'I believe that editorial cartoonists are vital for civic debate and have an essential role in journalism'

Maandag 14 april sprak cartoonist Anne Telnaes de jaarlijkse persvrijheidslezing uit. Ann Telnaes maakt redactionele cartoons, is winnaar van onder andere de Pulitzerprijs en de Herblock-prijs.

Ze werkte ruim 16 jaar voor The Washington Post en nam daar recentelijk ontslag nadat een cartoon die ze had ingediend, werd afgewezen omdat deze kritiek had op onder anderen Jeff Bezos, de eigenaar van deze krant.

De lezing is in het Engels en lees je integraal hieronder.

Persvrijheidslezing, 14 april 2025

On Jan 3, 2025 I quit the Washington Post after working there for over 16 years. I had submitted to my editor for approval a cartoon rough where I criticized billionaire tech titans and media owners for trying to curry favor with incoming President Trump, all to protect their lucrative government contracts and to eliminate regulations. These billionaires donated millions for his inauguration, posted fawning congratulatory tweets, and made pilgrimages to his Florida residence Mar a Lago. The figures in the cartoon were Facebook & Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, AI CEO Sam Altman, owner of the Los Angeles Times Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Walt Disney Company which owns ABC News, and the owner of the Washington Post Jeff Bezos- all on bended knee in front of the Trump temple. The cartoon rough was rejected outright by the editorial page editor with no convincing rationale. As the respected and recently departed Washington Post journalist Ruth Marcus wrote in The New Yorker magazine, “The decision to kill it was an instance of obeying in advance”.

I did not make this decision lightly. When Trump won re-election I knew his second presidency would be much more dangerous than his first for our democracy and I was determined to continue drawing cartoons holding him and his administration to account.

I believe that editorial cartoonists are vital for civic debate and have an essential role in journalism. I have always taken my responsibilities as an editorial cartoonist seriously... but didn’t feel I could do that if I continued working for the Washington Post.

Writing on my Substack explaining my departure, I mentioned that I didn’t think my leaving would create much of a stir or that anyone would even notice because I’m just a cartoonist. To my great surprise, the news immediately went viral not just in the United States, but in other countries throughout the world.

Having now had a few months to process this unexpected and overwhelming response, I don’t think just because a single cartoon was killed by an editor wanting to appease his boss was the reason why so many people reacted in anger. I believe it was part of something larger, something which had been building up with the growing threats to democracy ever since Trump was reelected. The outrage was a response to the overall betrayal of a free press and free speech.

Why would a cartoon criticizing these billionaires, rather than a written column expressing the same point of view cause such a visceral response? Because cartoons are universal- every human being responds to these seemingly simple drawings. They transcend language and class. Everyone, from the highly educated to the illiterate, can relate to and see themselves in cartoons. That’s why autocrats especially, do not like editorial cartoons. They are the great equalizer and autocrats don’t like being laughed at.

And while everyone is familiar with cartoons, not everyone understands the role of an editorial cartoonist. Our job is to expose abuses of power and injustices committed by governments and institutions. Humor and satire are important tools we use but our primary purpose is to express a point of view, not just to be funny. With ridicule, irony, and exaggeration we provoke, challenge, irritate and frankly, make powerful people angry. And specifically because of the visual language we use, cartoonists will always be first in the line of fire when controversial subjects are being debated and free speech is threatened.

As a member of the advisory board for the Geneva based Freedom Cartoonists Foundation, as well as a former board member of Cartoonists Rights, and an original member of Cartooning for Peace, I have watched my overseas colleagues risk their livelihoods and sometimes even their lives to expose injustices and hold their countries’ leaders accountable. Here are some of the current cartoonists at risk these organizations are monitoring:

In Egypt the cartoonist Ashram Omar has been held in “pre trial detention” with no due process for over 8 months. Ashram is a contributor for Al-Manassa where his editorial cartoons have focused on the debt crisis and electrical blackouts in Egypt. As reported on the Cartoonists Rights website, Ashram is accused of joining a terrorist group, publishing fake news, and abuse of social media, with no evidence presented. Ashram’s wife was also arrested and briefly held as well.

A Turkish cartoonist, Zehra Omeroglu, is facing a possible 3 years in prison for a so-called obscene cartoon created during the Covid-19 pandemic. Turkey’s Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Services determined that a cartoon of Zehra's which ran in a humor magazine was offensive and represented criminal “obscenity”.

Iranian artist Atena Farghadani has been targeted for her work for years. In 2015 she was first arrested for a cartoon commenting on a law which would have set Iranian women’s reproductive health back decades. In the cartoon Atena drew members of the Iranian parliament with the heads of monkeys and goats. She was arrested and beaten during a nine hour interrogation and sentenced to prison for over 12 years. Fortunately, because of international pressure by cartoonists and human rights organizations, Atena was released and is currently out of harm's way but the threat of her being targeted again is still very real.

While editorial cartoonists and satirists in the United States haven’t had to deal with risk of imprisonment -yet - there is a different danger that looms with Trump as president. When he was first elected in 2016, I was just starting my term as president for the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists. My concern then was Trump’s notoriously thin skin when it came to being ridiculed and I worried that this would result in him targeting cartoonists. Although he threatened to change the libel laws against journalists, he never got around to getting rid of the cartoonists.

But now in his second administration, he doesn’t need to. American publishers and editors are doing it for him by Obeying in Advance. As with my own experience at the Washington Post, publishers with no feelings of obligation to protecting a free press and who are more concerned with protecting their financial interests, are making sure there is little or no criticism of Trump. His litigious tendencies have now spread to his supporters so cartoonists and satirists risk losing their livelihoods because of defamation suits against them, which require time and money to fight in court.

But in the past, the Supreme Court of the United States has protected the role of editorial cartoonists. In the 1988 Hustler v. Falwell case, the justices heard arguments about a parody advertisement in Hustler magazine that targeted Jerry Falwell, a politically active Christian Fundamentalist minister. This was a pivotal case for American editorial cartoonists because it dealt with the First Amendment protecting free speech and a free press. This case, although not specifically about cartoons, had ramifications for editorial cartoonists since we use satire and caricature in our political commentary. The court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech bars allowing public figures to recover damages against those who comment on their actions. As then Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in the opinion, “Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate.”

If you’re still unconvinced that editorial cartoons and satire have an important role in a free press and democracy , let me leave you with this thought:

It isn’t that much of a stretch to go from the silencing of a cartoonist through threats or legal actions, to a broader censoring of free speech . Maybe you and your friends are just sitting around having coffee, talking about politics. Maybe you tell a joke about the president or prime minister, or even just about a local politician. Maybe someone reports you…which results in you having to answer questions from the authorities about your political beliefs. And the next time you don’t tell that joke or talk freely in a public setting.

Editorial cartoonists and satirists are a barometer for all our free speech rights. A silenced cartoonist is an indicator and a warning to us all of an unhealthy environment for freedom of expression. Let us remember and protect editorial cartoonists & satirists this World Press Freedom Day.

Thank you.

Podcast Persvrijheidslezing

Na het uitspreken van de persvrijheidslezing werd Ann Telnaes geinterviewd door voormalig NOS Amerika-correspondent Marieke de Vries. De lezing zowel als het interview zijn terug te luisteren in de podcast van Beeld & Geluid.