinions or ideas on editorial cartoons.
This ensures that whatever comes out of the newspaper has the full endorsement of the newspaper’s most senior personnel and should anything like a lawsuit come knocking on the newspaper’s door, there is shared responsibility on the way forward.

Creative editors are always the ideal companions for cartoonists, because every imaginative individual knows how to leave room for external opinions, and how to “edit” them and still come up with an original work that may be appreciated by the readers.

One annoying group of editors has this misconstrued opinion that the cartoonist’s work is only to draw whatever idea they come up with.
Believing that every idea coming out of their head is gold, they employ a cartoonist only to illustrate the “visions” they command them to draw.

The cartoonist may become confused and unsure of how to best illustrate visions devoid of any of his or her ideas.
The relationship between editors and cartoonists requires a balance whereby one party is willing to listen to the other; where ideas are freely shared between the two sides.