Is the humor a part of the story?
So, should a newspaper reporting about an offensive cartoon describe the cartoon (a) only in a way that communicates why people were offended or (b) in a way that communicates the humor of the thing as well?
Here is an example of (a) from the Guardian:
"On Friday the Farsi-language paper published a cartoon showing a cockroach speaking Azeri, the language of an ethnic group in north-western Iran."And another example, from the Associated Press:
"Iran closed the state-run Farsi language newspaper Iran and detained its chief editor and cartoonist on Tuesday for publishing a cartoon that showed a cockroach speaking Azeri and suggested Azeris are stupid."Now, I'm keenly aware that likening ethnic minorities to vermin belongs to a most evil rhetorical tradition. However, I did chuckle in spite of myself while reading the New York Times, which went with option (b):
"The cartoon, published Friday, showed a boy repeating the Persian word for cockroach in different ways, while a cockroach in front of the boy asked "What?" in Turkish Azeri."I have to think that (b) is the best approach. The more context the better. Provocation that is also funny is different from provocation with nothing more, and might have more complex or interesting motivations.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home