>> From the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. ^M00:00:04 ^M00:00:24 >> Martha H. Kennedy: Good afternoon everyone. It is a big pleasure for me to welcome you to this special program today. My name is Martha Kennedy. I am a Curator of Popular Graphic Art in the Prints and Photographs Division. And we are very pleased to have two outstanding and funny cartoonists with us today to share their perspectives on political cartooning. This panel is cosponsored by the Prints and Photographs Division, the Swann Foundation for Caricature and Cartoon, and the Interpretive Programs Office. This event is part of public programming connected with a very fine special exhibition entitled "Pointing Their Pens, Herblock and Fellow Cartoonists Confront the Issues." And this is curated by my colleague, Sara Duke, who I think is in the audience here [laughter]. Another preliminary comment. We do plan time for questions at the end of the cartoonists' presentations and I hope you have some questions. This program is being filmed for webcast and that's why we have all these blinding lights up right now. So please understand that if you ask a question, you are giving permission to be filmed. Signe Wilkinson and Ann Telnaes have to the Library at a time when public attention and debate over the significance of the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO tragedy and the role of free speech have been reinvigorated. Causes, you might ask. "Doonesbury's" creator, Gary Trudeau, recently commented critically on the nature of the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO cartoonist's work, describing it as "punching down." Many of his peers disagreed, including our cartoonists here today. Also, when the PEN/Faulkner Writers' Group recently decided to make an award to ^IT Charlie Hebdo Magazine ^NO, five member writers publicly declined to attend the group's fundraising gala. So, against this unanticipated backdrop, we asked these two distinguished cartoonists to share their responses to the tragic murders of the five cartoonists at ^IT Charlie Hebdo Magazine ^NO in January of this year, their thoughts on free speech, other cartoonists' related work, and their takes on Trudeau's comments. In addition to these very timely concerns, we also asked them to show and discuss their own controversial cartoons and cartoons relating to women's issues and gender issues. Signe and Ann are among a very small number of women who pursue political cartooning as their main professional focus. Okay. I'm going to -- ^M00:03:22 ^M00:03:27 -- Signe Wilkinson is the Editorial Cartoonist for the ^IT Philadelphia Daily News ^NO -- >> Signe Wilkinson: I'm on the left. ^M00:03:32 [ Laughter ] ^M00:03:36 >> Martha H. Kennedy: -- and she is also contributing to the ^IT Philadelphia Enquirer ^NO these days. In 1992 she became the first woman to win the Pulitzer Prize for her political cartoons. And this prize-winning group focused on human needs and social conditions. She has received many other prestigious awards including the Thomas Nast Award from the Overseas Press Club in 1996, 2000, 2006, and this year, too. She's also received the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award in 2002 and 2008, and the Visionary Woman Award from Philadelphia's Moore College of Art and Design in 2011. She served as President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists in 1994/'95. She's published two collections of her wonderfully hard-hitting eye-catching cartoons, and they included ^IT One Nation Under Surveillance ^NO in 2005, and ^IT Abortion Cartoons on Demand ^NO in 1992. She's also drawn cartoons for ^IT Ms. Magazine, Organic Gardening ^NO, and other publications. Her work has been exhibited widely in group and solo shows. She launched "The Family Tree," which is a comic strip that was syndicated and distributed by ^IT United Media ^NO in 2007 and ended it in 2011. Ann Telnaes, on the right, creates animated editorial cartoons and a blog of print cartoons. Ann made gifs and sketches for the ^IT Washington Post ^NO. In 2001 she became the second woman to win the Pulitzer Prize for her political cartoons, and they focused on the presidential election of 2000. Other notable awards she has received are the Clifford K. and James T. Berryman Award from the National Press Foundation in 2003 and 2006. And in 2011 she was a finalist for the Herblock Prize in Editorial Cartooning. In 1997 she also won a National Headliners Award and other awards. She has served as the Vice President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists and is a member of the Cartoonists Rights Network International. Her cartoons have been exhibited nationally and internationally, including a solo exhibit here at the Library in 2004. She has published two collections of her bold, streamlined cartoon drawings in ^IT Humor's Edge ^NO which was a companion volume to her exhibition, and ^IT Dick ^NO in 2006 which revolved around cartoons of then Vice President Dick Cheney. Beginning in 2002 Ann contributed to the daily comic "Six Chicks" for several years and to the online publication ^IT Women's eNews ^NO from 2002 to 2009. Much more could be said about both of these wonderful cartoonists, but I would like to ask you to welcome them to our program today. ^M00:06:45 [ Applause ] ^M00:06:53 All right, just -- I'm going to ask Signe to begin by sharing her reactions to the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO tragedy, and how she framed her thought process in responded to it, first. Thank you. >> Signe Wilkinson: Thank you, Martha. When we got started on this, planning this event, it was long before ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO. It was long before the more recent controversies, and we were sort of wondering what the focus would be, just free speech." And I regret to say that tragedy has really become the centerpiece of what most cartoonists are talking and arguing about right now. And just to be clear, my position is that cartoonists don't kill people. Cartoons can't kill people. Humorless, religious fanatics generally do, or more often they do. A cartoon, a little cartoon, a drawing on paper, pixels on a screen, cannot stone anyone to death, it cannot sever a head, it cannot send anyone to jail. And so the proportionality of what we're talking about, a cartoon, the drawing of a cartoon, and the results that happened on January 7th in Paris are just so disproportionate that it's almost hard to even talk about it as well, you know, one thing equals the other. But my interest in this goes back to the Danish cartoons which started in 2005, and erupted in 2006 after several months of ginning up controversy about them. And I learned then that it's really not about the image of Mohammad being prohibited from being -- from drawing. And that's what I'd like to talk about today, is the use of symbols and how we come to focus on one thing. But, in reality, for at least me as a cartoonist, it's been quite different. This, of course, this is grabbed off the Internet, so I'm sorry the resolution isn't good enough for you to be really shocked and appalled that I am showing them. And this is a collection of the Danish cartoons