Drawing your attention

18 comments on “Drawing your attention ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Paul Robeson 1

   4 October 2008 at 1:44 pm

   A tame jester, in the Herald of the court, isn’t that how democracy dies?

   (With apologies to Star Wars)
2. Rex Widerstrom 2

   4 October 2008 at 1:48 pm

   The purpose of cartoons is to provoke. I’d missed news of his sacking at the time it happened. Extraordinary. And disgusting.

   An inordinate proportion of his cartoons featured in the clip seemed to be about the Middle East… if that was in fact a reflection of his overall output I can understand an editor suggesting a change of topic on occasion. But outright censorship, then dismissal?!

   Forgive my ignorance… as I say, I was offline when this happened… but surely the EPMU (do they represent cartoonists on newspapers) or someone could have raised hell?

   (Get out of my brain, captcha!: “and snubbed”).
3. Killinginthenameof 3

   4 October 2008 at 3:25 pm

   I think it was from a presentation on his middle eastern themed cartoons.
4. Felix 4

   4 October 2008 at 3:52 pm

   Did I see an xkcd cartoon in there?
5. burt 5

   4 October 2008 at 4:52 pm

   Malcolm Evans is a bold man, he speaks his mind – I like that.

   The grounds of his dismissal are ridiculous. The paper published the cartoon and fired the cartoonist. Wonder what happened to the person who approved the cartoon for publishing?? Surely he/she must have been treated far far worse – where they executed?

   However I digress, One needs to think carefully attaching other symbols of national identity to the nasty “apartheid” word. Weaving that word into the Tuhoi flag could be justified from a cartoonist point of view with regard to the Tuhoi people and their sovereignty claims. It would be highly contentious and unlikely to be printed, as I’m surprised associating that word with Israel was.

   If you give instant clarity to an extreme view, as a cartoon can do, then you need to think carefully about how you deploy such a powerful and loaded message.

   Oh and Steve, don’t ask Malcolm for a free cartoon, ask him to provide you some links to some samples you might want to buy. Put it to your collective on this blog, see if they all want to chip in to help support an out of work (sometimes loose cannon) under appreciated genius.

   Edit: What was I saying about grounds for dismissal – he was a free lance cartoonist. Still the point about what fatal damage the person who approved it for publishing must have received is still interesting?
6. randal 6

   4 October 2008 at 5:46 pm

   david zwartz seems to have a pretty thin skin too. I am really not a trotskyite believer in the permanent international revolution and I dont care when the jews belt the crap out of the arabs and then the arabs have a go back. Let em go to it I say but keep it there. we dont want any of your religious nutbar stuff (read client state dependency for weapons) here thanks.
7. Killinginthenameof 7

   4 October 2008 at 6:09 pm

   Steve wrote: “If you’ve ever got a cartoon you want to give to The Standard, Malcolm, flick us an email.”

   Burt wrote: “Oh and Steve, don’t ask Malcolm for a free cartoon”

   I’m pretty sure he means what he’s saying Burt. Had he wanted a free cartoon he would have said, Malcolm can we please have a free cartoon.

   Please stop trying to misrepresent people.
8. burt 8

   4 October 2008 at 6:25 pm

   Killingthenameof

   Perhaps Steve P can answer that, he posted “If you’ve ever got a cartoon you want to give to The Standard, Malcolm, flick us an email.”

   If I have misread “give” as meaning “give” rather than “sell” then I’m sure Steve P. will correct me.
9. Ari 9

   4 October 2008 at 8:35 pm

   He could always have put “zionism” and “apartheid” across each other in a crossword style 😉
10. randal 10

    4 October 2008 at 9:42 pm

    burt…none of that made any sense whatsoever. was that your intention?
11. Killinginthenameof 11

    5 October 2008 at 12:53 am

    Burt,

    “If you‘ve ever got a cartoon you want to give to The Standard, Malcolm, flick us an email.’

    Notice how it doesn’t say “please can we have”

    Randal,

    Burt’s intention is to misrepresent what Steve said.
12. Disengaged 12

    5 October 2008 at 5:43 am

    No Burt has just put emphasis on different words in the sentence that you KITO. And know matter how you play it Steve is still asking for the cartoon for free rather than offering to pay for it, which I believe was Burt’s point.
13. Ari 13

    5 October 2008 at 6:58 am

    Disengaged- I know I’ve talked about “giving” for selling colloquially before, especially when quoting an amount. If steve’s been imprecise, it’s not a big deal. If he hasn’t, well, I suppose it’s possible but very unlikely 😛
14. travellerev 14

    5 October 2008 at 8:27 am

    Just saw this video on the monetary system versus the resource system.

    Very inspiring.
15. burt 15

    5 October 2008 at 10:18 am

    randal

    Let me put it in more simple terms for you, perhaps we could take it two points at a time and work it through to help you understand.

    “The grounds of his dismissal are ridiculous.” – Cartoonist submits work to paper – paper publishes work and blames cartoonist for public backlash. I think this is a bit bizarre, how about you?

    “One needs to think carefully attaching other symbols of national identity to the nasty “apartheid’ word.”

    From Wiki: Apartheid

    Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning “separation” or “being apart”. It is usually used to describe a policy that existed in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. This system was used to mistreat and deny rights to non-white people. The laws allowed the white minority to keep the black majority out of certain areas without special papers or permission.

    So substitute “non-white” for “non-Tuhoi” and replace “South Africa from 1948 to 1994” with “The Urewera’s today”.

    EG: “Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning “separation” or “being apart”. It is usually could be used to describe a policy that existed in South Africa from 1948 to 1994 currently exists with Tuhoi people today. This system was is used to mistreat and deny rights to non-whiteTuhoi people. The laws practice alloweds the white Tuhoi minority to keep the black majority out of certain areas without special papers orpermission.

    Is that making any sense to you ?
16. illuminatedtiger 16

    5 October 2008 at 10:48 am

    @Felix – Yep. Someone is wrong on the internet!
17. randal 17

    5 October 2008 at 12:15 pm

    burt….just stringing a whole lot of emotive sentences together and then saying therefore this is the only valid conclusion is two steps below venting and one step below ranting. there is no logical connection nor chain of evidence in your posts. It is impossible to know what you really think when then there is no actual demonstration of that faculty.
18. Steve Withers 18

    5 October 2008 at 4:26 pm

    I find it odd that being opposed to war and injustice is marginalised as “left wing”.

    You’d think the fundamentalist Christian-based political parties and their supporters would up in arms over such obvious sins…..but apparently not. They support those who advocate committing them.

    Whereas less literal churches like the Anglicans and Catholics now (usually) overtly oppose war and injustice….and those who advocate committing them…and are dismissed as leftists.

    Jesus was – therefore – a “leftist”…..who would probably be ashamed of many, like G W Bush and others, who claim to follow him today.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS