Arts and entertainment  |  Profiles  |  UW and the community

February 27, 2015

UW alum David Horsey discusses Charlie Hebdo, editorial cartooning in volatile times

David Horsey is a two-time Pulitzer prize-winning editorial cartoonist who graduated from the University of Washington with a bachelor’s degree in communication in 1975. Starting out as cartoonist for and then editor of the UW Daily, Horsey worked for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for 30 years before joining the Los Angeles Times in 2012. He answered a few questions about his work, the Charlie Hebdo shootings and provocative editorial cartooning.

Q: What were your initial feelings about the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and have they changed at all since the Jan. 7, 2015, event?

A: My wife called to me from the front room when she saw the first news reports about the shooting and I hurried over to see what was going on. It was, of course, disturbing that cartoonists were the targets, but my first reaction was the same as I have to any big news event: What do I want to say about this? In the subsequent days, though, I received many messages from friends and readers saying things like “are you OK?” and “stay safe” and “we’re with you.” It made me realize that people really do care about what I do and what other cartoonists do. Our work matters.

And it also made me wonder why there have never been violent incidents like this in the United States. Every day, I offend someone – and quite a few of them own guns. You’d think that some nutcase somewhere would have been inspired to go after an American cartoonist, but it has never happened. I think that says something about how free speech is ingrained into the American sense of identity. Even those who angrily disagree with me are not inclined to try to shut me up.

Q: You wrote in a Los Angeles Times column that although Charlie Hebdo’s rough satire was not quite your style, you “appreciate the principle on which [cartoonist and editor] Stéphane Charbonnier took a stand.” Would you elaborate?

A: Charbonnier believed in an absolute right to free speech, even if it outrages some people. His purpose in continuing to publish cartoons that offended many devout people was to reassert that principle. I respect him for standing strong for his convictions.

Where I depart from him is that, for myself, I believe exercise of free speech carries with it the responsibility to consider the effect on other people. I am not interested in causing offense simply to prove I can do it. I want to communicate with my readers and deliver a compelling argument. If the image I create is so provocative that it undercuts what I am trying to say, then it seems counterproductive.

Q: Henri Roussel, a founding editor of Charlie Hebdo, has been quoted saying his friend and colleague Charbonnier endangered his staff by stubbornly releasing ever-more provocative cartoons. What is your reaction to this?

A: Roussel may have a good point. As I said, Charbonnier was maintaining an absolutist position on free expression that was, on one level, admirable. But he certainly must have known every new provocative cartoon was heightening the risk for his staff.

It is a hard call. It may be prudent to back off in the face of violent extremists, but does that not give extremism a victory?

Q: Is it possible for an editorial cartoonist to go too far, in your view? And if so, where is the line and how does one recognize it?

A: Yes, it is possible for an editorial cartoonist to go too far, but the question then is, what should the consequence be? Obviously, it should not be violent death or any kind of physical abuse, imprisonment or punishment. Nor, in most cases, should a cartoonist be fired from his job.

Everyone – from publishers to the politically correct – needs to recognize that an editorial cartoonist’s job is to exaggerate, to stretch factual reality and to ridicule in the service of sustaining debate about important issues in society. He or she must be free to carry out that job without fear or censorship. On the rare occasion when a cartoonist crosses way over the line, he will recognize it by the depth of the negative reaction rolling back at him from his readers. That will probably sting enough that the cartoonist will find a smarter way to make his points in the future.

Q: How has the world of editorial cartooning been changed by events such as the Charlie Hebdo shootings?

A: I’m not sure that it has changed all that much. There are really two realms of editorial cartooning. In one — the USA, Canada, Australia and the U.K., in particular — cartoonists enjoy both freedom and safety as they do their work. In the other world — Africa, the Middle East, much of Asia and parts of Latin America — cartooning has always been a dangerous profession with cartoonists being jailed, assaulted, killed and exiled for daring to draw pictures that offend. In Europe, it seems the risk is greater than it once was, at least when cartoonists confront radical Islam.