with the most, the one that caused the most controversy up on the top with the turban. When that happened, it took a while for the controversy to bubble over from Europe to the United States. And nobody really knew that -- what it was all about, that this -- that drawing Mohammad was even a problem. ^M00:10:05 One of the first papers to publish the image in the United States was the ^IT Austin Statesman American ^NO, which did it too early. No one knew that it was -- that this was a prohibited image, and they got no reaction. People didn't know they were supposed to be afraid and appalled. But shortly thereafter, it really hit the fan and there were only about five other papers in the country that managed to put in a news item in the paper. And one of them was the ^IT Philadelphia Enquirer ^NO. I word at the ^IT Daily News ^NO at the time, and our paper did not. The ^IT Enquirer ^NO put one in one of the interior pages in a little box with an explanation and -- just to alert its readers, this is what we're talking about. There were protests. There were many follow-ups, meetings with people who were unhappy. But what it did was start a conversation in the city of Philadelphia. And right now we have a very strong interfaith movement that, because it brought people together to actually talk about these things across religious lines. My editor, when I said, ooh, I want to draw Mohammad, said, mm, not so sure about that. And he backed me up on many, many other controversies. So I stewed for a couple of days to figure out how I could do it. And I did this cartoon -- "The Big Fat Book of Offensive Religious Cartoons." ^M00:11:57 [ Laughter ] ^M00:12:00 That's Mohammad, third from the right [laughter]. This cartoon has been reprinted widely and was just sent around the world again via Twitter after ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO, with no controversy. And the reason is that Mohammad is cheerful, happy, and one of the guys. He's not portrayed negatively. And this is the point I want to make. That it isn't about drawing Mohammad. It's how Mohammad is drawn. And so it's a political, it's the politics; it's not the image. And I have had this experience in other cartoons as well. Oh, oops [laughter]. Wait, this isn't a gay wedding, is it? ^M00:12:48 [ Laughter ] ^M00:12:55 Well, about half my audience like this cartoon a lot [laughter]. About half my audience said, "One should not be putting a prophet in the newspaper." And then my Jewish readers said, "How dare you put leavened bread. ^M00:13:14 [ Laughter ] ^M00:13:18 "That was a sedar dinner." I can't please everyone all the time. I said, "That was my artistic license. Have you ever tried to draw matzo [laughter]?" So, again -- but I've done cartoons -- I did one with the Pope's coming to Philadelphia. I want you all not to be there. There's no room in Philadelphia next September. But the Archbishop liked it so much, he sent it to the Vatican. It's like, okay, you can't do it sometimes, you can do it others. And this -- we're covering the major religions I've pissed off over my career. This was a tiny little illustration in 1992 that went with a letter about Arab attacks on Israelis. It appeared on our Letters Page. Next day it was in birdcages. No one commented on it. About three months later, this was 1992, a woman named Lynn Yeakel was running against Arlen Specter, our incumbent Senator. And she was gaining on him. It was the Year of the Woman, Clinton was running, and Spector all of a sudden's camp got a little nervous. So they started a whispering campaign about her, saying that she was anti-Semitic for the most minor infraction you can imagine. It was -- it didn't even involve her, but somebody at her church, a thousand-member church. So there were letters to the editor about that. And just by happenstance I drew this with Lynn Yeakel being asked to prove that she is not anti-Semitic. I was eviscerated for this tiny little cartoon. People called, they wrote, people came into the office and suggested to my editors that I find other employment, that I was -- called in letters "feminism's own Goebbels," et cetera. There was a little blowback. Let's just put it that way [laughter]. But the argument was I should not use the Star of David in a cartoon. However, this was okay. This was not. And it goes back to my points on the other prophets that we have looked at. It's not the symbol, it's not the prophet itself. It's the politics behind it. And every group holds certain things sacred. The question in front of us is whether we can let each group decide for everyone else what is sacred. And if we do, we will not be drawing cartoons. So that's -- I turn it over now to Ann to continue our -- do I have one more? >> Yes. >> Signe Wilkinson: Oh, yes. Just a small historical [laughter] -- It was an early style [laughter]. It was my 1876 style. I used to call it -- I used to sign them "Joseph Keppler [laughter]." If you take a look at this, this was a double-truck in ^IT Harper's Weekly ^NO called "The Religious Vanity Fair." If you start from the left, that is a stereotypical, horrible Jewish person. The little, next one to the right is the humbug Presbyterians. Way over on the right, it's the Catholic selling indulgences. The guy with his hand up is the Baptist offering baptism. You get over to polygamy. You have the Episcopalians selling ritual salvation. And the guy on the couch was the New Age minister of the time, Henry Ward Beecher, who was promising the "love road to heaven [laughter]." This is our heritage. It's irreverent and it treats all -- it treats all religions with a good dose of skepticism. My point is that in -- and my feeling is that as new religions come this is the marketplace that they're entering. And if we treat all of them equally they will show up in a cartoon like this, too. ^M00:18:02 [ Applause ] ^M00:18:10 >> Ann Telnaes: Is it this one to look for? >> Signe Wilkinson: Yes. >> Ann Telnaes: Okay. Okay. I have to apologize. I, of course, came down with a cold first thing this morning. So my voice is like a couple of steps down. So I apologize for that. So Signe talked about symbols. I'm going to talk about the red line that everybody seems to be discussing, especially now with -- after ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO and Gary Trudeau. Of course, as Signe mentioned, this really did start in 2006 with the Danish cartoon controversy. This was a cartoon that I drew at the time in response to all our -- the debate that was going on within the cartooning community here in the United States. People were very divided then. I would say at that point really a lot of people thought that the -- what the Danish cartoonist did was not appropriate. And I was frankly surprised at a lot of my colleagues, a lot of my liberal colleagues, that they really felt that they had definitely crossed over a line. But my point here was that everybody has their own red line. Everybody has a different opinion about what insults them, what makes them angry. So if you start doing red lines, I wanted to show that eventually you box in the cartoonist, the writer, the whatever. And that's the reason I created that one. Another thing that came out of the