I think it is quite unlikely that the extremists who committed the most recent disgusting murders of politicians would have been radicalised by a cartoon in the Times (of London).
No, but I do think the image being shared repeatedly on social media including X (e.g. by Andrew Neil) can affect people who don’t read the broadsheets.
If this is the worst thing you are seeing on X and as a result you are radicalised to attempt to murder an SNP politician then, in my opinion, you've not been on X very long. This image is clearly at the very mild end of X content.
I think you are missing the point, about how these things contribute to an overall way of talking and thinking about politicians. It is not just one thing, it is a stream of things that normalise violent ideas.
I think you are overreacting, like complaining about the impact of hearing an old lady at the bus stop saying how she'd like to murder a named politician.
The cartoons are supposed to provoke emotions, that's the whole point of them. If you don't like them, don't read them.
I think you are overreacting, like complaining about the impact of hearing an old lady at the bus stop saying how she'd like to murder a named politician.
The cartoons are supposed to provoke emotions, that's the whole point of them. If you don't like them, don't read them.
That is the kind of patronising and complacent remark that would work well in some right wing press outlets. Congratulations.
Cartoons may provoke, but it is not the case that anything goes. For example in a recent case the Sunday Times withdrew and apologised for a cartoon after complaints were referred to the Press Complaints Commission.
So it is fair to debate this one.
From my perspective it is certainly in bad taste and could contribute to dangerous discourse. Moreover it fails one of the basic requirements for a cartoon. While they can be provocative, they should be funny: they are meant to entertain readers. A row of hanged people is not funny in any way.
Fortunately I'm also free to think that saying disgusting things about politicians is the birthright of those if us who live in a functioning democracy.
Also - there's a very different thing when an anti-Semitic cartoon clearly incites violence against Jews and this cartoon which uses black humour to mock the SNP.
I don't want to live in a society where politicians can't be mocked. Maybe you do.
It's not about whether we can mock politicians, that is, of course, a given. Mocking politicians is IMO an important part of our political process, it tends to be a very bad sign when that becomes impossible.
The question is about whether mocking, or otherwise criticising, politicians uses images of violence against those politicians. There's a massive range of options to mock politicians and others in positions of power that do not suggest violence against them is acceptable.
Fortunately I'm also free to think that saying disgusting things about politicians is the birthright of those if us who live in a functioning democracy.
Really? There are laws in relation to slander and libel, that were extant before either of us was born. You have never been able to say or write anything you like without consequences.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not talking about legal things I don't understand. Clearly there's a difference between saying things at bus stops and in political cartoons and actual incitement to violence.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not talking about legal things I don't understand. Clearly there's a difference between saying things at bus stops and in political cartoons and actual incitement to violence.
Really? Yet in an earlier point you referenced an occasion when:
Fortunately I'm also free to think that saying disgusting things about politicians is the birthright of those if us who live in a functioning democracy.
Also - there's a very different thing when an anti-Semitic cartoon clearly incites violence against Jews and this cartoon which uses black humour to mock the SNP.
And yet Steve Bell was drummed out of the Guardian for an alleged anti-semitic cartoon than was nowhere close to inciting violence.
I agree that there are issues regarding the newspaper (London Times), it's ownership (Murdock), political affiliation (Tory), general ambivilance to all things outside of London, hatred of devolution, etc and so on.
There’s no such newspaper as The London Times. It’s The Times.
I agree that there are issues regarding the newspaper (London Times), it's ownership (Murdock), political affiliation (Tory), general ambivilance to all things outside of London, hatred of devolution, etc and so on.
There’s no such newspaper as The London Times. It’s The Times.
It is usually polite to clarify that one is discussing the newspaper based in London rather than the namesakes from India or Los Angeles.
But fine if you don't want to be polite to readers from other countries, you just carry on imagining everyone else knows what you are talking about.
I agree that there are issues regarding the newspaper (London Times), it's ownership (Murdock), political affiliation (Tory), general ambivilance to all things outside of London, hatred of devolution, etc and so on.
There’s no such newspaper as The London Times. It’s The Times.
It is usually polite to clarify that one is discussing the newspaper based in London rather than the namesakes from India or Los Angeles.
But fine if you don't want to be polite to readers from other countries, you just carry on imagining everyone else knows what you are talking about.
