FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

In the Old Days, When the Los Angeles Times Stood Up For Cartoonists

by

Nearly three weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times fired me as its editorial cartoonist at the request of powerful local interests. That request came from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), which provided a 14-year-old audiotape to make their case that I ought to be dismissed for lying about the circumstances of my 2001 arrest for jaywalking.

The tape turned out to be shady: unauthenticated, unintelligible, probably spliced/edited, and possibly partially erased. Fortunately for me, audio enhancment un-erased it — and cleared my name among those who took the time to listen to it.

Despite this turn of events, editorial page editor Nick Goldberg refused to reconsider his decision, or to issue a retraction. He even refuses to talk to me! Clearly the newspaper’s close financial and political ties to the LAPD and its police union, the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), make it impossible for them to walk back one of the most extreme examples of defamation by a major newspaper anyone can remember.

Pretty shabby.

Interestingly, the Los Angeles Times hasn’t always been so unsupportive of cartoonists. Here are a few examples of the paper in the city of angels being on the side of the angels:

Paul Conrad

In 1968, Los Angeles mayor Sam Yorty filed a $2 million libel lawsuit against Los Angeles Times editorial cartoonist Paul Conrad. In today’s brave new world of accommodationist
snowdenralljournalism, the paper might have kicked Conrad to the curb for causing trouble with the local political establishment.

Times publisher Otis Chandler not only kept Conrad on staff, he shelled out big bucks for Conrad’s legal defense.

It wasn’t Conrad’s last brush with power.

Another Conrad cartoon, criticizing Union Oil Co. president Fred Hartley for exporting oil to Guam during the 1974 energy crisis, prompted another libel suit. Again, Chandler ordered Times lawyers to defend Conrad.

Conrad won both cases. Because: First Amendment.

“The courtroom victory only enhanced the image within the Times of Conrad as a towering, practically invulnerable figure,” the Times wrote in his 2010 obituary. The paper bragged about how supportive it was of their cartoonist, known for hard-hitting work. “In the 30 years between his hiring and his 1993 retirement, his bosses killed only a handful of Conrad’s cartoons.”

Charlie Hebdo

On January 7, 2015, heavily armed gunmen stormed the offices of the Paris satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and wounding others. Not everyone defended the dead and dying cartoonists. They’d drawn cartoons plainly aimed at offending religious people. This made people uncomfortable, even liberal cartoonists like “Doonesbury” creator Garry Trudeau. (Interestingly, the Times refused to run Trudeau’s legendary “Inside Reagan’s Brain” series of 1986.)

Not the LA Times.

In an editorial titled “Paris terrorists aimed at freedom of expression, we must defend it,” The Los Angeles Times wrote: “Freedom of expression includes the right to criticize and, yes, ridicule the cherished beliefs of others.”

The editors went on to defend the cartoonists’ right to risk offending people’s religious sensibilities.

“In a free society, the answer to offensive speech about any topic is more speech, not legal reprisals and certainly not violence or vengeance.”

Also, the Times commissioned — um, this is awkward — then-editorial cartoonist Ted Rall to write an essay remembering “Charlie Hebdo’s martyrs for free speech.”

Anti-Muslim Cartoon Contest in Texas

On May 6, 2015, two ISIS-inspired gunmen were shot when they appeared at the site of an Islamophobic cartoon contest sponsored by Pamela Geller in Garland, Texas with the evident aim of massacring the cartoonists and other attendees.

As with Charlie Hebdo, the cartoons involved were intended to provoke an angry reaction from Muslims. Nevertheless, The Times came down firmly on the side of free expression, no matter what.

“If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?” the editorial board, headed by editorial page editor Nick Goldberg, wondered aloud.

“The short answer is no — beyond the narrow exceptions the Supreme Court has acknowledged in its interpretations of the 1st Amendment. Those exceptions include face-to-face ‘fighting words’ likely to be interpreted as ‘an invitation to exchange fisticuffs’ and statements ‘directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and [are] likely to incite or produce such action.’”

As the Times’ editors noted in these cases, a commitment to free speech requires standing by cartoonists even — especially — when they produce work that offends people.

Except, apparently, the LAPD.

More articles by:

Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the book “Snowden,” the biography of the NSA whistleblower.

February 20, 2018
Nick Pemberton
The Gun Violence the Media Shows Us and the State Violence They Don’t
John Eskow
Sympathy for the Drivel: On the Vocabulary of President Nitwit
John Steppling
Trump, Putin, and Nikolas Cruz Walk Into a Bar…
John W. Whitehead
America’s Cult of Violence Turns Deadly
Ishmael Reed
Charles F. Harris: He Popularized Black History
Will Podmore
Paying the Price: the TUC and Brexit
George Burchett
Plumpes Denken: Crude thinking
Binoy Kampmark
The Caring Profession: Peacekeeping, Blue Helmets and Sexual Abuse
Lawrence Wittner
The Trump Administration’s War on Workers
David Swanson
The Question of Sanctions: South Africa and Palestine
Walter Clemens
Murderers in High Places
Dean Baker
How Does the Washington Post Know that Trump’s Plan Really “Aims” to Pump $1.5 Trillion Into Infrastructure Projects?
February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Mueller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OXFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
David Rosen
Donald Trump’s Pathetic Sex Life
Susan Roberts
Are Modern Cities Sustainable?
Joyce Nelson
Canada vs. Venezuela: Have the Koch Brothers Captured Canada’s Left?
Geoff Dutton
America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries
Mike Whitney
The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation
Joseph Natoli
In the Post-Truth Classroom
John Eskow
One More Slaughter, One More Piece of Evidence: Racism is a Terminal Mental Disease
John W. Whitehead
War Spending Will Bankrupt America
Robert Fantina
Guns, Violence and the United States
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Latest Insulting Proposal: Converting SNAP into a Canned Goods Distribution Program
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Zaps Oxygen
John Laforge
$1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups
CJ Hopkins
The War on Dissent: the Specter of Divisiveness
Peter A. Coclanis
Chipotle Bell
Anders Sandström – Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen
Ways Forward for the Left
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Winning Hearts and Minds
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail