Remove this ad

Lead

Feb 16 16 8:31 PM

Tags : :

I think there are a number of things wrong with that article, so I will address them in list form.

1) The reviewer is too close to the subject. There needed to be another reviewer alongside Oddguy; on the basis of having been treated badly by Latuff online, an editor at a publication would have said no if Oddguy asked to review the Brazilian.

2) The cartoons are harsh, but they're not propaganda. Look at Thomas Nast's cartoons from the 19th century, especially his "The Chicago Platform" (1864) - this is black comedy at it's bleakest.

image
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Feb 16 16 9:20 PM

....Continuing Point Two. We've gotten into a mindset that editorial cartoons need punchlines, but they don't need them. As for the cartoons where Netanyahu is a Nazi; yes it is harsh, but that is what happens in political cartooning outside of the US. Nobody should forget this cartoon that ran in conservative Israeli papers in 2008: image

3) The review is now dated. Instead of always hammering the Israelis, Latuff now goes after Turkey's PM for fighting the Kurds (and his site is blocked in Turkey for his cartoons, allegedly.)

***

I first started seeing Latuff's work on websites like Electronic Intafada and Narco News during the Bush II years and even then they didn't pick up all of his cartoons probably due to how harsh they were. I can see why Oddguy would be offended, but offence is one of the perils of free speech. I've never heard of any Palestineans applauding these cartoons; they seemed to have slipped out into the vast junk drawer that is the Internet uncontested or remarked on.

 

Last Edited By: Peter Smith Feb 16 16 10:27 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

DP

Casual User

Posts: 83

#2 [url]

Feb 16 16 10:13 PM

I've only just read the review, so I'm coming into this from an outsider standpoint. Here are my impartial takes on what you've offered:

1.) The idea that the author of the review is "too close to the issue" is fair. However, what you should be focusing on is whether or not that makes them unqualified to say what they've said, or whether or not that makes what they've said wrong. In other words, saying that they are too close to the issue does not seem to do much towards reversing what the reviewer has nonetheless pointed out; if they were not as close to the issues, how might one's interpretation of the contrasting messages that the comic's author gives be different? If they can't be seen to substantially change, then chances are being too close to the issues covered in the comic isn't as much of a problem as it initially seems to be.

2.) I think you're confusing the idea that Editorials don't need punchlines with the idea that editorials don't need visible punchlines; the Sight Gag is an extremely common form of humor in any piece of media intended to be comedic. In fact, the panel that you linked as a supposed example of your point carries an unwritten "punchline." Obama is black, and he's in a house that is white and has previously been occupied solely by white people. He then decides to paint it black. Race is the punchline, it just isn't written down. The exploding bus panel and attached text, as far as I can tell, in fact criticizes the author for hamfisting his punchlines instead of exploring them visually or naturally as the clip above. This would, in turn, mean that what you have presented is in fact closer to what one would expect or want from this cartoon series.

3.) Reviews that are outdated are often updated with new information. Likely what matters for the review isn't what new targets the author has decided to shoot at, but whether or not they're still shooting at them in the same unfunny and awkward ways.


I'm pretty sure that people at the BWW know what it means to be offended, and know that other people's rights to create certain kinds of art doesn't go out the window just because a few jimmies end up rustled in the process. The focus of the review seems to be on the low-quality and contradictory nature of that rustling, rather than on anyone's personal feelings. If you feel that it still swings too far towards personal feelings, perhaps a second writer can swing it back in the proper direction.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

fallinq

Heavy User

Posts: 292

#3 [url]

Feb 16 16 10:19 PM

Peter Smith wrote:
I think there are a number of things wrong with that article, so I will address them in list form.

1) The reviewer is too close to the subject. There needed to be another reviewer alongside Oddguy; on the basis of having been treated badly by Latuff online, an editor at a publication would have said no if Oddguy asked to review the Brazilian.