To be fair the Indian and New York Times both have there geographical info in their title. Normally one would say The Times of London if there was a problem. As far as I remember and correct me if I am wrong on international sites The Times means London and the others use their full title
One thing is that while the UK newspapers are all based in London and to a greater or lesser extent do have a London perspective, they are all in theory and more or less in aspiration national newspapers.
There is perhaps more truth than there should be in calling it the London Times, but it's a bit of an insult coming from someone outside the English regions or the other UK nations.
A friend of ours was very impressed that my late mother-in-law used to enjoy polishing off The Times crossword in her 10 minute coffee break.
We never did tell him that The Times was of course The Glasgow Times.
Similarly, my son told us that he'd had a phone call from a reporter from The Times with a posh English accent. We thought that a posh English accent was hardly likely to be an asset for a Times reporter. Turned out he wasn't from The Glasgow Times!
Freedom of Speech isn't absolute in the US. We also have defamation laws that offer protections against libel and slander, but the thrust of 1A Free Speech (lost on many Americans) relates to the illegality of the Federal Government to punish critical speech in all of its forms. Lots of Americans think their free speech is being infringed when it isn't -- what they're really complaining about are the inferred (civil) consequences of making purposefully inflammatory speech, which is altogether different.
As far as this cartoon goes, and again from an American perspective, a few thoughts.
I think it's silly not to repost the cartoon here, or links to the cartoon in question. That kind of see-no-evil, hear-no evil, do-no-evil self-censorship is dangerous, IMO, mostly because it's cowardly, as it was re: the Danish cartoon controversy in 2005, which was a ridiculous worldwide cowering to Islam.
I think a more concerning 'punching down' is the assumption that people can't/won't read enough context/nuance into the cartoon to move beyond a mentality must contribute to murder. It's Art, which has always be open to interpretations, one of which might be that it's okay to act out violence against politicians, but I think in this case there's a lot of work involved in getting there.
At face value, there is no hangman/executioner. The subjects' hands and feet are not bound. There's a look of shock/surprise (still conscious?) on all three previous figures' faces. The fourth is clearly fitting the 'noose' around his own neck: self-inflicted, political suicide seems to be the clearest if not the first interpretation.
Is anyone concerned about potential violence against the artist? Don't think I've read much about that here yet. Seems like that should be much more of an immediate concern (see: 2005 cartoon controversy again, or revisit the attack on Salman Rushdie) than concerns for MPs.
I can't see there being any risk of violence against the artist. Though there may be consequences from his artwork they'll be of the form of being told off by the Press Complaints Commission or potential criminal charges under hate speech legislation. He's not going to find a clan of tartan clad, woad daubed, Scotsmen waving claidheamh-mòr shouting "Freedom!" charging at him.
I can't see there being any risk of violence against the artist. Though there may be consequences from his artwork they'll be of the form of being told off by the Press Complaints Commission or potential criminal charges under hate speech legislation. He's not going to find a clan of tartan clad, woad daubed, Scotsmen waving claidheamh-mòr shouting "Freedom!" charging at him.
It's interesting to me that you'd write-off any potential violence against the artist. I'd at least think you'd say that it'd be equally inappropriate.
It’s all fun and games ‘till in turns into January 6th.
Well, I think the main type of speech that provoked the 1/6 mob was Trump claiming that the election had been stolen. Now, I happen to believe that Trump's particular accusations were bogus as all get-out, but I really wouldn't want a situation where any questioning of election results gets chilled by someone replying "Knock it off, dude! Are you trying to rally a mob into attacking the legislature?!" And doubly so if that admonition is accompanied by threats of legal action against the election-skeptic.
(Though, if you cite named and otherwise obscure individuals as participating in the alleged fraud, it could probably land you a libel suit, is proper.)
It’s all fun and games ‘till in turns into January 6th.
Well, I think the main type of speech that provoked the 1/6 mob was Trump claiming that the election had been stolen.
Many in that audience had been primed to believe him when he said that precisely because of the kind of 'paranoid style' adopted by the media they consumed.
I wouldn't put the cartoon in the same category as Jan 6th, but at the same time stochastic terrorism is a thing and there's sliding scale that leads to it rather than a particular binary.