Danish cartoon controversy was just the different type of censors that we had around the world. You know, of course you probably know that in Europe they have a lot of laws against the fact that -- a Holocaust denier, that you actually think the Holocaust didn't exist. You're not allowed to say that. ^M00:20:00 They throw people in jail for that. I think those people are nuts. I think they're crazy. They -- you know, they obviously don't know their history. But I don't think they should be thrown in jail because all you're doing is you're just -- you know, ridicule them. Tell them they're stupid. Draw cartoons about them. But to make it against the law to say something idiotic, I think, is idiotic. So, and this is kind of the way I feel about the whole thing [laughter]. "I'm all for free speech unless I find it personally offensive." So now, getting around to ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO. That was a really difficult time. I think that really changed the conversation, at least in the cartooning community. And I really felt that that was sort of going to be the catalyst for us. I really thought that that was going to change even the cartoonists that had felt that the Danish cartoon controversy, the Danish cartoons were wrong and they shouldn't have done it. I thought that, you know, killing five cartoonists in cold blood over what they drew would be enough for people to say "Enough, that's ridiculous," you know? If we're going to be a civil society, that we're going to kill people over what they say and draw is just absurd. So I was not working for the ^IT Washington Post ^NO during the Danish cartoon controversy. But I was during ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO. I started in 2008. So this was my immediate response to the killings. I was shocked. You know, it's kind of hard to do a hard-hitting cartoon when you're shocked. But this was after the iconic photograph of the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO editor. That he had on that same shirt and he was holding up his fist after, I think, the bombings is what it was, the bombings of the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO offices. I'm just showing you how this appeared online. I'm going to show you individual pieces so you can actually read it. This was a cartoon essay I did in response to -- after the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO killings, after the initial shock wore off and people condemned it. Then all of a sudden we started having, not just with the cartoonists, with writers talking about how, you know, what the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO cartoonists did was questionable. It was in bad taste. It was racist cartoons. You know, it was anti-Semitic. It was whatever. So let me just go through the panels real quick. "So now that the shock of the murders has turned to questioning ^IT Charlie Hebdo's ^NO satire" -- "Some cartoonists and writers have described the cartoons as anti-Muslim, blasphemous, offensive and bigoted. The 2009 firing of a cartoonist who wrote an anti-Semitic column has also been mentioned." "First of all, I am not a big fan of bathroom humor. Secondly, and more seriously, it's a valid discussion to have about why the divisions between people are so deep and our political discourse has become so toxic -- However, that is not what we should be talking about now. Do we condone threats of violence toward individuals because of what they say or draw, regardless of how offensive the words or images are? No. Because what happens once we get beyond the easy images to condemn -- ^M00:23:30 ^M00:23:35 "And who makes that decision? ^M00:23:37 ^M00:23:40 " All people must have the right to express themselves without fear, otherwise we risk losing our freedoms." So my point is, you know, when we talk about what are offensive images and what should we not be drawing or what should we not be saying, my question back to you is, who makes that decision? Are we going to let government make that decision? Do we let individual religious institutions make that decision? I am all for letting the idiots say stupid things in order for us all to be able to say what we want to say. I'll put up with the dumb people in order to keep those freedoms. Am I done here? Are we -- >> Martha H. Kennedy: I don't know [inaudible]. >> Ann Telnaes: Let's see where we're going. Ah, it's Signe. ^M00:24:24 ^M00:24:27 >> Signe Wilkinson: Just one note on the Danish cartoons. Just as I said, if the ^IT Enquirer ^NO -- it started -- the publication started a dialog. It did in Denmark, too. And as a matter of fact, one of the young imams who was really the one who went out of his way to find others to protest the cartoons has since recanted his point of view and said that the paper should have the right to publish them. So, again, a cartoonist is not the end of a -- a cartoon is not the end of a conversation; it's the start of one. But you can't have a conversation if one of the people is shot dead. So I'm all for not shooting cartoonists personally, and I'm going to say that publicly. This is just a little round-up that we're not alone in this discussion. Cartooning is a worldwide sport these days. This is Latuff from Brazil who -- and I apologize to my colleagues whose cartoons I'm about to show. I did not ask for their permission to show them at this, although I have asked Latuff in the past if I might. He's shooting to ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO and hitting the mosque in the back. But the reason we need to pay attention to -- and this is the first day out. And there were tons of cartoons like this from cartoonists all over the world. But international cartoonists have other concerns as well. This is another one by Latuff drawing about Muslims. It's freedom of speech. Drawing about Jews. It's anti-Semitism. And there's a big feeling among cartoonists around the world, not -- I mean not universally but in many countries, that we do -- we are unequal in the way we treat things. But we should know that. I mean, we might not agree with it. We might think we're equal. But we should know how others perceive us. This is an Indian woman cartoonist, and she's gotten in trouble because she's talked about religious people in India and rape. "So why don't you tell your guru to stop molesting the girls? 