Zorn: When will they ever learn at the Washington Post?

Spiking cartoons and editorials not only amplifies them, it also sheds an unflattering light on the publication

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Tuesdays at 11:30 a.m. I talk with WGN-AM 720 host John Williams about what’s making news and likely to be grist for the PS mill. The WGN listen-live link is here.

How cloudy is your crystal ball?

You still have till Wednesday at noon (CST) to register your votes in my survey asking readers to predict the news of 2025. If you’re hesitant to make predictions, consider these forecasts published in the Sun-Times and Tribune on Sunday morning:

No disrespect to these local sports journalists. I thought Rick Telander was right about what the score would be, and I would have made a similar guess had anyone asked me. But of course the Bears won on a last-second field goal.

Speaking of football and guesses, after the weekend’s quarterfinal college football games, I added a poll question about which of the last four teams standing would win the tournament. I also fixed some errors in the poll questions. Click here for a direct link to the survey.

WaPo whapped: The Washington Post clumsily spikes a cartoon and prompts viral outrage.

From the Associated Press:

A cartoonist has decided to quit her job at the Washington Post after an editor rejected her sketch of the newspaper’s owner and other media executives bowing before President-elect Donald Trump.

Ann Telnaes posted a message Friday on the online platform Substack saying that she drew a cartoon showing a group of media executives bowing before Trump while offering him bags of money, including Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Telnaes wrote that the cartoon was intended to criticize “billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump.”

Here is that cartoon along with an amplified cartoon commentary from New Yorker artist Barry Blitt clearly highlighting Bezos, who is also the founder, executive chairman, and former president and CEO of Amazon.

Editorial page editor David Shipley’s statement:

“Not every editorial judgment is a reflection of a malign force. 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.”

C’mon, man! Political cartoons are a different beast from columns and op-eds, and are even frequently paired with written opinion in a way that sharpens the viewpoint expressed. Here are just a few recent examples from the Tribune:

They are complementary, in other words. And Shipley, who was at the helm last fall when the Post endured massive blowback and literally hundreds of thousands of subscription cancellations when Bezos refused to let the Post endorse Kamala Harris for president, ought to have been able to see around this particular corner.

Telnaes’ story and her drawing have gone viral. Millions more people have seen her slam at the supplicating Bezos and his oligarch buddies than would have seen it in the Post and on its website, and the paper has taken another devastating PR hit.

Michael de Adder

Telnaes posted about her decision to quit on Substack:

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.

Indeed there are some — even some with journalistic bona fides with whom I’ve been in contact — who think criticizing the owners and bosses directly is out of bounds; that speaking truth to power and reporting without fear or favor is secondary to protecting the institution. And those who don’t like that should quit.

I’m still appalled that the Tribune — virtually alone among local news outlets — did not cover the one-day strike by its own newsroom union last February — see “All the news that fits (their corporate agenda), the Tribune prints.”

But I am heartened by the response I got when I reached out to Tribune Editorial Board editor Chris Jones for his take on the situation. His reply:

I think criticizing ownership is part of the job of a cartoonist. I remember growing up in the UK in the 1970s and ‘80s, and how often the BBC would take it on the chin. Its willingness to do so improved its stature and Bezos and crew would do well to consider that. That said, I feel bad for the opinion editor at the Post. He has said it was a question of not banging the same drum again and again in such close succession, and he was doing his job in ensuring some degree of variety and balance. They have already done pieces along those lines. He got sold down the river, of course. And all the outraged liberals would do well to remember that the left often accuses cartoonists of a whole variety of sins. Kim Foxx comes to mind. It cuts both ways.

Jones is correct that the left often gets its underwear in a bunch over blunt and arguably unfair cartoons attacking liberals and Democrats. I myself have written indignantly about the drawings of syndicated Tribune regulars Steve Kelley and Michael Ramirez, whose tendentious liberties with the truth tend to shed little light on current events (though Ramirez seems to have moderated some lately).

Political cartoonists exaggerate for effect, though. And it would be hard to impossible to render a cartoon that recognizes both sides of an issue and offers a balanced perspective, yet is also in the least bit funny or provocative. It’s not a medium that’s friendly to nuance. Outrage is inevitable for those who traffic regularly in satire.

My unpopular opinion was popular!

In last week’s Picayune Sentinel I introduced what I hope will be an occasional feature here, “Unpopular opinion?” in which I invite readers to submit (and defend) views of theirs on routine matters that they believe may not be popular. I will then put that view to the click-poll test, as I did with my own view that bar soap is superior to body wash/shower gel.