At face value, there is no hangman/executioner. The subjects' hands and feet are not bound. There's a look of shock/surprise (still conscious?) on all three previous figures' faces. The fourth is clearly fitting the 'noose' around his own neck: self-inflicted, political suicide seems to be the clearest if not the first interpretation.
As I said above, this is my understanding. I don't think it's depicting a lynching. It is implying that being SNP leader has ended badly recently and here comes someone willingly putting their head in the lion's mouth...
I’m struggling to imagine anything like the same reaction being provoked in these parts by an otherwise identical cartoon picturing Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss hanging from a Conservative tree while Rishi Sunak calmly puts his head in a noose as the next in line. Quite the reverse in fact, I imagine it would provoke comments like “I wish those Tory scumbags could really be strung up”.
I’m struggling to imagine anything like the same reaction being provoked in these parts by an otherwise identical cartoon picturing Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss hanging from a Conservative tree while Rishi Sunak calmly puts his head in a noose as the next in line. Quite the reverse in fact, I imagine it would provoke comments like “I wish those Tory scumbags could really be strung up”.
Next on centrists implying the left are hypocrites for things they imagine them doing...
I’m struggling to imagine anything like the same reaction being provoked in these parts by an otherwise identical cartoon picturing Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss hanging from a Conservative tree while Rishi Sunak calmly puts his head in a noose as the next in line. Quite the reverse in fact, I imagine it would provoke comments like “I wish those Tory scumbags could really be strung up”.
Next on centrists implying the left are hypocrites for things they imagine them doing...
@Marvin the Martian has form for this. I've picked him up on it a number of times.
I’m struggling to imagine anything like the same reaction being provoked in these parts by an otherwise identical cartoon picturing Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss hanging from a Conservative tree while Rishi Sunak calmly puts his head in a noose as the next in line. Quite the reverse in fact, I imagine it would provoke comments like “I wish those Tory scumbags could really be strung up”.
Is there an example of such a cartoon published in a major media outlet? It's difficult to be outraged by a hypothetical, but IMO that would be equally unacceptable. I can't speak for everyone, but I've no desire to see any politician really strung up - whether as an execution or suicide. I'd be more than happy to see the voters have their say and turn the Conservative Party into a political irrelevance for a generation (if they manage to bring in new leadership and bring their policies back towards the more generally accepted centre ground, and win enough votes to return to political relevance, even government, in 2035-2040 then good for them).
I’m struggling to imagine anything like the same reaction being provoked in these parts by an otherwise identical cartoon picturing Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss hanging from a Conservative tree while Rishi Sunak calmly puts his head in a noose as the next in line. Quite the reverse in fact, I imagine it would provoke comments like “I wish those Tory scumbags could really be strung up”.
Is there an example of such a cartoon published in a major media outlet? It's difficult to be outraged by a hypothetical, but IMO that would be equally unacceptable. I can't speak for everyone, but I've no desire to see any politician really strung up - whether as an execution or suicide. I'd be more than happy to see the voters have their say and turn the Conservative Party into a political irrelevance for a generation (if they manage to bring in new leadership and bring their policies back towards the more generally accepted centre ground, and win enough votes to return to political relevance, even government, in 2035-2040 then good for them).
As I mentioned before there are many examples. The one I mentioned above, which was ignored at the time, had Truss boiling in a saucepan.
Some of those are certainly out of line (though I don't think I've seen any of them before). The last I'm more bothered by them portraying Starmer as a masked rioter throwing a molotov cocktail. Where's the evidence that any of us responded to these cartoons by wishing they happened for real? You've made that up.
I've got to say that I'd probably have expanded my OP a bit if I'd seen some of those extra cartoons. Brookes is clearly a repeat purveyor of hate in his cartoons. Only redeeming feature seemingly that he doesn't really care who he draws in a manner that incites hatred of politicians.
Quite, I don’t read The Times and I don’t think I’d seen any of those. But I would say my views have changed over time with this, given increasing politically motivated violence.
Comments
The cartoons are supposed to provoke emotions, that's the whole point of them. If you don't like them, don't read them.
I don't want to live in a society where politicians can't be mocked. Maybe you do.
That is the kind of patronising and complacent remark that would work well in some right wing press outlets. Congratulations.
Cartoons may provoke, but it is not the case that anything goes. For example in a recent case the Sunday Times withdrew and apologised for a cartoon after complaints were referred to the Press Complaints Commission.