'Til then, cartoons on him will be continued." And that's a pretty brave cartoon for someone in India, especially a woman. It's not generally encouraged apparently. She's had a lot of blowback. And lastly, this is the wonderful cartoonist, Ali Farzat, from Syria, who was a very courageous anti-government cartoonist. And in 2011 someone, we don't know exactly who, I guess could be guessed, abducted him, several masked people, beat him, as you can see, and then stomped on his hands until they were broken. This is what cartoonists around the world -- but not always face the same thing -- but there's real, real persecution against them and -- but this is Ali Farzat's reply. ^M00:27:59 [ Laughter ] ^M00:28:03 It's the spirit of cartoonists everywhere and that's what we're tapping into here. >> Thank you. ^M00:28:13 ^M00:28:24 >> Martha H. Kennedy: At this point I'm going to ask Ann to show some of her most controversial cartoons. And if we have time later we will try to access an additional controversial cartoon by Signe if we can do that. But Signe's already covered some really controversial cartoons in her earlier remarks. Okay? >> Ann Telnaes: Okay. So when -- I'm going to show you two of them. The last one we're going to try to show at the end. Unfortunately, it's an animation, so technology. We couldn't get it to work properly and we're scared we couldn't come back to the slideshow. So I will tell it to you. But I was really pleased with myself. I didn't do this on purpose. But I actually have covered all three major religions to insult [laughter]. Okay. So the reason I'm showing you three of these -- I'm not exactly sure which one actually resulted in me getting threats, real threats. What happened was it was a Islamic group based in the U.K. This is what I figured out later on. Islamic group based in the U.K. who went to my website and went into my archives and picked these cartoons and put them on Iranian magazine website. And then I started getting these e-mails that all sounded alike about what an awful person I was for doing these, which was fine. I don't care about that. We all get threats. It's no big deal. But then I got a couple of like I'm going to kill you threats from -- they traced them back to Saudi, Arabia, and Kuwait. ^M00:30:04 My first experience with the FBI. That was fun. So anyway. That was right after 911. This is before the Danish cartoon controversy and ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO. Ah, this was fun [laughter]. As you all might remember, the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal here in the States. I did many cartoons about that. Got lots of reactions from people about how I was Catholic-bashing. And this one was particularly an interesting one. The Minneapolis paper published it, so then -- I will part of it if I can actually see it. Let' see. The Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul, Minneapolis wrote a letter. He didn't try to kill me, but he did write a letter to the editor. And we wrote, "To use the Vatican's recent same-sex marriage document to portray the Vatican as lecherously winking at a legal same-sex unions and pedophilia is a vicious and unfair slur against our church, its religions, and its lay faithful." And my point about that is, you know, I don't do cartoons blasting people for their individual religious beliefs. That's your deal. But if a leader of a church, if the leadership of a church inserts itself in the political process, which the Catholic Church does with their reproductive rights stances, they are fair game. So that is why I do these cartoons. And the last one we can't show you right now, but suffice to say, it's about Netanyahu. So maybe we'll see that later on. I don't know what's next [inaudible]. >> Signe Wilkinson: Okay. Do you want to say anything about -- >> Martha H. Kennedy: Okay. No. Just briefly -- the next section is on -- >> Signe Wilkinson: Chick humor. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Right. ^M00:32:08 [ Laughter ] ^M00:32:11 We've had [inaudible] about women, their position, and other gender issues. >> Ann Telnaes: And how we kind of, being female editorial cartoonists, how we might take a little bit different take on things. >> Signe Wilkinson: Okay. So I'm not going to -- these aren't cartoons about politics and women's issues. I've done a ton on them. But there are really, I think, a few different -- there are certain cartoons that I've done that I don't think a man would have done. And this is one of them. This is about me shopping with my daughter in the Brittany Spears era [laughter]. Okay. It's four parts. I'm not happy [laughter], but I get an idea. ^M00:32:53 [ Laughter ] ^M00:32:58 It's again -- I mean I've been accused of being anti-Muslim, but, you know, you can use imagery in many different ways. And I appreciate the hijab for being there for me as a parent. The next one, "If God had wanted women to have octuplets -- I don't think so." Anyone who's actually birthed a baby would understand how difficult two would be as opposed to eight. That was, remember, when the Octomom was big. And I will -- I actually think when people say, okay, how do you draw women? One thing a woman -- a woman does not have trouble drawing other women's breasts. They're not sex objects. They're just part of an anatomy. And I think if you look at various cartoons about women, I think sometimes, not always, there's a tendency to have trouble with that part of the anatomy. So a woman -- oh, a woman is a little freer I think, or at least knows what she's talking about. This was actually -- this is about abortion. This is quite some time ago. She sees the results positive. She starts thinking and thinking, and it's dawn, and it's dusk, and it's thinking and it's thinking. She goes to the abortion clinic and come back in 24 hours after you've thought it over. And the reason I did this was that I had had a baby, and I know the second that you think that you might be pregnant, that's the only thing that you think about. And so, for a guy across the street at the Supreme Court to tell me that I need 24 more hours to think about it is, just to me, so insulting and has no understanding of what it's like to actually be pregnant, whether you want the baby or not. And lastly I'll go back -- I'll say, you know, there is always, it's always talked about medical stuff having to do with women. And men, too. But men don't have to read reports on whether a mammogram is a good idea or not. "If women were meant to have mammograms." ^M00:35:30 [ Laughter ] ^M00:35:34 Thank you. ^M00:35:35 [ Inaudible Conversations ] ^M00:35:37 What? You -- >> Just [inaudible]. >> Signe Wilkinson: And you want to do yours from the -- >> Ann Telnaes: I'll just talk. >> Signe Wilkinson: Oh, okay. >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah. Okay. So, continuing that theme. This is actually something I did in [inaudible] or the Hillary Campaign when she got so much criticism about how she wasn't sensitive enough or feeling enough or caring enough or connecting with her voters. And, of course, this has come up again just recently. And I thought, well, that's really interesting. They want her to be tough but they want her to cry, too, at the same time. So I started thinking about during the Salem Witch Trials, what did they do to find out if you were a witch. They threw you in the water and if you floated you were a witch and, therefore, they're going to know. But [inaudible]. So, but if, if you actually drowned then you're innocent, but you're screwed [laughter], so I thought that's kind of apropos to Hillary. Next. I love these cartoons because I don't have to draw them [laughter]. So this is, of course, the famous painting about the writing of the Constitution. "Let's agree, we don't give women the right to vote." A good example of why diversity's [inaudible]. Oh, man. This is a -- I think it's getting a little bit better now. I did this in the early 2000s but, "Study shows 8% of women in movies are over the age of 35." You know, no problem getting a 65-year-old guy