The vote was lopsided in my favor —

1000 votes

— but commenters were animated by the question. Here are some of their remarks:

Jo A. — Bar soap? Ewwwwww! It’s slimy, almost impossible to use for shaving my legs in the shower, causes dry skin, and is just in general an unpleasant option. I love my giant bottle of body wash that lasts forever and has a convenient pump dispenser.

Richard Ramlow — I prefer bar soap, preferably unscented. It just seems utilitarian to me, which is my preferred way to approach basic life needs. When I was a child, Mom used bar soap to wash my hair, but I recognized that this was too utilitarian.

Mary Ellen — Bar soap? Ick - all the hair from other people that sticks to it! No thanks. I grew up with many siblings and it would gross me out to pick the hair out of the soap. I have a mid-size family of my own and don't care to repeat that experience.

Monica Metzler — I have to go with bar soap over liquid. Years ago I started preferring shower gel, used on a scrubber or loofah. But as my concern for the environment and abhorrence of plastic pollution has grown, I switched back to bar soap. I add the little remaining sliver to the a bar; it’s not that difficult.

Rick Weiland — Mostly because my skin needs it, I pack my own skin-friendly bar soap when I travel. The few times I’ve forgotten, I’m reminded how icky the hotel shower squeeze bottles are.

Sarah B. — I prefer bar soap. Since body wash/shower gel is more water than anything else, there is a cost (environmental and financial) of shipping containers of it, which is likely more than shipping bars of soap.

Unpopular opinion? Presumed consent for organ donation upon death

Michael M. has agreed to play, saying he believes that all usable organs should be harvested from those who die (to make the idea more supportable, let’s add an exemption for those who opt out in writing for religious or other reasons). He writes:

I believe the need for viable organs outweighs the potential unintended consequences. Would you rather your liver and kidneys become worm meat instead of helping a fellow human being?

Some feedback:

Bob E. — I've got to disagree. If the deceased had not signed off on organ donation, the decision should be left to the family. But I agree the idea would lead to more transplantable organs.

Pete Prokopowicz — No. The government doesn’t own my body or any of my family’s bodies.

Wendy C. - I don't think this idea is possible, not with the various religious and cultural rituals surrounding the disposition of the deceased. The government owns your remains if you haven't opted out? And which department will be controlling this harvesting, assuming it's not offered to the lowest bidder outside of government?

Laurence E Siegel — I suppose it would be generous of me to let medical science take advantage of any healthy organs I have left to benefit others. Filling up a cemetery plot so relatives can forget to visit me is not a big deal with me and it's not like the casket is going to be opened to get just one more look at me.

Your turn:

Notes and comments from readers — lightly edited — along with my responses

Many of the comments and letters this week dealt with the urgent issue of bar soap vs. body wash/shower gel. See above for those.

Will Chicago have a teachers strike?

Laurence E Siegel — In your annual survey asking readers to predict the news for 2025, you asked if the Chicago Teachers Union would go on strike. My answer is no. Why should they? Against whom? With the firing of Pedro Martinez, the union now has a mayor willing to give them what they want along with a school board loyal to the mayor. They will get what they want. Who would the union strike against? The taxpayers that are tired of paying more and more for schools? The governor who has announced that more money is not coming?

Zorn — By law and court decision, Martinez still has more than five months left as CEO of the city’s public schools and the sole empowered negotiator with the CTU. While Martinez shares many of Mayor Brandon Johnson’s goals for education, he’s drawn the line on certain concessions, notably the $300 million loan Johnson wants him to OK in order to fund the demands of the union.

So the strike would ostensibly be against Martinez.

I strongly urge all those who have yet to take the survey to weigh in soon. I will post the results Thursday after which we can all wait around for time to make fools of us.

Paris Schutz’s sharp social media attack on the Chicago Teachers Union

Bob E. — Last week you quoted Fox 32 political reporter Paris Schutz’s Tweet at the Chicago Teachers Union, “I would hope for the holidays you would take a break from your duplicitousness and dishonesty, though I know from covering you and speaking with many of your delegates that it is core to your messaging strategy and has worked in bargaining. Happy holidays,” I was not at all surprised because Schutz is articulate and candid, and the CTU leadership is 'duplicitous and dishonest' as well as cantankerous and hostile and dishonorable and deceitful. I’m guessing he may have now have difficulty getting interviews with CTU leadership and delegates.

