Content-Type: text/html
Gatekeepers
Running head: GATEKEEPING AND EDITORIAL CARTOONS
Gatekeeping and the Editorial Cartoon: A Case Study of the 2000 Presidential Campaign Cartoons
Jennifer M. Proffitt
University of Wyoming
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Submission to AEJMC Annual Convention, Washington, DC, Newspaper Division-Summer 2001
Abstract
This case study explores gatekeeping studies and the political editorial cartoon, comparing the experiences of editorial cartoonists with gatekeeping research findings and examining how standardization and conservative news policies appear to apply to editorial cartoons pertaining to the 2000 presidential campaign published in The Denver Post. Sixty-nine cartoons were analyzed and compared to the 155 select articles concerning the 2000 presidential campaign. This exploration also discusses The Post's endorsement of Vice President Gore and its possible effect on choice and content of cartoons.
Gatekeeping and the Editorial Cartoon: An Exploration of the 2000 Presidential Campaign Cartoons
From the revolutionary time of Benjamin Franklin, hailed as the first American political cartoonist, to the 2000 election, political editorial cartoons have been fixtures in newspapers. As Somers (1998) stated, American editorial cartoonists reflect the social and political "moods of the nation, refining and simplifying their work to insure the maximum impact on a public with little time to ponder the complex drawings and lengthy captions of earlier times" (pp. ix-x). The political editorial cartoon should crystallize the issues of the day in humorous illustrations, which is significant in a time when many Americans have little time to spend reading a newspaper in depth.
The ideal role of the political cartoonist is to comment, through humor and sarcasm, on issues and events that occur in American society. According to Spencer (1949), "One of the big jobs of the editorial cartoonist is to pack his panel with punch_make his editorial message smack the reader in the eye" (p. 3). And according to Press (1981), political cartoons seek "to do more than amuse or make one sigh out a 'Well, that's life'; it tries to influence the viewer to a particular viewpoint and predispose him or her to a particular action" (p. 13). However, due to standardization of news and cartoons, the proliferation of the conservative ideals of newspaper owners and editors (gatekeepers), and economic and political pressures, the editorial cartoon does not have the "punch" it carried in Ben Franklin's time. This case study will first explore the functions of editorial cartoons, comparing the experiences of the political cartoonist with the findings in gatekeeping studies conduc
ted by mass media scholars. This exploration also will examine and describe how these concerns apply to the cartoons published in The Denver Post pertaining to the 2000 presidential campaign; the study also will try to identify possible effects of newspaper endorsements of political candidates on political cartoons.
Gatekeeping and the Editorial Cartoon
According to Somers (1998), newspaper cartooning evolved gradually. Editorial cartoons were regularly featured in newspapers throughout the country by the turn of the century, and this "proliferation so alarmed the politicians who were the target of these drawings that between 1897 and 1915 the legislatures of California, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and New York formulated anti-cartoon legislation" (Somers, 1998, p. 13). As Harrison (1981) stated, those in power have traditionally feared political cartoons for at least three reasons: "(a) the cartoon's savage ability to depict in unflattering caricature; (b) the cartoon's ability to crystallize complex issues into a simple metaphor, a mobilizing call for action; and (c) the cartoon's availability, even to those who may not be especially literate or politically aware" (p. 14).
By World War I, radical cartoonists' work appeared in alternative newspapers and magazines because their uncompromising political positions were unacceptable to mainstream press (Somers, 1998). By the 1970s, syndication became the norm.
The standardization of the political cartoon is similar to the findings of gatekeeper studies. According to Breed (1955a), several factors contribute to the standardization of news: "wire services and syndicates, supplying different papers with identical material in great quantities; publicity handouts distributed widely; chain ownership, and the tendency of most publishers to maintain a conservative political policy" (p. 277). Furthermore, according to Grossberg, Wartella, and Whitney (1998), journalists are constrained by the values they share for what news is, and each works for an organization with routines that also confine what news is.
According to Hess (1996), "As technology widened the reach of communications, increased the costs of acquiring or starting media enterprises, and expanded the potential profits, the news business in the twentieth century followed some of the same tendencies toward greater consolidation that can be seen in other major industries, such as automobiles and oil" (p. 7). In 1900, 10 percent of the national daily circulation was controlled by the eight largest newspaper companies; in the 1990s, more than 70 percent of daily newspapers in the United States were owned by business groups, and the 20 largest companies owned a total of 502 newspapers, thus contributing to the effects of news standardization (Hess, 1996).
As Krieghbaum (1956) stated, increased standardization of the press in the United States was blamed for what Professor Henry Ladd Smith of the University of Wisconsin considered the decline of political cartooning in the 1950s. By the 1970s, according the Hess and Kaplan (1975), most newspapers purchased their political cartoons from a syndicate rather than supplying their own talent, contributing to the proliferation of standardization of political editorial cartoons.
Breed (1955b) also stated than conservative editors "set news policy, and this policy is usually followed by members of his staff" (p. 326). New reporters are socialized, internalizing his/her obligations to the paper and the norms and values of the newsroom (Breed, 1955b). As Gans (1980) stated, organization-wide pressures for conformity maintain the power of editors.
Like journalists, political cartoonists also feel the pressure to conform to the conservative policies set by editors and owners of newspapers. As Spencer (1949) stated, new cartoonists are concerned with turning in work that is acceptable to the editor. Furthermore, according to Press (1981), political cartoonists, "either from weariness or intimidation, may be tempted, or may unconsciously begin to second-guess the editor" (p. 186). Cartoonists quickly discover what editors prefer. As Press (1981) stated, "Just as knowledgeable pitchers discovered that it was unproductive to serve up low and outside fast balls to Lou Gehrig, so cartoonists may learn to avoid certain offerings to editors, perhaps--and this is the ultimate horror to some--without even in time being consciously aware when they are falling into the habit of doing so" (p. 186).