with a 25-year-old woman on the screen. Oh, no. >> Thanks. >> Ann Telnaes: Thanks. And I just wanted to show you this in terms of -- we need to be a little bit more serious about why it's important to have women editorial cartoonists. Because we're women we do notice things important to women. And when I first started out in editorial cartooning I was reading ^IT The Christian Science Monitor ^NO a great deal. And they had some really great stories about the plight of Afghanistan women. And that's the first time I had ever heard about the Taliban. That was the first cartoon I ever did that was [inaudible] in 1996, which came back to haunt us [inaudible]. >> Oh, no, this. >> Mm-hmm. >> Ann Telnaes: If you're in D.C., you might remember that this is actually a photograph on the front page of the ^IT Washington Post ^NO where they showed George W. Bush signing one of those umpteenth partial birth abortion signs. And, of course, every single lawmaker behind him was in a suit, a man's suit. >> Martha H. Kennedy: That's a real power suit. >> Ann Telnaes: That is, yeah. Oh, and that's -- yeah, okay. This is my response to gay marriage [inaudible]. Most of male colleagues, you know, would talk about gay marriage in the sense of, you know, is it appropriate, is it natural, is it whatever? And I thought, let's talk about marriage as an institute just to begin with. It's not that it's been so great for women [inaudible]. Yeah, we -- it's -- in the beginning they kind of traded women for things, so I thought well, why don't we just have this woman express to this newly-wed couple, "So which one of you gets to endure centuries of setting class status and being legally considered the property of your husband?" >> None. >> Ann Telnaes: I think that's it. Nope, we got one more, okay [laughter]. I guess this is in the [inaudible] things used somewhere. I don't know [laughter]. But it's fun. >> Signe Wilkinson: And I think that is it, yes. >> Ann Telnaes: So, did you -- >> Martha H. Kennedy: That's the -- yeah. That the end of the planned part of the presentation. I'd like to open up for questions to the two cartoonists right now. So [inaudible]. >> Ann Telnaes: Yes. We'll stand. We're short. >> Martha H. Kennedy: And I can also -- >> Signe Wilkinson: Yeah [laughter]. >> Martha H. Kennedy: I can try to ask this in animation. >> Ann Telnaes: Oh, why don't you do that while we talk. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Oh, while you talk, okay? >> Signe Wilkinson: Okay, question number one. >> Ann Telnaes: Come on, guys. >> Signe Wilkinson: Way in the back, in the hat. >> Have you had an editor cancel a cartoon you've done at your [inaudible] home paper? >> Signe Wilkinson: Well, the one I showed early-on was after I was not going to do a cartoon directly on ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO -- or the Danish cartoons. ^M00:40:07 But eventually I did do one. So it -- and I think it was a better cartoon because I paused and thought about it. There was one local cartoon that -- at the -- in my -- my cartoons appear in both the ^IT Enquirer ^NO and the ^IT Daily News ^NO. It appeared in the ^IT Daily News ^NO. the ^IT Enquirer ^NO did not want to run it. But I still think it was -- thought it was a great cartoon. And so -- the but the ^IT Daily News ^NO did. So, you know, editors, you can't figure them out [laughter]. You just -- >> Ann Telnaes: But -- and along the same lines, since we have the animation up, my editor backed me up completely on this one, Fred Hiatt at the ^IT Washington Post ^NO. I work at home so I was -- this was -- >> Martha H. Kennedy: Shoot. I was trying to get it to run. I'm -- >> Ann Telnaes: I'll talk about it while she's retrieving it. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Okay. >> Ann Telnaes: Anyway, so I had done this over the weekend and then I just -- I upload it and then an editor will finalize it and take a look at it. So, you know, I did that Sunday thinking nothing of it. It was about the bombings in Gaza last year where all of you are probably aware that, you know, a lot of Palestinians were killed, a lot of children were killed. And I thought, well, I want to do a cartoon about this. I don't want to put any blood in it or anything. I just want to do something criticizing really both sides, you know? Because children are innocent. Children don't have a say in this. They don't have a say whether or not they get bombed. So I drew Netanyahu doing this. Let's show. >> Martha H. Kennedy: All right. I'm trying to get it to -- >> Ann Telnaes: And I apologize if you're going to watch an ad. But they do this. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Right. Sorry, what? >> Go down -- >> Go down to the -- >> Go down. >> Here it is. ^M00:41:52 [ Knocking Sound ] ^M00:42:03 >> Ann Telnaes: And that's basically it [laughter]. So you can -- yeah, because it's going to roll over to the next one. So -- >> Save up to a thousand dollars. >> Ann Telnaes: See. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Okay. ^M00:42:11 [ Laughter ] ^M00:42:14 All right, all right. >> Ann Telnaes: Mattress. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Okay. >> Ann Telnaes: So anyway. So what ended up happening is, you know, I sent it in. Didn't hear anything. And then by midweek my direct editor, Jim, just kind of sends me an e-mail message. Did you hear anything back about that cartoon? I'm like well, I'm starting to get e-mails, a few of them. You know, just regular old, you know, you're an idiot stuff. And then, come to find out, Monday morning first thing, every single Israeli Jewish special interest group called Fred Hiatt's office to complain about that cartoon. And then there's an article in the Israeli -- what is it, ^IT The Post, The Jerusalem Daily Post ^NO. Yes, ^IT Jerusalem Post ^NO, condemning -- well, talking about it and, of course, you know, having statements from different organizations. They didn't bother asking me about it. So I wasn't in there. And then I started getting another round of e-mails that were the most -- I have never gotten e-mails like this before. I mean, every single cartoonist gets, you know, mean e-mails talking about what an idiot you are, you shouldn't be doing cartooning, you know, you're this, you're that. This was the most misogynistic disgusting e-mails that I've gotten. I'm not saying it's from those organizations, because it wasn't. It was just from individuals. But it's -- I think it's indicative of what -- where we're going, you know, with conversation and social media. I'm not the first woman that's gotten that. But it's -- it was a first for me in my career. So, I guess we can just continue with -- >> Martha H. Kennedy: Yeah, other questions. >> Ann Telnaes: That hat [laughter]. >> Congratulations, Signe, [inaudible] the Overseas Press Club -- >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah. ^M00:43:55 [ Applause ] ^M00:44:02 >> -- we've heard recently from foreign cartoonists who have come here and said they wanted [inaudible] translate across the world for moving text [inaudible]. Are there special things about what you do that you think play well overseas [inaudible], things you do that you're conscious of, I want