So it is fair to debate this one.
From my perspective it is certainly in bad taste and could contribute to dangerous discourse. Moreover it fails one of the basic requirements for a cartoon. While they can be provocative, they should be funny: they are meant to entertain readers. A row of hanged people is not funny in any way.
Also: what @Doublethink said.
Fortunately I'm also free to think that saying disgusting things about politicians is the birthright of those if us who live in a functioning democracy.
Also - there's a very different thing when an anti-Semitic cartoon clearly incites violence against Jews and this cartoon which uses black humour to mock the SNP.
The question is about whether mocking, or otherwise criticising, politicians uses images of violence against those politicians. There's a massive range of options to mock politicians and others in positions of power that do not suggest violence against them is acceptable.
Really? There are laws in relation to slander and libel, that were extant before either of us was born. You have never been able to say or write anything you like without consequences.
This is a question of responsibility not freedom.
Really? Yet in an earlier point you referenced an occasion when:
It seems you do think political cartoons can incite violence after all, and recognise that they are different in possible effects from idle chatter.
And yet Steve Bell was drummed out of the Guardian for an alleged anti-semitic cartoon than was nowhere close to inciting violence.
There’s no such newspaper as The London Times. It’s The Times.
It is usually polite to clarify that one is discussing the newspaper based in London rather than the namesakes from India or Los Angeles.
But fine if you don't want to be polite to readers from other countries, you just carry on imagining everyone else knows what you are talking about.
To be fair the Indian and New York Times both have there geographical info in their title. Normally one would say The Times of London if there was a problem. As far as I remember and correct me if I am wrong on international sites The Times means London and the others use their full title
There is perhaps more truth than there should be in calling it the London Times, but it's a bit of an insult coming from someone outside the English regions or the other UK nations.
We never did tell him that The Times was of course The Glasgow Times.
Similarly, my son told us that he'd had a phone call from a reporter from The Times with a posh English accent. We thought that a posh English accent was hardly likely to be an asset for a Times reporter. Turned out he wasn't from The Glasgow Times!
As far as this cartoon goes, and again from an American perspective, a few thoughts.
It is a member of IPSO, which is a self-regulation body funded by media publishers and assessing complaints against the Editors Code.
https://www.ipso.co.uk/
It's interesting to me that you'd write-off any potential violence against the artist. I'd at least think you'd say that it'd be equally inappropriate.
Well, I think the main type of speech that provoked the 1/6 mob was Trump claiming that the election had been stolen. Now, I happen to believe that Trump's particular accusations were bogus as all get-out, but I really wouldn't want a situation where any questioning of election results gets chilled by someone replying "Knock it off, dude! Are you trying to rally a mob into attacking the legislature?!" And doubly so if that admonition is accompanied by threats of legal action against the election-skeptic.
(Though, if you cite named and otherwise obscure individuals as participating in the alleged fraud, it could probably land you a libel suit, is proper.)
This smacks of apples to oranges to me, or at least a muted reductio ad Hitlerum.
Many in that audience had been primed to believe him when he said that precisely because of the kind of 'paranoid style' adopted by the media they consumed.
I wouldn't put the cartoon in the same category as Jan 6th, but at the same time stochastic terrorism is a thing and there's sliding scale that leads to it rather than a particular binary.
As I said above, this is my understanding. I don't think it's depicting a lynching. It is implying that being SNP leader has ended badly recently and here comes someone willingly putting their head in the lion's mouth...
AFZ
Next on centrists implying the left are hypocrites for things they imagine them doing...
@Marvin the Martian has form for this. I've picked him up on it a number of times.
The first one here didn’t attract much comment.
Nor did this one (from the same cartoonist, no less) showing the PM being trampled to death.
Nor this one depicting Johnson fleeing for his life as his bus gets set on fire by an angry mob.
This one shows an actual murder. No complaints.
Another one showing a Tory politician being firebombed.
Well, you've made your point, I think.
As I mentioned before there are many examples. The one I mentioned above, which was ignored at the time, had Truss boiling in a saucepan.
Some of those are certainly out of line (though I don't think I've seen any of them before). The last I'm more bothered by them portraying Starmer as a masked rioter throwing a molotov cocktail. Where's the evidence that any of us responded to these cartoons by wishing they happened for real? You've made that up.