Reviewers have other site members look over their reviews before they post them. I'm assuming Oddguy did for the Latuff review as well before getting the go ahead, so there was input from other people. Also, editors don't publish works that have personal bias? Are you kidding? They do it all the time! When they're honest about it, they call them "editorials." And Oddguy fully disclosed his interractions with Latuff, so it's not like he's being sneaky and trying to trick people here.
2) The cartoons are harsh, but they're not propaganda. Look at Thomas Nast's cartoons from the 19th century, especially his "The Chicago Platform" (1864) - this is black comedy at it's bleakest.

image

Um... it's propaganda. Just because you don't like the connotation of the word and don't like it applied to Latuff's work, doesn't mean the definition doesn't fit.

And are you really implying that the picture you posted above and compared to Latuff's work is NOT political propaganda just because it's old? And even then, there's an important distinction. This piece mostly presents events that actually happened, although it selects and presents them in a way to convince people to a certain viewpoint. Latuff's work is full of completely fictional scenarios, such as Netanyahu masturbating to images of dead Lebanese people, and an insurgent in Iraq going Rambo on US soldiers. As political critiques, the two aren't the same at all.

As for your second post, "Other people do it too!" is not a valid excuse.

The only thing that seems valid here is that the review could possibly be updated with the Turkey stuff, to show that Latuff has at least made an attempt to be consistent about his beliefs.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Feb 16 16 10:49 PM

DP wrote:
ITT


image

Don't think I just drifted in here out of nowhere; I remember BadWebcomicsWiki from before Peter Cheung's attempt to destroy the website. I've held off posting what I thought about the Latuff review for years, but then I changed my mind.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

DP

Casual User

Posts: 83

#10 [url]

Feb 16 16 11:06 PM

image

My bad. I was unaware that we were in Serious Business mode.

In that case, I guess there's nothing more to do but to wait for your replies to our Serious Business comments.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#12 [url]

Feb 16 16 11:24 PM

Shan wrote:
You might be in the wrong place then.

All I'm here to do is point out the faults in an older review on this site. I understand this is a long-ish running board with it's own culture, but razzing me won't help.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

DP

Casual User

Posts: 83

#13 [url]

Feb 16 16 11:25 PM

Two people have already posted their Serious Business counters to your points.

The Serious Business ball has been in your Serious Business court for over an hour.

We're shitting around because there is literally nothing else for us to do in this discussion right now.

Serious Business.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#14 [url]

Feb 17 16 12:21 AM

Peter Smith wrote:

Shan wrote:
You might be in the wrong place then.

All I'm here to do is point out the faults in an older review on this site. I understand this is a long-ish running board with it's own culture, but razzing me won't help.

I'm not razzing you. This isn't the New York Times. As far as I know, oddguy is the closest thing we have to an owner at the moment being the head admin or whatever. Under the law, he can pretty much do or say what he wants about anything within the bounds of libel and obscenity laws. He's one up on such entities as Fox News and the like as he's clearly stated his 'conflict of interest' status upfront and so anyone reading the review can view it through that prism from the get go.

Also, by it's nature, reviews are opinion pieces. It can't be wrong in the same way as a factual piece as it's his opinion (yes obviously of course a review can be wrong in a statement of a fact when it says something that never happened). By all means, no-one's stopping you from making your case (and keep in mind there's no obligation to do that, look at the places that delete dissenting viewpoints - hello Dresden Codak/Dumbing of Age/Zoophobia/Goblins forums, comments sections, Twitter etc) but the impression I'm getting from the others here is that you're not convincingly making it to them here yet.

As for my specific comment about your specific comment, some people here have a very acerbic sense of humour. You may not be here for laughs but some of them may at least partly be here for that and/or incorporate that into part of the conversation/debate, so you'll just have to accept that in the same way we have to accept you're going to be all serious like.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

oneof5

Casual User

Posts: 74

#15 [url]

Feb 17 16 1:18 AM

To add to Shan's last point, no one here is getting paid. This is, if anything, a somewhat questionable hobby.

Moving on to your assertions: "1) The reviewer is too close to the subject." by what metric?  I don't think its possible to have a truly impartial view of anything.  We see the world and everyone in it through our own eyes, shaped by our experiences.  Pretty much everything thats been reviewed here was brought to the table because it touched a nerve somewhere.  Just recently here on the BWW a review got completely shot down and written by someone else because that author couldn't remove them self from the ire that the work inspired in them.  I don't know (or care) enough about politics to pretend to know what this guys cartoons are talking about, but if some part of the wiki entry is factually incorrect, misleading, or otherwise misrepresenting this comic, please point it out with a source.  And no one here cares about a hypothetical editor that would/n't allow this to be published. Thats called an "appeal to authority" and no one cares.  