Some cartoonists, however, are aware of these pressures to conform. In an interview reported in Sewell (1996), Milt Priggee of the Spokeman-Review stated, "All your questions are predicated on the assumption that cartoonists are allowed to view the presidential campaign through their own eyes unfiltered through the fear of the end of the line of their own jobs, careers, and dreams AND of the profession itself" (p. 174).
Furthermore, Whitney and Becker (1983) found that local media are influenced by the decisions of relatively few editors who operate at regional, national, and international wire service bureaus. Berkowitz (1990) found that "some decision-makers explained that national trends (often appearing in USA Today stories) were an important consideration for topic selection" (p. 63). As Wilhoit and Drew (1991) discovered, the majority of editorials in their 1988 study of editorial writers appeared to be on non-local issues; almost 80 percent of the writers in their study ranked news as the number one source of their editorials. And, as gatekeeping studies have found, the news is a matter of choice; what is reported and what is omitted is filtered through gatekeepers.
According to Press (1981), some editorial cartoonists get their cartoon themes handed to them from the editorial board; therefore, the artist is only one of several contributors to the cartoon outcome. Similarly, Harrison (1981) stated that editorial cartoonists usually work with the editorial page editor or with a board of editors; some cartoonists have a relatively free hand to draw what they wish; others submit a number of ideas each day and the editor chooses one.
In addition, because newspapers have become big business, those journalists and political cartoonists who do not conform to the newspaper policy will feel pressure because "in a clash of opinions between boss and employee, as in other fields the boss's opinion generally prevails, through the sheer force of logic--economic logic, that is" (p. 187). In Parenti's (1993) discussion of gatekeepers, he stated that editors must conform to the "judgments of the corporate directors and owners who exercise financial power over the organization and, if they so choose, final judgment over the news itself and over who is hired or fired at lower levels" (p. 34).
Gatekeepers, then, make decisions based on what the owners of the newspaper decide is newspaper policy because profit is the bottom line. As Sigal (1973) stated, "Newspapers are business firms trying to turn a profit. They compete with other newspapers and news media in two oligopolistic markets--one for the sale of news and the other for the sale of advertising space. How well they do in the first market affects how well they do in the second over the long run" (p. 8).
According to Parenti (1993), owners must not offend large financial interests, including advertisers. The media are thus manipulated by advertisers to maintain a conservative news and editorial policy. As Parenti stated (1993), "Because they pay the bills, advertisers regard their influence over media content as something of a 'right.' And media executives seem to agree" (p. 35). Gatekeepers are aware of this influence; therefore, they choose stories and cartoons that will not offend those who pay their salary. As Sewell (1996) stated, in a time of tight financial constraints, controversial topics should be avoided. This influence also affects political cartoonists such as Priggee who stated:
The cartoonists are becoming cynical as the voters already have. Along with this political system chance, the media is changing also. Meaning newspapers no longer want to be newspapers. They want to be the friends of all the special interest groups which means they would rather kiss up to whatever low-life group that approaches them instead of sticking up for the principles of what a newspaper is all about_Cartoonists no longer deal with politics or issues...they deal with survival, plain and simple (Sewell, 1996, p. 174).
Editorial cartoonists experience other pressures to conform as well. According to Somers (1998), "In the early 1990s, issues of censorship often came under the catch phrase 'Political Correctness.' To members of a profession whose job it is to offend everyone, any increase in public sensitivity is cause for concern" (p. 28). Gatekeepers must be sensitive to the "needs" of the audience, including advertisers, politicians, and big business, and any offensive material is discarded. Editorial cartoonists have therefore increasingly emphasized humor rather than biting social or political commentary.
Editors also have become more sensitive to the litigious nature of American society. According to Somers (1998), "Although no editorial cartoonist to date has lost a libel suit, the mere frequency of their filing is becoming a factor for both editors and cartoonists to consider" (pp. 25-26). Legal suits are worrisome to editors and cartoonists because the time and cost of defending against suits intimidate many publishers, which would influence the gatekeepers to take extra care choosing cartoons that do not offend any member of the newspaper's audience. As Somers (1998) stated, "Editors must pick and choose among syndicated writers and cartoonists to provide and editorial balance, yet most of their readers will claim that they favor 'the other side.' Nervous advertisers and touchy readers have editors and publishers looking over their shoulders" (p. 36).
Therefore, cartoonists must conform to the pressures from editors, publishers, advertisers, and the public. Spencer (1949) posited that John Somerville of The Denver Post "sums it all up by saying the editorial cartoonist must put himself in the place of people, in his editor's shoes, and at the same time interpret the news and issues of the day in as interesting a manner as possible. Sometimes this can be a headache" (p. 11). Harrison (1981) stated, "The editor is a gatekeeper who stands between the cartoonist and the audience. The editor coordinates the work of writer and cartoonist, if those two roles are separate. The editor is likely to know and enforce the concerns of the sponsor. And the editor gauges what will find favor--or disfavor--with the public" (p. 41).