this to play across the world, or not so much [inaudible]. >> Signe Wilkinson: Go ahead. You're closest. >> Ann Telnaes: My work tends to be more image-heavy than words. So I think that's just my natural tendency to do, do it. I don't -- no, I don't, I don't necessarily change anything that way. I mean, I -- I think just the fact that we have the Internet now is just amazing development for editorial cartoonists because we can reach so many people. Of course it gets us in trouble, too. And that's why we ended up with the Danish cartoon conversation. >> Signe Wilkinson: I'm a really local cartoonist. So my stuff depends on people knowing what's going on in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania mostly and the environs. So I don't think about how it's going to be playing in Beijing because I don't think they're interested. So, you know, some of them have, as I said earlier, have -- on the more international topics have gone around. But I don't draw for an international audience. For the ^IT Philadelphia Daily News ^NO, Camden is a foreign assignment [laughter]. How about -- >> Martha H. Kennedy: [Inaudible], yeah. >> Most [inaudible] of [inaudible] but I realize there was a [inaudible] second part where you guys are being [inaudible]. But, whatever. There's a more serious side to it when you talk to -- about politics. And, as an artist, I'm [inaudible] your opinions about -- because let's take for instance there was a senator who went to, I think it was Japan, not too long ago. He had [inaudible]. So do you think that the artist is overstepping her or her boundaries in making political gestures at what we would call serious issues? >> Signe Wilkinson: Baa. Well, I'm not sure how that -- I think that was South Korea was the ambassador who was just coming out of a meeting and I don't -- I'm not sure how that translates to cartooning. But the -- you know, that's what we do. We take difficult cartoons and -- I mean difficult issues and tragedies sometimes and try to give them -- give a connection, an emotional connection, about how one could feel about them. So I think cartoons are sort of a link in a newspaper or website between an actual event and how people feel about that event. And, of course, the reaction is different whether you agree with the cartoonist or not. And I think where it's going is that -- where once we were in broad-based publications like the ^IT Washington Post ^NO or in my papers in Philadelphia, now people are going into more niche online publications, so that if people want to access a cartoonist, they go to the ones they already agree with, and are happy with them. And then it's harder -- I think the downside of that is that you don't start the conversation across party lines or ideological or religious lines. And I think that's not just about cartooning but about the media generally. All sorts of things. That didn't answer your question, but Ann will answer it -- >> Ann Telnaes: No, no way [laughter]. No, I know. Martha can answer it. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Okay. I'd like to ask both of you, why there are so few women in political cartooning. Where does -- ^M00:48:25 [ Laughter ] ^M00:48:28 I mean, I know this is -- it's sort of a leading question, but I think it's important, you know, to hear both your takes on that. >> Signe Wilkinson: You know, without ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO, that would have been the first question. >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah, right. We've had -- we've gone beyond, yes. I don't know. I mean, there's -- because it started that way. Because most editors were male and you feel more comfortable with someone that's like you. I don't know. I mean I was in animation. We had the same -- we had the same issue there, that there weren't a lot of women in the beginning. It's changing. I mean, it's -- the reason I make fun of that question, on a test, is because it's like for us, we don't -- do we consider ourselves as women cartoonists? No. >> Signe Wilkinson: No. >> Ann Telnaes: No. >> Signe Wilkinson: We consider ourselves cartoonists -- >> Ann Telnaes: 'toonists. >> Signe Wilkinson: God damn it. >> Ann Telnaes: Damn it. ^M00:49:16 [ Laughter ] ^M00:49:19 [ Applause ] ^M00:49:23 You said God damn it [laughter]. >> Signe Wilkinson: If there was a god, damn it. Oh, no. >> Do you think that any of your more controversial cartoons, any of the ones that got more of a reaction, would have gotten less of a reaction if you were males? >> Signe Wilkinson: Well, a lot of my hate mail begins, "Dear Mr. Wilkinson [laughter]." Seriously. Because my picture isn't in the paper, and Signe's an ambiguous name. And you're going to have to answer that one. But I don't think so. I think people are -- they -- if they hate an image, they hate the image whether you're a woman or a man. ^M00:50:00 >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah. I don't -- not really. I mean I've done cartoons that have had the woman's point of view where I've gotten a couple of men like oh, you're just a man-hater, but that's not [inaudible]. Sandy. >> I'm interested in hearing your reactions to Gary Trudeau's remarks from -- like ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO. What he seemed to be pointing out was everybody should really be, to be concerned about what they said. But on the other hand that some of the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO cartoons were really stirring a racist Islamic pot [inaudible] Islamic pot. >> Signe Wilkinson: Go ahead. You first. >> Ann Telnaes: Me first? You first? Yeah. I actually wrote a response to Gary Trudeau in my ^IT Washington Post ^NO blog, which is an interesting experience for me because writing is not my thing. But sometimes you just need to write it. I don't agree with Gary Trudeau. You know, I respect him, as I said in my column. I think he's, he's really one of the greats in our field. I just think he chose some very unfortunate words, you know. To throw hate speech in there, to, you know, to describe me as a free-speech fundamentalist extreme -- no, fundamentalist -- >> Martha H. Kennedy: A fanatic. >> Ann Telnaes: -- fanatic. That was it, fanatic. You know, I just don't agree with that. Like I said, I think that, you know, it's important that we, as a society, discuss and debate this issues. But we're a civilized society. That's how we do it. We don't kill people and we don't sit there and somehow explain people that kill people. And when he brings up disenfranchised and -- what was the other term? Disenfranchised -- ^M00:51:50 ^M00:51:53 -- minorities, I mean, Signe and I, we've done so many cartoons about women's issues. You talk about a disenfranchised minority, women throughout the world. And, unfortunately, women tend to get the real short end of the stick when it comes to religious organizations. They do. I mean, I know that's something that nobody wants to talk about, but it's true. So, you know, like I said, I respect him. I just don't agree with him. >> Signe Wilkinson: Ditto. ^M00:52:23 [ Laughter ] ^M00:52:27 I, too think he's, you know, a master of the craft. But -- and I think what Ann's getting at about feeling slightly