2) The cartoons are harsh, but they're not propaganda.  Now we're arguing semantics.  Many of us have come to think of propaganda as a oblivious, hyperbolic, over-the-top, "(insert group here) will eat your babies!!" batshittery.  This is not necessarily true, pretty much anything that tries to convince you of something is/could be considered propaganda.

Re: the punchline.  its not a good political CARTOON if it has to rely on superimposed text to explain what the hell it means.  The Black guy painting the White House black is pretty clear.  A random, unmarked bus blowing up?  Not so much.

3) The review is now dated.  I'm not going to count, but I'm sure that the majority of the reviews here are dated.  Because we don't update them.  Mostly because its not necessary.  If it was crap two years ago, its a pretty safe bet that if its still up and running, its still crap.  See also: the not being paid bit.

there ya' go.  srs bznz yo.

 

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Feb 17 16 1:28 AM

Looks like majority says to keep it up. Because Murica.

_____________________________________________________________________

People have a common defense mechanism they employ to defend themselves from the threat of contrary viewpoints. This shield they wield is the act of dismissing such contrary viewpoints by arbitrarily undermining their validity.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#17 [url]

Feb 17 16 1:35 AM

" Just recently here on the BWW a review got completely shot down and written by someone else because that author couldn't remove them self from the ire that the work inspired in them."

That's OK, you can say that was me. Unless there's been yet another one where this happened since. Which even further goes to show there's quality control of some sort here.

To add to this point:

" 3) The review is now dated.  I'm not going to count, but I'm sure that the majority of the reviews here are dated.  Because we don't update them.  Mostly because it's not necessary.  If it was crap two years ago, its a pretty safe bet that if its still up and running, its still crap.  See also: the not being paid bit."

The review's also a snapshot of the comic as it was then by a person who had a particular opinion back then (once again, I can't state this enough, it's a review and hence an opinion of the author, furthermore he clearly stated his connection to the writer and hence possible biases upfront. If only so many so-called 'serious' news organisations did so and in such detail too). I went back to remind myself what it was about and wow, that stuff was quite terrible. Horrible in fact. Presumably that stuff is still in the archives, so it's a review on that stuff and hence still current in that sense. This whole computer/Wiki continuous rolling updates thing is relatively new. Print publications aren't going back into their archives and purging stuff that's since been shown to have been superseded by time, new things discovered about the author of the review, new things done by the author of the work being reviewed and say on. This isn't 1984 and we're not Winston Smith.

Here's what you can do, write at least a segment of an update of what's happened since this review went up and post it here with your views and opinions. People here may not agree with it but if you make you're argument convincingly enough, there may be enough of a quorum to agree to include it as an additional update section. They're surprisingly fair about things like that here.

So the balls in your court (still). 

Convince us.

[url=

Quote    Reply   
avatar

oneof5

Casual User

Posts: 74

#18 [url]

Feb 17 16 1:44 AM

haha, I didn't know it was you Shan, and I was to lazy to go find the thread. I just skimmed through it the other day. But yes, convince us. If there is anything that we oblivious like to do here, its debate a point until we're all blue in the face. (and then pick it back up next week)

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#19 [url]

Feb 17 16 4:52 AM

Horerczy wrote:
Looks like majority says to keep it up. Because Murica.

[left]Well, that's absolutely correct. This place works on group consensus and at the moment, the discussion is leaning towards the majority saying keep it as it is.

Now that is democracy - an ideal American virtue - in action as it should be.

[url=

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#20 [url]

Feb 17 16 4:54 AM

oneof5 wrote:
haha, I didn't know it was you Shan, and I was to lazy to go find the thread. I just skimmed through it the other day. But yes, convince us. If there is anything that we oblivious like to do here, its debate a point until we're all blue in the face. (and then pick it back up next week)

I think you obviously meant 'obviously', not 'oblivious' but that's the perfect Freudian slip typo to describe what goes on here probably more often than not. Please don't change it.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help