Cartoonists also feel pressure from politicians. According to Press (1981), politicians have threatened cartoonists with libel, though unsuccessfully. Outright governmental suppression is rare, but covert pressure is frequent. According to Gans (1980), public officials have several overt ways of communicating displeasure with the content of news: (1) complain to a news or corporate executive; (2) threaten the news firm economically; (3) launch investigations; (4) threaten journalists legally; and (5) appeal to the audience in an attempt to impress the audience with the failings of the journalist. Press (1981) also stated that cartoonists have reported covert pressure on their publishers from governors and senators, and "pressure may take the form of subtle bribery, as in invitations to the governor's mansion for self and wife, or other recognitions" (pp. 190-191). The political news policy of the newspaper is a gate political cartoonists must pass through; therefore, cartoons
generally conform to the political environment surrounding the paper.
Consequently, the ideal role of the editorial cartoonist has changed. With the pressures cartoonists face, it is easier to conform than to attack the system. According to Press (1981), cartoonists are now seen as "buttressing the system as much as attacking it, as mildly reforming to conserve rather than champing to replace" (p. 262). In addition, Hess and Kaplan (1975) stated that the vast majority of editorial cartoonists "are merely trying to get through their working days without ruffling feathers. They illustrate the news rather than make any attempt to mold it" (p. 165).
Newspaper Endorsements of Presidential Candidates
According to Grossberg, Wartella, and Whitney (1998), the media serve "as the principle source of political information, determining how well we are informed about politics (or most other matters)" (p. 338). As Hess (1996) stated, the most politically aware segment of the population--voters--are more likely to read newspapers for political information. Newspaper readers also tend to read the editorial page for information on political issues and positions, and editorial pages then to be the location for the newspaper's candidate endorsements.
Wilhoit and Drew (1991) found that 73 percent of editorial writers said their newspapers endorsed political candidates at all levels of government, and only 15 percent said that their newspapers endorsed no candidates at any level. Grossberg, Wartella, and Whitney (1998) also stated that many newspapers, including most of the larger papers, do endorse candidates, including local, state, and presidential candidates.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, The Denver Post, for example, endorsed Vice President Al Gore for president. On the October 29, 2000, "Perspective" page, an editorial proclaimed Gore the better of the two candidates, as they "analyzed where the candidates stand on seven major issues. Based on this analysis, it is clear that Gore more closely reflects the views The Post has supported for many years. And so Gore receives The Denver Post's endorsement to be president as the United States enters a new millennium" (p. M4).
According to Barringer (2000), some papers shun candidate endorsements, but "when it comes to the presidency, editors are likely to see an endorsement as a statement of the paper's identity and a sign of its willingness to be part of the community, relying on readers to understand that editorial writers have nothing to do with the newsroom" (p. K2). Howell Raines, editorial page editor of The New York Times, said, "a candidate endorsement is not an attempt to dictate to the reader what he ought to do. It's more a reflection of our feeling that we have an obligation to be part of the civic dialogue. We have a specific obligation to our readers to let them know what our collective wisdom is" (Barringer, 2000, p. K2). Because journalists are expected to be objective and unbiased, these endorsements are usually in the editorial page section, which allows for differing views on a variety of topics.
Presentation of Research Questions
According to the gatekeeper studies discussed previously, the standardization of news is in part a result of heavy reliance on wire services and syndication as well as the socialization of journalists, who are "taught" to adhere to the values and policies of the newspaper for which they are employed. Gatekeepers decide what news to print and what news to omit as more stories than can fit in the news hole cross their desks. Gatekeepers decide what news content to print, and they also decide which cartoons to publish in their editorial pages. Furthermore, editorial cartoonists tend to rely on the news for cartoon ideas, which would seem to have a standardizing effect on political cartoons and increase the power of the gatekeepers. Therefore, the following research question will be examined:
R1: Do editorial cartoons reflect the newspaper's news content?
Additionally, gatekeepers are pressured to print news that will not offend advertisers, big business, powerful politicians, or members of the audience because the media are profit-driven businesses and seek to maximize audience size. Many newspapers, then, set a conservative news policy in order not to offend these factions. According to the literature, political cartoonists, then, are pressured to adhere to this conservative news policy so as not to upset the status quo. Therefore, the following research question is posited:
R2: Do editorial cartoons reflect conservative news policies?
Furthermore, many newspapers endorse political candidates. This endorsement is usually located in the editorial page section of the newspaper in order to eliminate the charge of newspaper bias or lack of objectivity as editorial pages are postulated as a place for bias and opinions to be expressed. Editorial page editors and writers are also pressured to write conservative news articles that will not offend any member of the audience by maintaining a balanced assortment of moderate opinions. A third research question will be explored:
R3: Do the gatekeepers' choices of editorial cartoons reflect the newspaper's political candidate endorsement?
Methods
Newspaper articles and editorial cartoons pertaining to the 2000 presidential campaign that appeared in The Denver Post from September 1, 2000, to November 7, 2000 (excluding Saturday because the Saturday paper was not available to the author at the time of the study) were used in this analysis. Fully 155 news articles and 69 cartoons were found in The Post during this time frame.
To examine research questions one and two, a descriptive analysis of the cartoons and the news articles was conducted. Cartoon topics, framing of the cartoons (i.e., Were the candidates' positions on issues or their personality/character traits depicted?), and content of the cartoons were compared with the topics, frames, and content of the news articles, and a description of the results is presented.
On October 29, 2000, the editorial endorsing Vice President Al Gore was published in the Sunday "Perspective" section. In order to explore research question three, editorial cartoons were examined from October 29 to November 7. The tone (positive or negative), frame, topic, and content of each cartoon were compared with the content of this editorial.
Do Editorial Cartoons Reflect News Content?
Through a description of the editorial cartoons and the news articles that apply, this researcher found 56 out of 69 cartoons (81%) reflect news articles' topics, frames, and content.