differently as a woman -- the first people who get covered up and who get told that they can't be at the altar or, you know, that they can't go to the Wailing Wall, or, you know, to offer their prayers in the same place men do, it's -- I mean, this is, this is religion in action. And from a woman's point of view it's always a little difficult to say, oh, okay, that's fine, and please go to my state legislature and pass some laws based on your religion. I just feel like -- as Ann said, if you're going to enter into the political fray and a lot of religions do, then you're part of politics, and you have to be treated as a politician. That's what cartoonists do. So I feel that at the other -- the specific problem or the specific accusation, both for the Danish cartoons and the ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO cartoons was these people weren't really journalists. And the Danish cartoon, the magazine was some right wing rag. Well, Flemming Rose, the Editor of that rag, was a foreign correspondent based here in Washington for many years. And then also in Russia. He speaks fluent English and fluent Russian. I've sat at a table with him where he's talking about towns, tiny little towns and their mayors in the Ukraine. This is a serious journalist. He didn't just do -- cook this up on a whim which is what he was accused of doing. So I reject that. It's an issue that's -- the issue of immigration is a live issue in many European countries. This is how they dealt with it. And one small sliver dealt with it and, again, it's -- it should have been the start of a conversation between people, not the end of it. And I would say the same thing for ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO except, you know, ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO -- the cartoons, the circulation was going down. People weren't reading ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO. If they had just left them alone, there would have been one reader left. And that would have solved the problem for them before the people who objected to them. And then there's always the ability to draw your own cartoons. And cartoonists around the world are doing that, so grab a pen, not a gun. ^M00:55:26 ^M00:55:31 What was that? >> I have a question on a lighter note. I was wondering if you all were both news hounds growing up and if you weren't doing this, what do you think you would be doing? >> Were you a news hound? >> Signe Wilkinson: Well, at Girl Scout Camp I did the underground newspaper with a friend, but [laughter]. And at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia where I worked to earn money to go to art school, we had the underground newspaper going there, too. But, so I've been, you know, interested in commentary generally. But I am not -- I would not say I'm the best informed person in the entire United States of America. And I don't -- you know, if I -- I think one of the reasons I would never live in Washington is that that's all people talk about. It's boring after a while. That's why I like to do cartoons on different aspects of life, not just the day-to-day politics. So, no, I'm not a -- I'm not as big a news hound probably as I should be. >> Ann Telnaes: No. I actually -- I didn't get into editorial cartooning until I was almost 30 years old. I started out as an animator. See, everything you learn when you're young comes back later to help you. Yeah. So, I -- and I actually didn't even read a newspaper in my 20's. Isn't that horrible? I became interested in politics when I watched the Anita Hill Hearings on television. And I was, frankly, appalled at what I saw with both sides of the aisle, about the questions they were asking and things they were saying to Anita Hill. And having been a woman that worked, you know, in private businesses, and I just thought you guys are crazy. Of course there's still sexual harassment and of course we still have to deal with it. So that's when I decided to put together a portfolio and send it out. And I knew nothing about what I was doing, which is really good because ignorance is bliss [laughter]. So -- and that's how I got into the business. >> Signe Wilkinson: Just one other thing about women not going into cartooning. I actually do think that there is a difference between -- generally speaking, it's a huge spectrum, but women take things more personally, generally, not, you know, on average, I'm not making huge stereotypes. And there're clearly exceptions to all rules. But, you know, Steve and others in this room are -- have gone to AAEC conventions, our cartooning convention. It's oh, yeah, I really -- I got, I got a lot of reaction out of that one. Oh, yeah. They really went after me on that one. You know? And that's not generally the reaction that I hear from women. It's like, oh, my god [laughter]. They didn't like the color I did on that woman's dress in my cartoon. No. I'm not saying that. I didn't say it [laughter]. Erase the tape [laughter]. But it is -- it's -- I'll quit before I really bury myself, yeah. Okay, fine. But I do think that that's a little bit of an issue. >> Ann Telnaes: Are we going on? Next question [laughter]. >> What about recording [inaudible]? >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah. >> So one of the things that I read in Gary Trudeau's thing, and I read your response to the blog here, was to talk a little bit about responsibility. And you used that word which I thought was going to be one of your words that you brought up. But my question is, is there a limit to satire? Is there -- are there things that are not satirical and then for our paper problems or some other ways of -- how would you guys define that? >> Ann Telnaes: Limits in satire? >> Are there? >> Ann Telnaes: Well, that's really interesting. >> Because you were pretty black and white like there is like no red lines. >> Ann Telnaes: Right. >> There can't be any. I have to be able to say everything. >> Ann Telnaes: Well, you know, it's funny, it's funny you should ask that because I would encourage everyone to go to the C-SPAN archives and pull up Hustler v Falwell. It's really interesting because they actually talk about are their limits in satire. And they actually use Gary Trudeau as an example. They compare him to what Falwell does -- I mean to what Larry Flint does in ^IT Hustler ^NO. ^M01:00:00 You know, his cartoons blasting H.W. Bush about his manhood in a box? >> Signe Wilkinson: Yeah. >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah. And compare what Larry Flint did in that Campari ad to what Gary Trudeau does in his cartoons about George W. Bush. And, actually, it sounded like the court came to the conclusion that in America -- now we're talking about America here -- the First Amendment, your Freedom of Speech, you cannot limit that. Libel is something different, okay? That's something completely different. And that's what the court was trying to decide. But when it comes to satire, the word they used was you -- what is it? You cause personal harm or something? >> Signe Wilkinson: Distress, emotional distress. >> Ann Telnaes: Distress, emotional distress, which basically means you're hurting my feelings. And is there a limit