PressEthic

Few things seem to draw the ire of newspaper readers like political cartoons. Columnists get hate mail, but rarely will there be such an outlash that the editor has to defend why it ran, or admit that maybe it shouldn't have.

This summer, The Morning Sun (Mt. Pleasant and Alma, Mich.) readers criticized a political cartoon that linked President Bush with Hitler and Pol Pot. Now The Philadelphia Daily News is a similar situation.

Some readers agree with the cartoon's point and deem it courageous.

A supporter of the cartoon wrote: "I'm a black man just as angry as Johnson. But my anger is not with the cartoon -- I'm angry that it takes a cartoon to point out the stupidity of these idiots who think nothing of taking a life to prove how macho they are. ... I applaud Signe for having the guts to create the cartoon, and Editor Michael Days for having the backbone to back her up on this issue."

To a lot of other people, a KKK reference just creates a visceral reaction, regardless of the artist's intentions.

Political cartoons are satirical and hyperbolic by nature; that's why they're effective. If two of the largest outcries are over Hitler and the KKK, then maybe there's a point where they become too overstated. Or, maybe there's a degree of extremity where readers are too reflexive in their reactions.

Columnists often say that hate mail's OK, because at least people are reading - and thinking. Can't we say the same here?