Several of the cartoons located in The Post during the first two weeks of this analysis did not reflect the news content of the same period. One reason may be that the topics depicted in the cartoons were similar to news articles printed previous to September 1. However, part of the September 5 cartoon did reflect the content of an article in the September 4 Denver Post. The cartoon depicted Vice President Gore "picking up" the Jewish vote and Governor Bush "picking up" the Hispanic vote. Both candidates were drawn much larger than the voters are drawn. The news article in The Post explained that Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson found statements made by Jewish vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman refreshing as Lieberman often talked about his religious faith, but he was not pleased that Lieberman would help gain votes for Gore. The reference to Bush and the Hispanic vote was not found in articles at this time, but it was mentioned in later articles.
The September 6 Post had two cartoons, one of which showed Bush saying, "Read my lips_no new attack ads!" This cartoon was a take-off of his father's famous promise, "Read my lips_no new taxes," in the 1988 campaign. George Bush did not keep his campaign promise, and neither did George W. Bush, according to an article in the September 1 Post. This article stated that Bush ran a negative, personal attack ad against Gore after promising that he would run a high-minded campaign. The second cartoon did not relate to prior articles in the study's time frame.
The September 7 Denver Post included a cartoon portraying one of Bush's gaffes, which was reported on September 5. Bush, who thought his microphone was turned off, turned to Cheney and called a New York Times reporter an "asshole." This topic was also portrayed in a cartoon in the September 10 Post as members of the press are depicted saying, "Mr. President, Mr. President," with their arms outstretched. Bush, standing at a podium, said, "Go ahead, *@#!," and in a September 11 cartoon, Bush, again standing at a podium, said, "We are going to elevate the moral tone and dignity of discourse in Washington, and you can tell that ------ Gore I said so!"
Another editorial cartoon depicting the presidential campaign was found in the September 13 Post and contained two panels. The first pictured children standing under a "drug-free zone" sign. The second panel included seniors with Gore and Bush pins standing under a "free-drug zone" sign. This cartoon topic was also the topic of two articles in the September 6 Post, which stated that Bush unveiled his Medicare-reform plan after pressure from Gore, who accused Bush of avoiding specifics. The two plans were compared, and both included pharmaceutical benefits for the elderly. This topic was also reflected in a September 25 cartoon.
The September 15 editorial cartoon depicted people waiting in line to buy a ticket to a movie. Each person in line appeared to by hypnotized, and one person said, "Me, too! Suddenly the presidential campaign seemed silly and I needed a Coke, popcorn, and a movie." The caption read, "Subliminal Messages." An article titled, "Subliminal Ads a Myth--and Don't Work Anyway," appeared in the September 14 Post. It explained the subliminal message myth that concession sales vaulted when the words "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Eat Popcorn" were flashed on the movie screen. In a Bush campaign ad, the word RAT flashed on the screen, and because the use of subliminal messages is a controversial issue, the ad was pulled immediately after the message was discovered (even though the Bush campaign denied that the ad contained a subliminal message). Similar cartoon topics were found in The Post October 3 and 4.
A September 19 cartoon depicted Bush with training wheels on his tongue. A man standing next to him stated that the wheels would be taken off for the debates. This may relate to Bush's debate proposal, which was sharply criticized by Republicans as stated in a September 15 article. It may also be related to the reported gaffes, such as calling the Times reporter an "asshole" and Bush's pronunciation of subliminal as "subliminable."
The September 20 Post also included a cartoon depicting Gore's issues with Hollywood. In the cartoon, Gore rubbed his foot against the leg (labeled "soft money") of a Hollywood director while stating, "Peddling sex and violence to children. You people are disgusting." An article in the same day's news described Gore and Lieberman's $4.2 million dollar Hollywood fundraiser a week after attacking Hollywood for marketing "raunchy products" to teens. Republicans charged Gore and Lieberman with hypocrisy, which is reflected in the cartoon.
The September 24 Post had two cartoons. One depicted Gore jackhammering a barrel labeled, "Strategic Petroleum Reserve," while saying, "I invented the Internet, I've perfected the kiss, and now I've discovered oil." This cartoon appears to relate to a September 22 article titled, "Gore: Tap Oil Reserve to Cut Prices; Bush Blasts Plan as Political Ploy." This issue was also the topic of a September 27 cartoon in which Gore was portrayed as a fireman holding a hose labeled, "Politics--Strategic Oil Reserve." Gore was pictured aiming the hose toward a smoldering fire. This topic also appeared in a September 28 cartoon in which Gore told a man standing next to a gas pump labeled, "Strategic petroleum reserve--for emergency use only," to fill up the Air Force 2 plane labeled, "Gore campaign."
A second editorial cartoon in the September 24 Post depicted Gore shoveling money into the "Gore Express" train. The money was labeled, "Big Government Spending Promises." Several articles in previous editions of The Post stated that Bush continually attacked Gore as a proponent of big government, including a September 7 article stating that Bush attacked Gore's financial plan and said that Gore had made so many spending promises that a Gore administration would "devour" the surplus.
The second cartoon in the September 25 paper depicted two women drinking coffee. One woman said, "After seeing Gore and Bush on Oprah, there's no doubt who I want for president_" and the other responded, "Oprah." A September 12 news article titled, "Gore Courts 'Oprah' Viewers," and a September 20 article titled, "Bush Gets Personal with Oprah," discussed the candidates' debuts on Oprah's show, as both candidates tried to appeal to women voters as women tend to be less likely to vote along partisan lines.
