David Horsey apparently does not consider fact checking to be an important part of editorial cartooning.
From Wednesday’s strip (which appeared in my local rag today).
I guess checking out Snopes (or some other fact checking resource) is too much to ask for this moron.
It’s he said-she said. And those who don’t care for the government’s new intrusion on the Bill of Rights will naturally side with Nancy as proof of government’s excesses against US citizens in response to the attack.
That the event occured is true. The circumstances and reasons behind it are in dispute.
I think I’d need to see a pattern of abuse aimed at Green Party members before taking their side on this. I can’t imagine them being considered any kind of threat to the U.S. Given a choice between a government attempt to suppress an anti-war activist of no influence and a self-righteous activist mouthing off to security people who want to carry out their tasks and having to deal with her attitude, I’d put my money on the latter.
Not exactly. He said-she said would be descriptive if a couple were alone, so there’s one witness on each side. In this case, the accounts say there were several others present.
Horsey may be a moron, may be lazy, may not care about facts, or may be an activist promoting his POV or the POV of his editors. In any case, he’s a discredit to journalism.
Ah, bullshit. He’s one of the sharpest editorial pens in the country. It might be true he missed on this one, but a discredit to journalism. Christ. And O’Reilly’s never fucked up?
Oh, and another thing: Of course he’s promoting his point of view, he’s an EDITORIAL cartoonist. Sheesh.
O’Reilly NEVER fucks up! 
OK, so I read the cartoon and I read Snopes, and I don’t see the conflict. The cartoonist just said that she was prevented from flying. She was in fact prevented from flying. The cartoon did not give any reason why she was prevented from flying. Instead it pointed out that in the opinion of the cartoonist, the heightened scrutiny to which she was subjected (for whatever reason) represents a trampling of her civil liberties without really increasing the safety and security of the nation.
Feel free to blast Nancy Oden if you wish. Feel free to criticise the cartoon for its position on the actual issue it addressed. But kindly do not claim the cartoon says something it most clearly does not.
Did you actually read the “text balloon” emanating from the soldier on the left in the cartoon? Kindly do so, particularly in combination with the text in the upper left corner, and reconsider whether or not this journalist is assigning any motive to the act of keeping her off the plane.
I asked about this in GQ and got some helpful replies, with useful links. “Go, Teemings.” Or something.
The cartoon clearly shows a US Airborne trooper tramplimg on the US Constitution.
It insinuates that this means no more to the US than a peice of toilet paper.
Bob Cos
The apparent motive per the text balloon being that she was a “nutball”? Can someone be a “nutball” for reasons other than belonging to the Green Party or condemning the attacks on Afghanistan? Per SNopes, Oden said she asked them not to touch her with the scanning wand and pulled away from a soldier who grabbed her arm. Maybe that’s enough to make her a “nutball” in the eyes of a soldier. I don’t know. The point still stands, the cartoon does not say “Nancy Oden was prevented from flying because of her political beliefs.”
EvilGhandi
If we allow our rights to be trampled in the name of “safety” then the Constitution is worth about as much as a piece of toilet paper. Less, perhaps, because the Constitution isn’t soft enough to use comfortably for ass-wiping.
The box in teh cartoon says she’s a an organic farmer and peace activist…on her way to a Green Party meeting. The balloon says the soldier considers her a “nutball.”
The message of the cartoon is that the soldier considers her a nutball because of the characteristics mentioned in the cartoon.
There’s no such thing as a “false” editorial cartoon. Editorial cartoons are not news reporting; they’re a means of expressing an opinion. I don’t necessarily agree with the cartoonist’s opinion, but I don’t see any “disgrace in journalism” in his expression of it.
Showing the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, being used as trash or as scrap paper is a common way for editorial cartoonists to express the opinion that our rights are being trampled on and is in no way disrespectful.
You’re an raving idiot if you expect editorial cartoons to be a form of unbiased news reporting.
Sad to see such cynicism in one so young. 
Yes, it’s appropriate for a political cartoonist to have an opinion. However, when a cartoon depicts a real event, I expect (or hope) it to present the facts accurately.
Similarly, I would lose respect for an editorial writer who argued her POV by misrepresenting a situation.
I don’t think that the cartoon misrepresents the situation. Ms. Oden’s behaviour did not justify a blanket ban on flying, on any airline. She felt she was being singled out for extra scrutiny because of her political affiliation, and said so. Is that reason enough? She pulled her arm away at one point, when she was being inappropriately touched. She did not refuse to be searched. Her “uncooperativeness” was limited to griping about being singled out. She did not keep security from carrying out their duties.
The attitudes of the security folks are lampooned in the cartoon. It’s a cartoon. You may as well complain about this cartoon. Editorial cartoonists exaggerate situations to illustrate a point. That’s what they do. Get over it.
Hmm yeah…thats EXACTLY what I said in the OP. :rolleyes:
Yes, I know that editorial cartoons are not news reporting, that’s why they’re on the OP-ED page. I also know, that in this case…the editorialist in question made reference to a specific news event…and used both the text in the “news” box (upper left corner of the toon) and the soldier’s comments, to deliver a message that is demonstrably false…a lie…an unchecked urban legend that was debunked at Snopes.
The cartoonist was NOT “directly” commenting on general airline security measures…or John Ashcroft’s new policies…Instead, the cartoonist suggests that Nancy Oden was prevented from boarding a plane because she belongs to the Green Party. That is a flat out lie. As Snopes points out, the “he said-she said” nature of the event is whether airline security was too “harsh” on this particular passenger (possible, but doubtful) or whether the Ms Oden was a jerk (more probable). What is NOT in doubt by all objective witnesses, is that the detention incident had NOTHING to do with Ms Oden’s Green Party affiliation. THAT part of the cartoon is a lie.
It IS possible, for political commentators, be they text based or cartoon based, to lie in the course of expressing a viewpoint. It IS reasonable fot readers of said commentary to note that the author/artist lied, or failed to get his/her facts straight…especially when the author or artist is referring to a specific factual “event” that took place…and not just a general comment on policies.
I did not use the phrase “disgrace to journalism” in my OP either…
Take your “raving idiot” comment and cram it up your ass.
Whether the security people went too far in their interaction with Ms Oden is a point of legitimate debate. As Snopes has pointed out (read the last line, particularly)…the notion that her treatment resulted from her political affiliations (which is the point of the cartoon) is false.
Your cartoon proves my point exactly. It’s a commentary on policy. It certainly does not claim to portray any factual event as the datelined (notice the November 1 dateline in the left box?) Horsey cartoon did.