Sure Cruz is OK to cartoon. Are his children immune whatever he does with them for political purposes

[ronburgundy]

The point being made by the cartoon is a perfectly valid one, and ought to be made. However, it ought to be made in another format, namely an article that makes the point explicitly rather than a cartoon likely to be seen by his kids and their peers and misinterpreted by them.

Cruz's exploitation of his kids deserves far more disdain than does this cartoon, but their are other ways of making the point with less risk of harming the kids.

I don't really see how that would be less likely to be misinterpreted by the children. Firstly I don't think it's clear to anyone, without context, that those are his kids. Surely no 5 and 7 year old would impute that without some priming from an adult. And that's leaving alone the fact that most children that young don't really read political cartoons.

20 years ago, you would be right. But in a world where most kids that age in the US are online and on social media, there is a good chance they and/or their friends and classmates would find out that they were portrayed as monkeys.

If we're to assume this happens when they're teenagers, and that presenting the argument in another form of media makes them less likely to interpret it as an attack on them rather than their father - well I'd surmise you haven't spent much time with teenagers.

The problem with the medium of the cartoon is precisely that its point is not made in any explicit way and instead relies upon a visual analogy whose surface qualities (the kids portrayed as monkeys) is not the intended point but is all that people who don't get the analogy (kids) will take away from it. There would/should be no need for in anything in an explicitly editorial critique of Cruz that would rely on misleading imagery or analogies as easily prone to a misinterpretation that personally insults the kids themselves.

Might a teenager reading an article, take offense at their father being criticized for using them as a political ploy? Sure, but the problem is NOT whether the kids like what is being said about their dad. Otherwise, we'd have to stop all critique of people with kids.
Such offense is not at all the same as a 5 and 7 year old thinking that everyone is calling them a monkey. Basic understanding of human psychology at any age should make that glaring difference obvious.

 

[fromderinside]

Hoo-kay so what about this cartoon?

 

[Lunawalk]

Yeah. I can't imagine anyone going for the Oval office without doing it. But you cannot have it both ways.

Opponents should like that the high road and focus their attacks on the candidate himself.

Well, THIS cartoon IS attacking Cruz, not the children.
It's not making fun of anything the children have done, near as i can tell, just the fact that he's used them as performers.

I haven't seen Cruz' video, so i don't know if there's anything the girls do that could be mocked?
I can imagine that if one of them mispronounced a word, then a cartoon could be made showing them in front of the camera, his daughter stuttering, slurring her speech, forgetting lines, and Cruz and the director arguing over whether or not they should have hired a 'real' performer. That would be mocking the kids.

zed
Well people thought the cartoon was attacking the kids not Cruz. That why the paper apologized and pulled the cartoon. Plus Cruz used the to attack the liberal media appeal to his base.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hoo-kay so what about this cartoon?

It's a joke about people who climb the Whitehouse fence. Not quite the same thing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The point being made by the cartoon is a perfectly valid one, and ought to be made. However, it ought to be made in another format, namely an article that makes the point explicitly rather than a cartoon likely to be seen by his kids and their peers and misinterpreted by them.

Cruz's exploitation of his kids deserves far more disdain than does this cartoon, but their are other ways of making the point with less risk of harming the kids.

But the Cruz epitomizes pious fraud. Were he not such a scumbag he'd laugh and say "touché." We can hope his kids become something better.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The point being made by the cartoon is a perfectly valid one, and ought to be made. However, it ought to be made in another format, namely an article that makes the point explicitly rather than a cartoon likely to be seen by his kids and their peers and misinterpreted by them.

Cruz's exploitation of his kids deserves far more disdain than does this cartoon, but their are other ways of making the point with less risk of harming the kids.

I don't really see how that would be less likely to be misinterpreted by the children. Firstly I don't think it's clear to anyone, without context, that those are his kids. Surely no 5 and 7 year old would impute that without some priming from an adult. And that's leaving alone the fact that most children that young don't really read political cartoons.

It can be made, but you can't have the kids in the cartoon. I'm thinking of Cruz on his knees cleaning something, looking backward responding to someone that it is time for the speech and indicating that he was just touching up his kids with a little more teflon.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I think there are ways of satirizing Cruz's use of his children without drawing his children as monkeys. For instance, somebody could draw a picture of Cruz hiding behind his children while reporters question him about women's rights. "Help, girls! Protect me from my voting record!" Now there's a cartoon that would clearly attack Cruz's use of his kids without attacking the kids themselves.

In principle, I don't object to candidates displaying their families. There's nothing wrong with the general American desire to have family men and women in office. Should it be a focal point? No. Should the family be used as props? No. Is sending out a family holiday message with your kids in it wrong. I don't think so. Is using your kids as props in a political holiday message wrong. Yes.

There are good and bad ways of displaying your family, and there are good and bad ways of making cartoons.

 

[fromderinside]

Hoo-kay so what about this cartoon?

It's a joke about people who climb the White House fence. Not quite the same thing.

I agree it isn't the same thing.

Putting in toon caricatures of his kids in a cartoon making fun of POTUS for something he didn't do, is worse than making fun of Cruz herding nice little toon monkeys depicting something he actually did.

 

[zorq]

I'm pretty sure written metaphors are allowed so why not metaphors in cartoon form?

Suppose a newspaper article (opinion or hard) wrote the following, "Last weekend, a new TV ad by Senator Cruz showed us that he has made his children into trained dancing monkeys who happily attack his opponents for him."

Sure, people could take the metaphor out of context and insist that the author of the article called the children monkeys, just like with the cartoon. But that's not what the sentence means, just like the cartoon. Are there other ways to convey the information that would keep the most dense among us from drawing the wrong conclusion? Yes, and it would have been better had the cartoonist done so. But I don't see the need to censor our language or our cartoons to prevent the most stupid among us from taking offense that was not intended.