An editorial cartoon in the September 26 Post included four panels of Janet Reno sitting at a desk. In the first panel, she stated, "We are sending Al Gore to prison without bail because he may or may not have participated in illegal activities." In the second panel, she said, "Despite public pressure and FBI criticism, we have no plans to prosecute Wen Ho Lee due to lack of evidence." Reno is quiet in the third panel. In the fourth panel, she stated, "_or is it the other way around?" In a September 15 article, Bush was reported as "renewing his assault" on Gore and his fundraising activities, which was a larger issue before the scope of this study, but was still an issue the Bush campaign kept alive in attack ads.
On October 1, a cartoon depicted Gore and Bush as piglets suckling a large pig labeled, "Soft money." Gore said, "You think we could agree to wean ourselves?" Bush replied, "You kidding? Look at yourself_You're a pig." This cartoon appears to closely relate to an article in the September 28 Post titled, "Gore Dares Bush to Halt 'Soft' Spots." Gore had stated that he was ready to order the Democratic National Committee not to air television and radio commercials paid for by unregulated "soft money" contributions if Bush would pledge the same. Bush said he would consider it, but he did not trust Gore and Democrats to abide by the agreement. The soft money issue was also depicted in an October 5 cartoon.
An October 2 cartoon included two men eating in a restaurant. One, reading a paper, stated, "The media is so biased for Gore that I am going to vote for Bush_at least that's what talk radio says I should do." Interestingly, a September 20 article titled, "Trailing Candidate Often Target of Media Skewering," discussed how Bush was open to media criticism because he was trailing behind Gore in the polls.
On October 4, the day after the first presidential debate, a cartoon depicted Gore and Bush as Pez dispensers dispensing candy labeled, "Sound bites." The caption read, "Prez Dispensers." On the same day, and article quoted Ted Sorensen, a former political adviser and speechwriter for Kennedy, "I am disappointed when I hear candidates respond in a canned way." He also said that increased media scrutiny has led to choreographed debates.
An October 5 cartoon portrayed Bush pole-vaulting over a low bar labeled, "Expectations." Gore, standing at a podium, thought, "Give me a break," as Bush said, "Gimme the Gold!" An October 4 article about the debates included a discussion of Bush's expectations. Bush advisers talked incessantly about Gore's debating skills, as they hoped to raise expectations for Gore while diminishing those for Bush.
The October 8 Post included three cartoons. One carton was a six-panel caricature of Gore from the debate, including his smirks, sighs, eye-rolls, and interruptions. This caricature, other than the sighs, was not mentioned in the newspaper articles from September 1 to October 8; however, it was used in many late night talk show hosts' monologues and in comedy shows such as "Saturday Night Live."
A second cartoon depicted a couple watching television. On the television screen, Cheney was labeled, "Endorsed by God," and Lieberman was labeled, "Endorsed by Yahweh." The vice presidential debates were held October 5, but no mention of religion was found in the prior articles referring to Cheney. As mentioned previously, Lieberman's religious affiliation was discussed.
The third cartoon portrayed Bush and Gore as farmers looking over eggs labeled, "Projected surpluses." Gore said, "These chickens go into new programs." Bush said, "No. Those chickens are for tax cuts. But these chickens_" Ralph Nader, dressed in a suit and tie, said, "I don't see any chickens." An October 4 article stated that Gore and Bush "clashed sharply" over projected budget surpluses, but as the cartoon depicted, they were counting their chickens before they hatched. The surplus issue was also depicted in an October 24 cartoon in which Gore and Bush were holding a little potted plant labeled, "Projected surplus." Bush's thought bubble pictured a money tree, and Gore's thought bubble pictured presents under a Christmas tree. The little plant just sighed as the candidates projected the images that they promised to the American people onto the little plant.
An October 9 cartoon depicted two men talking. One said, "Bush vs. Gore! That was a really big night on the tube!" The other said, "Making tough choices! That's what America's all about!" The first man replied, "I went with baseball playoff!" The other said, "You got it!" An October 3 article stated that a Pew poll showed that over half of those polled stated that they were only somewhat likely or not likely to watch the debates. As the cartoon implies, many probably watched the playoffs instead.
An October 10 cartoon depicted the famous crossing of the Delaware scene. Gore's head was placed on Washington's body. The caption read, "Al Gore recalls another highlight from his political history_" In an October 9 article, the reporter stated that Bush and his campaign were challenging Gore's character as they seized on his half-truths and exaggerations, such as his erroneous statement that he visited Texas with James Lee Witt in 1998 during the floods and fires; he went, but not with Witt. The cartoon certainly contained an exaggeration as well. An October 13 cartoon depicted this topic also.
A cartoon in the October 11 Post depicted the Republican elephant holding a Cheney/Bush sign and the Democrat donkey holding a Lieberman/Gore sign. The donkey said, "_At least we have something in common." News articles also conveyed the idea that the vice presidential candidates were more formidable, not resorting to name calling or personal attacks in the vice presidential debates, as stated in the October 6 article, "VP Hopefuls Keep it Civil," unlike the October 4 article about the first presidential debate titled, "First Debate Strikes Sparks."
The October 12 cartoon depicted Bush, Gore, and debate moderator Jim Lehrer sitting at a table. Gore, who was locked in a box, stated, "Unlike Gov. Bush, I promise not to further annoy the American people, Jim. And so I've decided to place myself in this lock box." The lock box reference stemmed from the first debate as Gore challenged Bush to promise to put social security in a lock box. An October 29 cartoon also depicted this image. The lock box reference was not found in the articles included in this study.