Zorn — You forgot touchy. CTU leader Stacy Davis Gates responded to Schutz, who previously posted that he was miffed the union had given him only 15 minutes notice about a news conference:

So why do you keep asking my “lying” self to be on your TV show? More importantly, is name calling journalism? Your tweet is deeply personal. Calling me a “liar” doesn’t seem to embody journalistic principles. What men like you are able to get away w/ is scary.

Schutz fired back:

Nowhere in that post did I name call. You have objectively treated me in that manner. You have literally repeatedly publicly called me “stalker” for doing my job. Defamatory. You have also called me ‘Paris Schmutz.’ Please. Some self awareness.

I retweeted Schutz’s initial critique and added “Paris ain’t playin’ — bringing the wood to the CTU.”

Davis Gates posted in response:

“Bring the wood” to a woman. You want him to “spank me w/wood”? He didn’t bring it to CTU he brought it to me. Are you advocating for physical violence? I’m not an object—I’m a woman—an elected union leader. Y’all’s disrespect needs to be turned way down. I’m tracking patterns.

“Bringing the wood” is obviously here a metaphor to describe a strong critique, not a description of a violent act, let alone a call for Schutz literally to spank Davis Gates. But her capacity for grievance and for playing the gender card is evidently boundless.

Nay to the trey?

Mark K. — Regarding your item about the three-point shot ruining the NBA, I agree that the game is less exciting to watch and has been trending towards boring the past few years. Somewhere I saw a chart comparing where most shots are coming from and while it used to be distributed evenly around the floor, the past couple years it's either behind the arc or right underneath the basket, with the mid range shot all but gone.

The biggest driver of the change is increased use of advanced analytics across all sports. Computers figured out that a 40% chance of 3 points is just a better expected value than a 70% chance of 2 points.

Laurence E Siegel — If a team takes 100 3-point shots and makes a paltry 33%, that’s 99 points. A team would need to make 50% of 2 pointers to equal that, and three-pointers often lead to long rebounds, giving the offense another chance at the ball. Having enough players who can make threes eliminates the need for a big motionless stiff in the middle. It also spreads out defenses and provides open lanes to the basket. Fans have a choice. Keep paying to watch or find something else to do.

Zorn—Hey! I was a “big motionless stiff” in the paint in high school, but back then we didn’t have a three-point shot. Whenever a shot went in the peach basket it was worth two points.

About those unpopular opinions …

Peter Zackrison — What would qualify as a potentially “unpopular opinion”? Is “Donald Trump will be a good President” a popular opinion based on votes and thus not up for discussion?

I think you should eliminate obvious “trolling” opinions such as, “Women should not be allowed to vote.”

So would these qualify as worthy of consideration?

1. Capital punishment should be retained in the US.

2. We need to institute the ERA now and fight to enforce it.

3. Eliminate the debt ceiling.

4. Make burning the American flag a misdemeanor.

5. Rescind the Second Amendment as guns now present a major problem to all Americans.

I am not looking for replies to these items, I need to know from Eric and other folks, are these opinions/topics in bounds… or out of bounds?

David Leitschuh — I would strongly advocate that nothing should be excluded from discussion or debate no matter how "unpopular" any particular position or proposal may be.

The abolition of slavery and/or allowing women to vote may have been "unpopular" views at one time, but it was through discussion and debate that people's hearts were changed and these things became reality. Conversely, truly bad ideas are similarly exposed and widely viewed as having no merit after discussion on them.

I believe our society is much better off after vigorous discussion on every subject without limits.

Zorn — I was thinking more along the lines of fun or quirky potentially unpopular opinions, such as “Eggs are gross” or “Crocs are cool,” and not, say “abortion is murder” or something to get folks truly riled up. Provocative, but not viscerally emotional or morally or legally complex. But we’ll see where it goes. There were some interesting suggestions in the comments last week and I’ll put those in the hopper and we’ll see where this goes.

The week’s best visual jokes

Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media. Enjoy, then evaluate:

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Quip of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

Info

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.

Contact

You can email me here:

I read all the messages that come in, but I do most of my interacting with readers in the comments section beneath each issue.

Some of those letters I reprint and respond to in the Z-mail section of Tuesday’s Picayune Plus, which is delivered to paid subscribers and available to all readers later Tuesday. Check there for responses.

If you don’t want me to use the full name on your email or your comments, let me know how you’d like to be identified.

Help?

If you’re having troubles with Substack — delivery, billing and so forth — first try “Picayune Sentinel Substack help, Frequently Asked Questions.” If that doesn’t work check out the Substack help page. And if that doesn’t work, shoot me an email and I’ll be happy to help.