there? And the court came to the conclusion that is not a limit. It cannot be because then you start -- then it's like where is that line? Who's deciding that line? And if you -- and I encourage you. Go back and read that Campari ad. It's disgusting. It is just disgusting. And the court upheld it. >> Signe Wilkinson: That would be the liberal William Rehnquist Supreme Court. ^M01:01:17 [ Laughter ] ^M01:01:21 >> Can I ask a question? >> Signe Wilkinson: Yeah. >> So to clarify. When you say that the Campari ad was disgusting, I believe you're saying that's something you would not have been involved with. You would not draw or -- I have no idea what was in this ad. But that's something you wouldn't do. So, if we're talking about the limits of satire, you're saying, and I agree with you there should be no governmental limits on satire, but you as the individual cartoonist draw your own limits on what you think is satirical versus what you think is people are disgusting or something else. >> Ann Telnaes: Well, we are professionals, you know. We do know what we're doing. I think that's why we always get so pissed off when government tries to tell us what to do with our bodies. We're, you know, we're adults. We can decide ourselves. And it's the same thing with satire. You know, I -- the thing that I want -- I do not want the tools being limited to me if I decide an image needs to be used because what I believe is so strong about the subject matter that I need to do something that's going to get your attention. It doesn't mean I'm going to use it. But I'm just saying, is I don't want to see people limit that because I think it's -- I know this is a cliche. It's a slippery slope if you start doing that because if you start telling people I don't like that, I don't like that -- there's a lot of stuff I don't like that's going on in this world, you know? And if I wanted to start killing people over it then you'd have a problem. But -- that the problem is, is what people think is and isn't acceptable. So, I don't know where I'm going with that. But go ahead [laughter]. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Well, one thing I thought was interesting in the pieces, in response to Gary Trudeau, was that a number of cartoonists actually said they had personal limits and they've talked about what they would not choose to show in their cartoons. And, anyway, that's just a point that I thought [inaudible]. >> Ann Telnaes: But the point is nobody's telling them what their limits are. >> Martha H. Kennedy: No, what their limits are. >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah. >> Have either of you drawn cartoons that you wish you hadn't drawn [inaudible] and take back? >> Signe Wilkinson: Oh, only about 40% of them. ^M01:03:28 [ Laughter ] ^M01:03:31 No. >> I mean at the point where you maybe thought well maybe I did cross that line. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. >> Signe Wilkinson: There are a couple that people took as way -- that I didn't mean them. It wasn't that the point, my point was so extreme, but I was -- it was a bad cartoon. If I didn't get my point across and somebody felt that it was, you know, that it was saying something I didn't mean to be saying, that's not a good cartoon, and I wished that I'd done it differently, especially ones that people -- and one in particular I remember was really taken wrong by an individual, and I didn't mean to harm that person. I had meant it, actually, in support. So that was my -- >> Mistakes were made. >> Signe Wilkinson: Yes, my -- Yeah. >> Ann Telnaes: Yeah, it's basically if your cartoon isn't the way you expected, you want it to be, come across. But it's -- we take that responsibility on ourselves. You know what I mean? We'll question ourself and go, why didn't I do it a certain way? >> Signe Wilkinson: Right. >> Ann Telnaes: Or if you release it on a certain day. >> Signe Wilkinson: Oh, you're being such a woman. ^M01:04:43 [ Laughter ] ^M01:04:47 >> I was wondering whether the reactions to your more controversial or politically incorrect cartoons, if the reaction varies by age or generation at all. Like, in particular -- >> Signe Wilkinson: Yes. >> -- do those under 30, do they take it about the same as everybody else? Or are they more accepting, less accepting? >> Signe Wilkinson: Well, since we don't have any newspaper readers under 30 -- >> Right. >> [Clearing throat], it's really hard to judge. But I think, yes, I think you're right. And I think if you look at the styles of younger cartoonists, they're quite different than my style and Ann's style. So the next generation of cartoonists is going to express things in very different ways. So, yeah, I do think that there's a difference. ^M01:05:29 ^M01:05:32 Yeah. >> Is there any cartoonist in the United States who is as provocative as the cartoons [inaudible]? >> Ann Telnaes: Mr. Fish, Dwayne Booth, great stuff. Go look at it [laughter]. ^M01:05:47 ^M01:05:50 >> Signe Wilkinson: I -- >> Another -- >> Signe Wilkinson: One more and then we wrap it up. Yeah. >> When we mention the limit of satires, what is acceptable, [inaudible] do you mean the powerful majority of the [inaudible] minority? >> Signe Wilkinson: Could you repeat that, please? I'm not sure I -- >> The limit of satire in [inaudible] -- >> Signe Wilkinson: Uh-huh. >> -- acceptable to you by differing in the larger, powerful majority or [inaudible] minority? >> Signe Wilkinson: Well, I think this actually gets to some of the point that Gary Trudeau was making. He was saying that the cartoon -- as I understand it, that the cartoons in ^IT Charlie Hebdo ^NO punched down on people who did -- who were not in the majority. And, therefore, it was a -- it's a cheap shot because they don't have the same power as the majority, either the majority of the cartoonists or the majority in the country. But -- and I think that generally speaking cartoons are, are seen as more powerful when they're going after powerful people. I mean, they're the ones who are setting the examples in the world. However, it's hard to say who's on top and who's on bottom sometimes. I think in -- when you're looking at, we'll just say Muslims at this point in France, they're a minority. But in the headlines when a group that identifies as a Muslim group takes over an entire region of a country and starts executing people and, you know, asking for -- not asking, demanding forced conversions, et cetera, et cetera, it's the same overall group but I don't feel like I'm punching down to criticize them. So I think it really depends on what, you know, what the issue is and where it is you're focusing. But it gets back to the whole global that, you know, the global world. People may feel disenfranchised one place and quite franchised in another place, even though the large umbrella would put them -- they would both be under the same large umbrella. So that's, again, one of the problems in sending cartoons across cultures and countries. >> Martha H. Kennedy: Thank you. I'd like thank both of our cartoonists again, and I'd like to thank all of you for coming. >> Yes. ^M01:08:38 [ Applause ] ^M01:08:45 >> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress. Visit us at loc.gov.