An October 15 eight-panel cartoon depicted a female pollster and a male voter. In the first panel, the man said, "I'm voting for the guy who is most like me!" The pollster asked, "And that is?" The man replied, "I really don't know the issues, so_," and the pollster asked, "_You're like Bush?" The man stated, "Well, last time you asked I was, but I lied," and the pollster said, "So you're like Gore?" The man replied, "Let's say that my decision isn't in a lock box yet," and the pollster said, "So it's Bush?" The man stated, "Well, you might say I'm a little fuzzy," and the pollster replied, "So, Gore?" In the sixth panel, both are quiet. In the seventh panel, the man smirked, and the pollster said, "Bush?" In the eighth panel, the man sighed, and the woman said, "Gore?" Each of these references evolved from the presidential debates, and all of these topics, excluding the lock box, were found in the previous articles about the debates.
A second cartoon in the October 15 Post depicted Bush and Gore standing at a podium, smiling, thinking, "So far, so good." An article in the same day's paper discussed how the presidential campaign was so tight that there was a debate over whether candidates should do something dramatic or play it safe, which appears to imply that both camps still believed they had a chance and that they were both doing well so far.
The Medicare/prescription drug promises projected by both candidates were issues in several cartoons. An October 16 cartoon depicted Gore and Bush walking toward an elderly woman while elbowing each other. Bush stated, "I'll allocate the entire budget surplus for a Medicare prescription program!" Gore countered, "I'll spend the entire budget for a Medicare prescription program." The elderly lady woman thought, "I'm going to be sick." An October 22 cartoon portrayed Gore and Bush as trick-or-treaters going to the door of a couple labeled, "Seniors." Gore stated, "He's so scary he'll yank your fingernails out with his teeth!" Bush countered, "No! He's the scary one! He'll eat your liver with a rusty fork!" Several articles, including the October 4 article about the first presidential debate, discussed the conflict over Medicare reform. Additionally, both candidates attacked each other's plans in the third debate as stated in two October 18 articles, and both candidates mi
shandled and exaggerated numbers in their discussions of Medicare and health care reforms. These exaggerations were also the topic of an October 18 cartoon that depicted Gore and Bush talking to each other as a man and woman watching thought, "Turkeys." An October 22 cartoon also referred to this issue as one of two men sitting on a pack bench stated, "These candidates are either the kind that twist everything to their advantage, or the other kind_" The other man stated, "What other kind?"
The October 19 Post included two cartoons. One included the caption, "Late campaign syndrome: The candidates get stuck on the message." In one panel, Gore pointed to a cat and said, "I will fight for you." In the second panel, Bush, talking to fish in an aquarium, stated, "We can work together." Both statements were mentioned in the October 18 article, "Claims Fly in Final Debate."
The second cartoon portrayed two people thinking, "Which candidate should I vote for?" In the next panel, Gore thought, "Which personality should I wear?" This character issue was mentioned in an earlier article in which a person from the Bush campaign depicted Gore as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde character. This image was also portrayed in October 23 and November 1 cartoons.
After the final debate, several articles appeared stating that Nader followers asked Nader to drop out of the race because he would take votes away from Gore. Nader refused this suggestion. Several cartoons depicted this issue, as well as Nader's criticisms of the "duopoly" as stated in an October 5 article. For example, an October 24 cartoon depicted a pollster asking a dog, a cat, and a duck who they would vote for if they had to vote tomorrow. They told him, "Ralph," and the pollster said, "I'll mark undecided." In an October 26 cartoon, a woman holding a Bush sign and a man holding a Gore sign to his side watched Nader enter a train station on a railroad pushcart. The caption read, "Campaign 2000: The thrilling finish in a non-swing state." Additionally, two cartoons in the October 31 Post and one in the November 5 Post depicted Nader taking votes from Gore.
Two cartoons appeared in the October 25 Post. One portrayed a small Gore holding onto the hand of a large Clinton with a bra hanging out of his pocket. Clinton said, "He said, he's his own man." Gore stated, "You tell 'em Mr. Clinton sir. I was just kidding 'bout all that distancing myself from you stuff." This may be related to Gore's assertions in the first debate that he wanted to be seen as his own man when Bush attacked the moral character of the Clinton administration. However, in an October 18 article about the final debates, Gore asserted, "If you want somebody who believes we were better off eight years ago than we are now_here is your man [Bush]," aligning himself with the Clinton administration.
The second cartoon depicted Bush saying, "I support our efforts in Korea--as long as they benefit our ally_uh_," and thinking, "Oh, man! East Korea or West Korea?!" This may be related to the October 11 article that stated one concern of the Bush campaign was Bush's lack of experience in foreign affairs. It also appears to relate to the assertion in the October 11 article that the Bush campaign still had to worry about a sense among many voters, according to polls, that he is "not as swift as Gore and not as steeped in policy," which was the topic of a November 1 cartoon that portrayed a dark light bulb in Bush's thought bubble.
An October 26 cartoon depicted, "Stuff that will get tossed out sometime after Halloween," and campaign promises was listed among Halloween candy, apples, and popcorn balls. This topic was not related directly to the articles; rather, it appears that it relates to the cynicism many voters have when they hear grandiose promises. In the third debate, an audience member told the candidates that his elementary school class wanted to know if they would keep their campaign promises.
An October 27 cartoon portrayed Bush and Gore with their arms around a man who was thinking, "Should I ignore them or give them an elbow?" The caption read, "The undecided voter." Several articles stated that undecided voters would be an important factor in this election, including an October 19 article in which Kohut, the director of polling for the Pew Research Center, said that the final debate presented no turning point, "leaving the election to 'turn on those undecided voters finally being confronted with the fact that they have to make a decision.'" A November 5 and a November 7 cartoon reflected the same theme.
