Ann Telnaes, the Washington Post, and a childhood dream that still lives

About Ann Telnaes resigning from the Washington Post over a spiked cartoon

Ann Telnaes is a brilliant, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Washington Post, and I’m proud to know her. Yesterday, she posted to her Substack that after The Post rejected this rough sketch, she resigned in protest:

If, like me, you want to continue seeing her work, you may want to subscribe to her Substack right now.

I’ve spoken on a couple panels about editorial cartooning alongside Ann Telnaes. The first one was at a 2017 (or was it 2016?) convention in Columbus Ohio. The second was years later at the University of Virginia.

In 2017, I told that audience how I broke into the industry through perseverance, by making myself stand out, and by proving myself to opinion page editors and to the newspaper syndicates. I felt such pride in recounting that story. But in 2023, it hit differently. As I opened my mouth to speak to students who don’t remember a time before social media, suddenly I felt that this generation was more likely to interpret my “inspirational” tale as one of how I groveled for years before gatekeepers.

The obsolete origin story

Instead, I told the UVA students that my origin story was now obsolete. It’s not a road map they should follow anymore. I advised them to avoid newspapers altogether and reach readers directly through services such as Substack. I surprised myself. I wasn’t sure why I said that.

So I kept talking, and discovered why as I spoke. I’d been harboring frustration that, until then, I’d managed to suppress.

Before I was born, the Washington Post’s reporters (and their cartoonist, Herblock) led the coverage that brought down Richard Nixon. That’s when the right wing began playing a long game, with the goal of neutering the Media. By 2023, they’d convinced most Americans that pretty much any media not owned by right wing ideologues were just cogs in a liberal conspiracy machine.

The press is the only industry the Constitution specifically protects. But when I spoke to those UVA students, I could not tell them that newspapers were fulfilling the function the Founders had intended them to fulfill. The Founders had a lot of lousy ideas, but enshrining the press as the main line of defense against creeping authoritarianism wasn’t one of them.

I’d won a Pulitzer a few years earlier for work attacking police brutality, Trump’s malevolence, and systemic racism. But by 2023, those themes had become a tough sell - even to newspapers that had kept a running tally of Donald Trump’s lies throughout his wretched presidency. Papers seemed to want something less strident. Something less opinionated, on the Opinion pages.

I didn’t know whether to consider that a function of fear, or to chalk it up to editors simply being tired of all the existential dread, who just wanted to lighten things up. I’m not sure the distinction matters, to me. All the President’s Men was my first inkling of what journalism was supposed to be. Paul Conrad’s LA Times editorial cartoons were brutal and brilliant, especially to a kid like me in the 1980s.

David Shipley’s response

David Shipley, the Post’s editorial pages editor, disagreed with Ann’s interpretation of events. He told the New York Times “Not every editorial judgment is a reflection of a malign force…” and “My decision was guided by the fact that we had just published a column on the same topic as the cartoon and had already scheduled another column — this one a satire — for publication. The only bias was against repetition.”

I’ve seen my work run alongside columns that dealt with the same issues before. It’s common. And a satirical column is not a replacement for an editorial cartoon. I don’t believe David Shipley considered something I’ve always found to be the case: different readers read different things. Some stick to earnest columns. Some dive straight into satirical columns. But others - especially young people like I was in the 1980s - only open the opinion page for the editorial cartoons. Editorial cartoons are an introduction to journalism, for young people and for those whose eyes gloss over when they see paragraph after paragraph of prose. Covering the same matter with three different types of journalism is not redundant, it’s reach-out.

Is it fear, or is it a weariness of existential dread?

Either way, it’s tough for me to accept. I grew up believing that exposing the reasons for existential dread is any newspaper’s purpose. It’s the reason why in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the Founders spelled out the press’s right - and their duty - to keep us free.

This sounds naive, I know. Especially now:

It’s hard for me to reconcile my childhood idealism with newspapers’ business concerns, or with the conflicting external interests of their owners. It’s hard for me to accept that their owners and the people they hire may not see themselves as guardians of liberty.

In her own words, this is why Ann Telnaes resigned:

“I’ve worked for the Washington Post since 2008 as an editorial cartoonist. I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations—and some differences—about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at. Until now.

The cartoon that was killed criticizes the billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump. There have been multiple articles recently about these men with lucrative government contracts and an interest in eliminating regulations making their way to Mar-a-lago. The group in the cartoon included Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook & Meta founder and CEO, Sam Altman/AI CEO, Patrick Soon-Shiong/LA Times publisher, the Walt Disney Company/ABC News, and Jeff Bezos/Washington Post owner.

While it isn’t uncommon for editorial page editors to object to visual metaphors within a cartoon if it strikes that editor as unclear or isn’t correctly conveying the message intended by the cartoonist, such editorial criticism was not the case regarding this cartoon. To be clear, there have been instances where sketches have been rejected or revisions requested, but never because of the point of view inherent in the cartoon’s commentary. That’s a game changer…and dangerous for a free press.”

Over the years I have watched my overseas colleagues risk their livelihoods and sometimes even their lives to expose injustices and hold their countries’ leaders accountable. As a member of the Advisory board for the Geneva based Freedom Cartoonists Foundation and a former board member of Cartoonists Rights, I believe that editorial cartoonists are vital for civic debate and have an essential role in journalism.

There will be people who say, “Hey, you work for a company and that company has the right to expect employees to adhere to what’s good for the company”. That’s true except we’re talking about news organizations that have public obligations and who are obliged to nurture a free press in a democracy. Owners of such press organizations are responsible for safeguarding that free press— and trying to get in the good graces of an autocrat-in-waiting will only result in undermining that free press.

As an editorial cartoonist, my job is to hold powerful people and institutions accountable. For the first time, my editor prevented me from doing that critical job. So I have decided to leave the Post. I doubt my decision will cause much of a stir and that it will be dismissed because I’m just a cartoonist. But I will not stop holding truth to power through my cartooning, because as they say, “Democracy dies in darkness”.