Q: Could you name one or two of your favorite editorial cartoonists, past or present?

A: Number one on my list is Pat Oliphant. I think he may be the all-time best. He was a huge influence on me as I was developing my art in my student days and just about every cartoonist of the baby boom generation would say the same. The second is Herblock, whom I only came to appreciate in recent years. When I was younger, I considered his drawing style much too old-fashioned, but, after being involved with a recent documentary film that chronicled his career, I came to realize Herblock epitomized the kind of commitment to social justice and truth that should be the driving force of all political commentary.

Q: Is there any one editorial cartoon that stuck in your mind since childhood? If so, what was it and why was it so memorable?

A: The one that pops to mind is Bill Mauldin’s wordless image of the statue in the Lincoln Memorial slumping in sorrow following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I was a kid when JFK was killed and it was the most dramatic moment of my young life. Mauldin’s cartoon is forever caught up with that experience, probably because of its simple visual power.

Q: What do you think has been the Internet’s effect on editorial cartooning?

A: In a time when newspapers are in decline and the jobs of editorial cartoonists are in peril, the Internet has provided a new platform for the jugular art. It has allowed cartoonists to stretch their skills and experiment with sound and animation and color and new forms of presentation. And, because page views can be tracked precisely, it has given some cartoonists the hard numbers that show how popular cartoons can be with readers. That’s useful when dealing with editors and publishers who are deciding where to trim the staff.

Q: You mentioned in your column for the Los Angeles Times that “editorial cartoonists in the U.S. are essentially a tame species.” Yet 19th century cartoonists were not shy about depicting Abraham Lincoln as an ape or war adversaries as subhuman beasts. Any thoughts on how they became so tame?

A: I may have slightly overstated the case — there is plenty of excellent political commentary being done by my cartooning compatriots in the U.S. — but as newspapers became less partisan and more inclined to be “family newspapers” throughout the 20^th century, cartoonists felt the pressure to become more bland. Editorial cartoonists became members of editorial boards, quite literally embedded in the establishment.

There were — and are — many cartoonists stating their political beliefs strongly and effectively — but true radicals and rebels, like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, are a very rare species in America. We may believe we are free to say whatever we want to say, but we seldom test the limits.

Q: Have you ever decided not to draw or publish a cartoon because of possible public backlash or threats?

A: No, but I do sometimes take into consideration sensitivities about race and religion. That doesn’t mean I stay away from those subjects — far from it – but, given the dangers of stereotyping, I try to be more sophisticated and precise about how I present my ideas. As I said before, I am more interested in communicating my opinion than in provoking outrage.

Q: Is there a future for editorial cartooning as a profession? 

A: Yes, there will always be a place and a need for editorial cartoonists. Future cartoonists will have to be more creative in finding venues for their work, though. That’s why the Internet is a godsend. No doubt it will be tougher to make a living as an editorial cartoonist, but, for the few knuckleheads who simply cannot resist turning their opinions into pictures, there will always be eager readers. It’s a form of expression that is just too tough to die.

Q: Several decades from now, how would it please you to have your work described?

A: If I am remembered — which is hardly guaranteed – I hope people describe me as a political journalist who specialized in well-rendered images that, at their best, were truly inciteful commentaries on the times in which I lived.

And I hope they forget all the cartoons that were not quite as good as they could have been because I was too busy enjoying the rest of my very fortunate life.

###

• South to Selma: Horsey is participating in the UW Department of Communication’s civil rights pilgrimage through the U.S. south, commemorating 50 years since the “Bloody Sunday” events in Selma, Alabama, in March, 1965. The event is organized by David Domke, professor and chair. For more information on the event, contact Erica Thompson at emt22@uw.edu.

Tag(s): David Horsey • Department of Communication • UW Alumni Association • UW Daily

---