A cartoon in the October 29 Post portrayed Gore as a cardboard figure that asked a man if he thought he looked natural. The man replied, "You were your true self, sir." This may refer to the caricature of Gore as being "formal" and stiff as asserted in an October 12 article, "Candidates Can't Seem to Escape Caricature."
An October 30 cartoon depicted the stock market hitting Gore in the rear end. Similarly, a September 29 article stated, "In recent weeks, oil prices have risen sharply, corporate earnings have slumped, and stocks have tumbled, giving the Republican nominee a new opening to make the case for his tax-cut plan."
A November 3 cartoon portrayed a pumpkin in four panels, and the captions read, "Why do Halloween pumpkins remind us of campaign 2000? Because they're hollow_with carved, witless faces. Just like the TV focus groups." No articles included in this study appeared to discuss TV focus groups.
A cartoon from November 5 depicted Gore and Bush on either side of a pair of legs labeled, "Swing states." Both candidates were trying to nail the feet down. This was a popular topic in many of the articles, such as the November 3 article that stated that the candidates continued to focus on large, closely contested states, and a November 5 article that stated that no fewer than 12 states were classified as tossups as the campaign entered its "final, frantic 72 hours."
A November 7 cartoon portrayed a man sitting in a chair. In the first panel, he stated, "Bush is stupid." In the second panel, he stated, "Gore is stupid." In the third panel, he said, "I'm not going to vote," and in the fourth panel, he said, "I'm stupid." Interestingly, a November 6 article titled, "Votes Find Race Tense, But Boring," discussed voter apathy in this election.
Another November 7 cartoon depicted a man with a long beard writing, by candlelight, in a large book, "One thing remains clear as the presidential campaign winds down to its last historical moments: Oratory is dead." Similarly, and article in the October 24 Post stated, "Think of the debates not as final exams but as very high-stakes, naked television commercials." Rather than substance, the debates, the speeches, and the media coverage focused on style and character attacks.
Based on the cartoon descriptions, it appears that many of the editorial cartoons found in The Denver Post do reflect the content of articles found in The Post. Several of the cartoons also appeared to reflect the charges and attacks made by the candidates and reported in the news articles and in other media. Much of the news found in The Post (81% or 125 out of 155) came from wire services or larger newspapers, and 71% (49 out of 69) cartoons were from syndicated cartoonists, seemingly a reflection of and a perpetuation of standardization of the news.
Of the 13 cartoons not described as relating to the news content of the articles found in The Post, several referred to topics, predominantly character issues, that were popular in broadcast media, such as late night talk shows, and in the debates. Additionally, just over half of the cartoons not related to the news articles were found in the first two weeks of the study's time frame (September 1-14). It is possible that the topics of these cartoons were discussed in articles prior to September 1.
However, because many cartoonists reflect on the news for cartoon topics, it appears that gatekeepers are allotted considerable power as they decide what is news and what is not. What is included in the news becomes material for cartoonists, and the majority of the public does not have the resources necessary (e.g., time, money) to discover what is not included. Additionally, many of the cartoons repeated the same themes; this also appears to contribute to standardization.
Do Editorial Cartoons Reflect Conservative News Policies?
Based on the descriptions of the editorial cartoons, it also appears that the cartoons reflect conservative news policies. The editorial page editor of The Denver Post stated in an interview with the author, "The Post's own editorial positions are militarily moderate--we're comfortable with both the new Democrats and moderate Republicans." She also stated, "_our effort is to give fair representation to the entire political spectrum." However, 35 cartoons (50%) depicted both Gore and Bush, 18 cartoons (26%) included just Gore, 10 cartoons (15%) included just Bush, 1 cartoon (1%) included Buchanan, 2 cartoons (3%) portrayed just Nader (several other cartoons included Nader along with Gore and Bush, and they were counted as "both Gore and Bush"), and 3 cartoons (5%) depicted the vice presidential candidates. No cartoon included Socialist, Natural Law, Communist, or Libertarian views or candidates. This seems to perpetuate the status quo (i.e., perpetuating the two-party system),
as conservative news policies are generally in place in order not to "offend" newspaper readers, big business, or powerful politicians.
The majority of the cartoons did not appear to directly attack or harshly rebuke the major party candidate's positions on issues or the candidates themselves; rather, humor was used to "poke fun" at the candidates (one of the exceptions may be the cartoon depicting Bush's "light bulb" as nonfunctional). This result is in line with Harrison's (1981) observation that cartoons have traditionally angered political figures because they were able to crystallize complex issues. Rather than anger these powerful political figures or explain complex issues, 77% of the cartoons appeared to depict the candidate character and caricatures (e.g., Bush as a "bumbler;" Gore as "stoic"). Broadcast media also appeared to perpetuate these images. According to an October 11 article, Gore's campaign advisors had him watch a parody of himself on "Saturday Night Live" after then first debate in order to help him change his image for the second debates.
Do the Gatekeepers' Choices of Editorial Cartoons Reflect Candidate Endorsements?
According to The Post's endorsement of Gore, the October 29 editorial stated, "The election, then, should be decided on the issues. And in the issues, Gore has made the better case" (p. M5). The editorial stated that Bush had a better Social Security plan than Gore; however, Gore's proposals for tax cuts, education, welfare reform, and environmental issues were superior to Bush's proposals. None of these issues were portrayed in the cartoons included in this exploration (other than Gore's lock box analogy).
However, the editorial stated that foreign policy, healthcare, and character issues were strengths and weaknesses for both candidates. These issues were included in the editorial cartoons (as well as the projected surplus and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve). One may speculate that this may be more than a coincidence.
