Drawing a few lines in the sand

TONY DODERO

Cartoons.

My, how they can get the blood boiling.

I know they do for me from time to time. I’ll see one that gets my

goat and I grouse and grumble about it for hours. On the flip side,

when I see a good one, especially one that makes me laugh, I’ll

remember it forever.

There’s just something about a political cartoon that hammers home

the point and there’s some politicians who still hold grudges because

of cartoons that ran years ago.

Now there’s a bit of a storm brewing over a cartoon we published

in the March 21 edition of the Pilot that featured a caricature of

Greenlight activist Phil Arst and the title “Pain in the Arst,” below

it.

First a little background on our political cartoonist and how his

work appears in the paper.

Steve Bolton is a freelance artist and graphic illustrator who

draws cartoons for the Pilot once a week, and for our sister paper

the Huntington Beach Independent. He is not a member of the staff and

does not take orders from me or any other editor on how or what to

draw.

He reads the paper voraciously, decides his own topics and then

sketches a number of different ideas that reflect his opinion. He

then provides me and other editors with about a half dozen raw

sketches.

We then pick the one cartoon we like, usually with him urging us

to choose his favorite. Some cartoons get the thumbs down, for a

number of reasons. But mostly there’s a clear consensus among the

editors on which cartoon to go with.

Finally, every cartoon that appears in the paper must be approved

by me or Managing Editor S.J. Cahn.

In the case of the Arst cartoon, the buck stops right at my desk.

I approved the cartoon and make no apologies for it.

Actually, I should rephrase that. I am sorry that the cartoon

appeared to have personally offended a couple of Greenlight folks,

whom I have much respect for, namely George Jeffries, a retired

Corona del Mar attorney and former member of the Newport Beach

library board, and Rick Taylor, also a local attorney and airport

activist and Greenlight-sponsored candidate in the 2002 elections.

I also hear that Arst wasn’t too happy with the drawing and truth

be known, I like him too, personally.

But I don’t regret running the cartoon. And there’s nothing

personal about it.

Cartoons are meant to be a parody. This one was no different and

an argument can be made that the cartoonist was more in admiration of

Arst being a thorn in the posterior of developers and city officials

than being judgmental. I don’t know, I didn’t ask him.

The thing to remember, though, is that the cartoons are Bolton’s

opinion. His opinion may not mesh with some readers, but that’s the

essence of free-speech commentary.

Still, my friend Jeffries called the cartoon “mean spirited,” and

took me to task for allowing the cartoonist to use the phrase “Pain

in the Arst,” pointing out it was inappropriate for this newspaper

and its readers, particularly young ones.

“There is plenty of room for humor in your newspaper, but not in

the way it was presented,” he wrote me in an e-mail message. “As a

pun it was immature at best. It is also illogical. Any pain was not

his but others. I do not know whether it was more demeaning to its

subject or your paper. How would you explain this cartoon to your

5-year-old child?”

That’s also a good point.

I always remember the wise words of my former Editor Bill Lobdell

back when I was the night editor here at the paper, when I often was

the last set of eyes on the headlines and front-page stories.

“You are the last purveyor of taste between us and the readers,”

he told me.

I took that seriously and still do. We are a family paper and I

guess the cartoon just didn’t strike me as being offensive to readers

young or old.

Taylor was so incensed by the cartoon that he fired off a letter

to the editor that we published on March 25 titled “Cartoon a

disservice to paper’s credibility.”

“The play on words, as offensive and undeserving as it was, was

the latest escalation in a very obvious attempt to discredit Phil

Arst, and the organization he represents, Greenlight,” Taylor wrote.

“In the past few months, Arst has been personally attacked, in print

and at council meetings, by those who disagree with his basic right

to engage in an open and frank dialogue -- without fear of

repercussion or reprisal -- about the city’s future.

“By pandering to the powers that be, with this tasteless

editorial, the Pilot weakens its own credibility and journalistic

integrity -- particularly as it pertains to the Pilot’s ability to

monitor and report, in an unbiased manner, on issues that pertain to

city government,” he continued. “The Pilot is clearly working very

hard not to offend someone -- and it’s not Arst.”

Now we are accused of a lot of things around here, but stifling

one’s basic right to engage in an open and frank dialogue is not one

that sticks.

Nor is the idea that somehow we are conspiring with the developers

or other powers that be to conspire against Greenlight.

Just about a month ago, I was at a luncheon where a local business

leader verbally accosted me over a letter co-written by the very same

Taylor and Arst that appeared in our Forum pages.

I found myself trying to explain to him the same thing I’m

explaining now. Everyone has a right to an opinion.

And he isn’t the only one. Business and city leaders have often

implied that we give too much ink to Greenlight.

They may be right. But who am I to cut off the supply of ink,

whether it is for Greenlight letter writers or clever cartoonists?

Our news pages should reflect the valid stories of the day and our

Forum pages should be a sounding board for all, not just those that

pander to the editor’s point of view.

I also find it ironic that Arst and his defenders have suddenly

developed a thin skin.

A quick search of the name “Phil Arst” in the Pilot’s database

that dates back to 1999 reveals 236 opinion pieces or articles that

bear his name, some with comments by Arst that could be categorized

as incendiary.

Here’s an excerpt from one letter that ran on Sunday, Dec. 22,

2002, co-written by Arst and Greenlight member Tom Billings.

“Given the lack of both legitimacy and representation for the

residents in the newly elected city council, Greenlight is needed

more than ever to protect the will of 63% of the electorate,” they

wrote. “Our biggest threat is that the ‘Team Ellis’ council majority

will pay back developer contributors by sneaking excessive large

developments into the coming general plan update. We will be on watch

for their attempts to overdevelop the city and will keep you informed

so you can help us maintain Newport Beach as the best place to live

anywhere.”

Who can quarrel with that last line? But whether Arst is fighting

for all the right reasons is not for me to debate.

And I find it hard to believe that someone who is clearly capable

of throwing verbal stones at his opponents would be so shocked when

they come back at him.

That doesn’t mean that Arst is fair game for the newspaper to

allow or even generate mean-spirited name calling responses or

accusations or cartoons directed at him.

I just believe our cartoon was a fair comment as is other

commentary that has appeared on our pages both pro- and

anti-Greenlight.

So, can you dear readers trust I will carry the mantle my former

editor gave me and be the traffic cop for taste and decency? Yes.

But I will not censor valid opinions and commentary in any

circumstance, even those that might cut to the quick.