Tooning out criticism
On April 22, there was a guest column written about one of my cartoons that really spiked my interest. The author jumps to a lot of conclusions about that cartoon — mainly that the girl in the cartoon was raped. To that I say, where is the evidence of rape?
In the second panel, the woman says, “Yea!” So it wasn’t against her will. The column also says that the male in the cartoon “crams the heel of the boot up the woman’s skirt with such force that she is thrown spread-eagled off her feet, flying higher than the man’s head.” The only reason it was drawn that way is because that is the only way I could accurately depict the whole country of Italy going into her. It wasn’t thrust in with force — where is there any evidence of that? How can you tell it is being thrust in? It could be going in gently, and there is no evidence of that, either. The column also said, “She appears pained; the man looks excited.” This is clearly the writer seeing what she wants to see. In fact, you can’t tell what the facial expression of the woman in the cartoon is because I am a below average artist.
But if you do see pain in her face, women sometimes have a look of pain on their face when they are having sex. Watch any pornographic film and you can see women who look like they are in pain, but they aren’t being raped. The man “looking excited” isn’t true either — the facial expression I was going for was to show him working hard to accommodate the woman’s wish to have “some Italian in her.” He’s trying his hardest to oblige by literally putting some Italian in her.
Perhaps the most annoying part of this guest column is that if you Google “Joe Welkie Diamondback,” a column called “Rape is no joke” shows up. That’s a pretty bad stigma. I don’t want potential employers seeing that, especially since I am not a rapist, the girl in my cartoon isn’t being raped and I have never advocated it. I wasn’t belittling people who have been raped. This cartoon wasn’t about rape at all, and to say that it was would be completely ludicrous. It was just misconstrued by someone who doesn’t fully understand humor.
Joe Welkie | Diamondback cartoonist
All for nothing
The Diamondback’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate in the Student Government Association elections is, to me, a long overdue decision that should not merely be the exception that calls attention to the rule — it should be the rule.
When I was the managing editor of a weekly community newspaper, the publisher informed me that the paper’s policy was to not endorse any political candidates. He believed the paper’s job was to inform readers by providing the news and to allow the readers to make up their own minds.
It was one thing I wholeheartedly agreed with him on. I have no problems with an individual endorsement of a political candidate. I’ve written those before, and I intend to do so soon with state and local elections looming in the distance.
However, the practice of a newspaper endorsing a candidate strikes me as being an awful display of temerity. Who are the media to presume they have the right to tell me, the reader, whom to vote for? In my mind, it compromises the whole notion of journalistic integrity and objectivity all of us should strive for.
When I was on The Diamondback staff back in 2000, we had a debate about whether to endorse a particular candidate for SGA president. Back then, the candidates seemed as weak as The Diamondback argued this year’s candidates were. I made an off-hand, half-joking comment that The Diamondback should endorse no candidate. I certainly didn’t expect it to take on new life to the point where the then-editor in chief convened an editorial meeting and told us we were endorsing a candidate and we should all “get over it.”
The Diamondback did the right thing this year by stepping away from endorsing candidates because the editorial board felt none of them deserved it. It should take one more step and end the practice of endorsing candidates once and for all.
Mike Sarzo | 2000 alumnus | former Diamondback staff writer