As previously stated, 18 cartoons just depicted Gore as opposed to 10 cartoons only portraying Bush. If The Post's endorsement directly affected the content of cartoons or choice of cartoons, one may assume that cartoons portraying only Gore may be eliminated after the endorsement. This was not the case; three cartoons appeared after the endorsement that portrayed just Gore (including one the same day as the endorsement) as opposed to two depicting just Bush. Additionally, as suggested in the research, the Post's cartoonist would "feel" pressure to conform to the paper's political standing. However, when the Post's cartoonist's cartoons were compared, five cartoons reflected negative portrayals of Bush and four cartoons reflected negative portrayals of Gore. The majority of his cartoons "poked fun" at both candidates. Therefore, it appears that the gatekeepers' choice of editorial cartoons does not reflect the newspaper's political candidate endorsement, although several of the topics mentioned in the editorial were cartoon topics.
Conclusion
Gatekeeper studies state that gatekeepers choose news based on the generally conservative news policies set by owners in order not to offend advertisers, powerful politicians, or the audience, and this case study supports this reasoning. The proliferation of standardization, such as using syndicated news articles and political cartoons, perpetuates this conservatism, as larger papers, generally owned by large corporations, take care to balance the news by avoiding topics that would offend those who pay their salaries. News media take care not to offend politicians, who can also exert covert and overt pressures for conformity (such as perpetuating the democratic, capitalist ideology).
This case study of The Denver Post attempted to explore the standardization of political cartoons by examining how cartoons reflect news content, conservative policies, and endorsements. It appears that the majority of cartoons do reflect news content, topics and frames, especially those cartoons that reflect the candidate's attacks as reported in the news articles. The majority of cartoons also reflect moderate, conservative policies as the majority of cartoons included both major party candidates, perpetuating the two-party system, and "poked fun" at the candidates' characters and caricatures more often than their positions on issues. The endorsement did not appear to directly affect the cartoon content, although it appeared that the issues The Post editorial stated were strengths and weaknesses for both major party candidates were the topics that appeared most often in the cartoons that dealt with issues.
This pilot exploration of cartoons has several limitations. First, the time frame for this study was limiting. Several cartoons did not appear to relate to the news content, and this may be because the topics may have appeared before the scope of the study. Further research could include a longitudinal study that includes the primaries. Editorial cartoons may be quite different at that time as some media/political research states that media coverage of the primaries affects who wins the primaries. Perhaps political editorial cartoons play a role in this dynamic. Second, as a case study, this exploration cannot be generalized to all political cartoons or all newspapers. A cross-study of several newspapers may produce more definitive results. Another potential research project could include a comparison of newspapers that overtly supported either Bush or Gore, and could also compare these newspapers those that did not overtly support either major party candidate. Third, thi
s study was primarily descriptive in nature; however, this exploration does raise several potential research hypotheses that could be examined using quantitative content analysis techniques.
Gatekeepers have an important job to do: They choose the news that the public "needs" to know in order to become informed citizens. However, when news is chosen based on conservative news policies set not to offend powerful politicians and advertisers, the public may not be as informed as they should be. In the days of Franklin, newspapers were more apt to provide "a marketplace of ideas" in the libertarian tradition, and political cartoons tended to be more critical of the powerful. In the 21st century, mainstream newspaper editorial cartoons have strayed from biting criticism to using their freedom, as Press (1981) stated, "for pricks and stings and occasionally just to amuse or approve, and they hope that, in the process, they have occasionally hit bulls-eye" (p. 207).
References
*Cartoons and news articles referenced in this paper can be found in The Denver Post, September 1, 2000 to November 7, 2000. The author also has the articles and cartoons available.
Barringer, F. (2000, November 19). Why newspapers endorse political candidates. The Denver Post, K2-K3.
Berkowitz, D. (1990). Refining the gatekeeping metaphor for local television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, (1), 55-68.
Breed, W. (1955a). Newspaper 'opinion leaders' and the processes of standardization. Journalism Quarterly, 32, 277-284.
Breed, W. (1955b). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces, 33, 326-335.
Editorial (2000, October 29). Denver Post endorsements: Gore for president. The Denver Post, M4-M5.
Gans, H. J. (1980). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Vintage Books.
Grossberg, L., Wartella, E., & Whitney, D. C. (1998). Mediamaking: Mass media in popular culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Harrison, R. P. (1981). The cartoon: Communication to the quick. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hess, S. & Kaplan, M. (1975). The ungentlemanly art: A history of American political cartoons. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Hess, S. (1996). News and Newsmaking. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Krieghbaum, H. (1956). Facts in perspective: The editorial page and news interpretation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Parenti, M. (1993). Inventing reality: The politics of news media (2nd edition). New York: St. Martin's Press.
Press, C. (1981). The political cartoon. Toronto: Associated University Press.
Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
Sewell, E. H. (1996). Torture-by-tedium, or editorial cartoons during the 1996 presidential campaign. In R. E. Denton, Jr. (Ed.), The 1996 presidential campaign: A communication perspective (pp. 161-177). Westport, CN: Praeger.
Somers, P. P. Jr. (1998). Editorial cartooning and caricature: A reference guide. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
Spencer, D. III (1949). Editorial cartooning. Ames, IA: The Iowa State College Press.
Whitney, D. C. & Becker, L. B. (1983). Keeping the gates for gatekeepers. In Wartella, E., Whitney, D. C., & Windahl, S. (Eds.), Mass Communication Review Yearbook, 4, 407-412.
Wilhoit, G. C. & Drew, D. G. (1991). Editorial writers on American daily newspapers: A 20-year portrait. Journalism Monographs, 129, 1-38.