The article ‘Berita Harian issues public apology over tsunami cartoon’ by Wong Pek Mei in the Star (14th March 2011) reports the backlash faced by local newspaper Berita Harian after having published a cartoon by Zohri Sukimi (or better known as Zoy) depicting Ultraman, an iconic Japanese superhero, fleeing from a tidal wave.
(Source: www.allvoices.com)
This cartoon prompted swift condemnation by many, seeing as it was made public while Japan was still assessing the extensive damage incurred from the devastating earthquake and tsunami that swept through the country a few days prior.
The disaster had dealt a massive blow to Japan, resulting in the deaths of up to 15,413 people and costing the country billions of dollars in damages.
Berita Harian took due notice and apologized for their lack of proper judgement, after being criticized by various parties from both ends of the political spectrum, as well as the public.
Instances such as this demonstrate the importance of censorship despite pursuing the freedom of speech and expression, namely through the medium of cartoons. Apart from inspiring creativity, drawings and images also contribute to more effective ways of conveying messages, especially if added with elements of humour, as Ginman and Ungern-Sternberg (2003, p. 76) suggest.
However, when put into the context of a broader medium such as the newspaper, cartoons take on more serious roles in society – ranging from being an impetus for the forming of public opinion, to becoming a simplified representation of certain situations and aspects of life, to accommodate better understanding (Abraham, 2009, p. 119) – and crank a few laughs along the way.
Despite having liberty in expression, an artist must practice caution when it involves sensitive subject matter. Unfortunately, such caution was not evident in the case of the ‘tsunami’ cartoon, as all were clear and unanimous in deeming the cartoon offensive. The editors were to shoulder the blame equally, as they should have exercised self-censorship and simply practiced more awareness.
Every section printed within the published medium depicts the stance of the writers and the overall rationale of the editors (Jenkins, Sunday Times, 5 February 2006). Therefore, if such an offensive piece were to be printed without restriction, what would that imply about the mentality of the professionals in the local newspaper industry?
Conclusively, stricter regulation must be enforced in order to prevent such blunders from reoccurring, and ultimately save the reputation and credibility of our printing press.
_____________________________________________
References:
Abraham, L. 2009, ‘Effectiveness of cartoons as a uniquely visual medium for orienting social issues’, Journalism and Communication Monographs, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 117 – 165, viewed 10 May 2011, <http://proquest.umi.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1847708961&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1307904181&clientId=14273>.
Ginman, M. & Ungern-Sternberg, S. 2003, ‘Cartoons as information’, Journal of Information Science, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 69 – 77, viewed 10 June 2011, <http://jis.sagepub.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/content/29/1/69.full.pdf+html>.
Jenkins, S. 2006, ‘These cartoons don’t defend free speech, they threaten it’, Sunday Times (online), viewed 10 June 2011, <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article727080.ece>.
No comments:
Post a Comment