Ann Telnaes’ resignation and the role of political satire in democracy
Guest Commentary by Chris Bidlack
On January 3rd, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes resigned from The Washington Post after the newspaper refused to publish her satirical cartoon depicting billionaires like Jeff Bezos offering money to Donald Trump. This was the first time in her 17-year career at the Post that a cartoon was rejected due to its subject matter. The newspaper claimed the decision was not politically motivated, but Telnaes saw it as censorship.
While editorial decisions vary across different journalistic domains, political cartooning occupies a unique and crucial position in the media landscape. Unlike reporters covering sports, automotive, or lifestyle news for example, political journalists and cartoonists serve as chroniclers and visual commentators on pressing societal issues. Their work often challenges power structures and provokes critical thinking among readers, listeners, and viewers.
Political news reporting and commentary stand in a category of their own, carrying far greater significance due to their impact on public discourse and democratic processes, compared to other types of publications.
While specialized publications serve important roles in their respective fields, the core mission of our nation's newspapers and news media extends beyond mere reporting. Their ultimate charge is to safeguard democracy through coverage and analysis of our elected representatives' actions, court decisions, and the functioning of our government. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press."
Of course editors and owners of news publications always have the final say. And while some may not see the Telnaes resignation as the hill worth dying on, a strong argument can and should be made that her decision is exactly the hill on which to resign.
The editorial autonomy of news publications is undeniable. However, a crucial distinction exists between journalists covering non-political domains and those reporting on national news and politics. The latter field holds such importance to our democracy that it's the only non-governmental entity explicitly protected in the Constitution. This underscores the weighty responsibility borne by political journalists and commentators in safeguarding press freedom and public discourse.
Those who argue that Ann Telnaes was foolish to give up her job when she always knew that her bosses had every right to quash any of her creations as they saw fit, are short-sighted. There are times when some journalists and commentators have an obligation to speak out when censorship precludes a significant idea from reaching the people.
If I created cartoons for, say, an astronomy magazine, and my editor rejected my illustration of two scientists at a chalkboard where one is saying, "85% of the universe: no clue, but it's big," because it wasn't gettable, should I resign? No. No one would be deprived of an important idea if that cartoon didn’t appear. But conversely, if my editor demanded I create a cartoon mocking science and seriously portraying the Earth as only 6,000 years old, there’d be a strong case for me to quit. Similarly, Telnaes' cartoon addressed a critical issue of political influence and corruption, making its suppression a matter of significant public interest and a justifiable reason for her resignation.
Ann Telnaes saw the suppressing of her editorial idea for what it was: Abridging her Freedom of Speech, and with some irony, Abridging the Freedom of the Press, as the Constitution puts it. She knew that this was one of those moments. We should all applaud her courageous decision.