The power of editorial cartoons

There’s something uniquely telling — and infuriating — about editorial cartoons.

Think of a 5-o’clock-shadowed, ski-nosed Richard Nixon forever skulking about in the work of Herbert Block, better known as Herblock. Or the little bird in Pat Oliphant’s cartoons, making snide comments about Democrats and Republicans alike.

Then there’s the granddaddy of them all, Thomas Nast, whose crusading drawings against New York City’s Boss Tweed in the late 19th century enraged Tweed far more than the scathing magazine articles they accompanied.

“My constituents don’t know how to read,” Tweed is said to have thundered at Nast in 1871, “but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures!”

That’s the power of editorial cartoons. In just a few pen strokes and words, a cartoonist can cut to the heart of the matter.

They can also be so cutting that some readers get angry. Which brings us to the cartoons we run in The Journal these days.

Readers today react to cartoons with the same force as their great-great-grandparents did a century and a half ago. And the presidency of Donald Trump has brought that passion to the forefront.

Early in the Trump administration, we would hear from readers who complained that all of our cartoons were critical of President Trump. Which, given that all of our cartoonists — including the conservative ones — hated the president, was pretty close to true.

So to provide balance, Ed Achorn, who edits our opinion pages, added Trump supporter — and Pulitzer Prize winner — Michael Ramirez to our stable of cartoonists. Today, I still hear some complaints that our cartoons are anti-Trump. But I’m more likely to hear from other readers, who view Ramirez as hackneyed and humorless.

And very one-sided. Which, actually, is the point.

Editorial cartoons aren’t meant to be fair or balanced, cartoon by cartoon. In getting across one or two key thoughts, with one drawing, how could they be?

For proof, see the accompanying images by Herblock and Oliphant. They’re cartoons we published in the mid-1970s, but they retain their power — and, I’d bet, their power to raise hackles.

If you liked Herblock, Oliphant or Nast back in the day, they were insightful commentators whose work shed light on complex stories. If you disliked them, they were biased, unfair hacks.

The same is true of Ramirez and the other cartoonists we carry now.

An individual cartoon we run may strike me, too, as unfunny or doltish. But I try to look at the whole picture — the range of cartoons we carry, the voices from various political viewpoints. And, over time, I believe, it balances out — left and right, pro and anti.

That’s the mission of our commentary page — to provide a rich assortment of opinions from across the spectrum.

Lottery results change pages

Starting today, the lottery results move from the Sports section to page A2, every day.

We put the lotteries in Sports years ago, when we had later deadlines in that section. But we now have the same deadline for the whole paper.

Moving the lotteries to Page A2 will allow more results on our Two-Minute Drill page in Sports. It will also prevent readers interested in only the lotteries, and not sports-league standings, from having to hunt for that page, which doesn’t appear in the same place every day.

A tip of the cap to Bill Hamilton of our copy desk, who suggested this change.

— Alan Rosenberg is The Journal’s executive editor.

(401) 277-7409

arosenberg@providencejournal.com

On Twitter: @AlanRosenbergPJ