Je suis Cartoonist
A Qualitative Study on French and American Cartoonists’ Perceptions of their Role and Attitudes in regards to Freedom of Expression in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo Attack
Antoine Panaite
Abstract
The 2015 attack of the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris has stressed cartoonists’ difficult role in a context of fierce debates on the legitimacy of their drawings, which have put into question their responsibility. This study, based on 11 in-depth interviews with French and American cartoonists, points out at the differences in the way cartoonists perceive their role and attitudes in regards to freedom of expression. The main finding of this research is that two main attitudes could be identified: a “freed attitude” more dominant among French cartoonists, and a “hold back attitude”, more dominant among American cartoonists. However, attitudes of French cartoonists on the particular issue of religion seem to differ substantially. This paper discusses the implications of those attitudes and states that the hold back attitude appears to be closely connected with a lack of diversity of American media while the freed attitudeseems to be in line with a French tradition for polemical and provocative cartooning. The question whether this tradition is strengthened or weakened by the Charlie Hebdo attack remains unanswered.
Introduction
“Nothing is sacred…. it’s where it hurts the most that you should scratch until it bleeds” (Weston, 2009). The words of François Cavanna, the late founder of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, appear to have a special resonance in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of January 2015 that put French society in a state of shock. Indeed, five cartoonists working for the satirical publication were killed because they had drawn
Mohammed, the sacred figure of Islam. The great rallying of people in many cities across the world has emphasized how much the assassination of the cartoonists was felt to be an attack on freedom of expression, a highly cherished value of Western societies. For the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Luz, who survived the attack, the shock for civil society resided in the antagonism between the use of violence and the innocence of the art of cartooning (Mediapart, 2015).
However, everyone does not share this view and cartoons and cartoonists are not necessarily considered as being blameless. After the publication of the cover of the post-attack issue of Charlie Hebdo, that can be seen in Appendix A, which featured the prophet of Islam, several demonstrations were held to protest against the representation of Mohammed, some resulting in violent reactions that caused death. In the wake of those events, a renewed debate within mainstream media emerged on whether caricatures of the prophet should be broadcasted on television or published in newspapers. In this regard, American media have been the target of severe critics, some commentators judging that “in censoring Charlie Hebdo cartoons, U.S. media bowed to jihadists’ pressure” (Pitock, 2015). American media who made that decision emphasized their journalistic responsibility and a will not to hurt sensitivities with cartoons that are “deliberately and vainly insulting towards members of a religious group” (Boulet-Gercourt, 2015). Thus, like during the Danish Mohammed cartoons’
affair, fierce debates on the cartoons themselves and their re-publication swamped
newsrooms and social media and two visions on cartoons and freedom of expression emerged. On the one hand, those who stressed the need to reaffirm the right for freedom of expression by publishing the cartoons and, on the other hand, those who emphasized the necessity to care about sensitivities, notably religious.
Although their work was the center of attention, cartoonists’ voices remained largely unheard. Academic research on cartooning and freedom of expression has also essentially focused on media, leaving a substantial gap of studies focusing on cartoonists themselves. Consequently, this research aims at exploring perceptions of cartoonists on their role and attitudes in regards to freedom of expression. Taking into consideration the intensity and fierceness of debates on those matters in France, as well as the reluctance of American media to publish the Charlie Hebdo caricatures, this study focuses on French and American
cartoonists.
By interviewing eleven cartoonists, this study provides a relevant insight of the differences in cartooning culture in two Western countries that present strong contrasting views on issues of freedom of expression. The main outcome is the existence of two different attitudes. In the United States, a “hold back attitude” appears to be dominant and refers to cartoonists that are more likely to restrain themselves. The other one, which I call the “freed attitude”, is more dominant in France and refers to a culture of cartooning in which restriction of ideas and opinions is perceived as contrary to the nature of cartooning.
Before presenting those findings and other relevant ones, I will firstly give an overview of the existing theory that relates to cartoons and freedom of expression. Also in this part, I will introduce the concept of self-censorship, a key element of this study. Then, I will explain the methodology of this research before presenting the main results of the
interviews. Finally, I will discuss the findings and provide concluding information to pave the way for future research on the topic.
Literature Review1
Cartoons’ Goals and Characteristics
The attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the events and debates that followed have emphasized the impact that cartoons may have on societies. In order to understand the importance of cartoonists’ work, it is essential to acknowledge that cartoons also have the potential to reveal significant aspects of the societies that produce and circulate them (Kemnitz, 1973). In fact, Kemnitz (1973) sees them as a valuable historical source and considers they may “provide insights into the popular attitudes that underlay public opinion” as well as giving “an indication of the depth of emotion about events and politicians” (1973, pp. 92-93). In that regard, cartoons were and still are a relevant source to understand societies, notably because they are an ideal medium “for suggesting what cannot be said by the printed word” (Keane, 2008).
Plantu, who is probably the most media-friendly French cartoonist, emphasizes the major role of cartoons on societies by stating that cartoonists’ drawings are “a place of spontaneity and freedom, and therefore of debate” (“I Must Not Draw…”, 2009, p.3). According to Lamb (2007), cartoons and satire try to point out “what is wrong often by making it look ridiculous or even sinister” with the purpose to “shake us of apathy and bring about reform” (p.178). In line with Plantu’s words that underline the ability of cartoons to strongly impact readers and generate debates (Caricaturistes - Fantassins de la démocratie, 2014), Lamb (2007) considers that “for an editorial cartoon to have its intended effect, the
1 Although academic literature has talked a lot about cartoons, notably after the Danish cartoons’ affair, academic research has not given voice to cartoonists. Consequently, the quotes of cartoonists in this section
cartoon must resonate with a reader in a way that is intimate, personal, and often uncomfortable” (p.178).
However, for Klausen (2009), the intended effect of a cartoon cannot be achieved if a cartoon is read in the absence of its broader context. Otherwise, it may leave readers confused. In this sense, regarding satirical cartoons, Rolfe (2009) poses that “it matters greatly who the speakers and targets of jokes are” (p.273). To understand what message a cartoon delivers, several things have to be taken into consideration as they may change, influence or inspire the cartoon and the cartoonist. In order to do so, “society, its situation, history and other values such as reputation or communal order must invariably be brought into such discussions to work out free speech on a case by case basis” (Rolfe, 2009, p.265).
In the case of cartoons, it firstly means censorship. Because the cartoon has more latitude to attack established ideas than responsible statesmen or journalists (Keane, 2008) and because, historically, cartoons have played a major role “in portraying dissent against unjust regimes” (Keane, 2008, p. 857), cartoonists have been a recurrent target of censorship. Cartoons and Cartoonists: Preferential Targets of Censorship
The aptitude of cartoons to strongly criticize and challenge authority, like governments or any dominant or influential group, has made cartoonists a major target of censorship (Keane, 2008). From their point of view, “their profession has always been under threat” (Keane, 2008, p.856). In fact, although “Western Europe and the United States have a tradition for free speech” (Lamb, 2007, p.716), censorship of cartoons has been an issue on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
Looking at the historical background of the relations between the press and the political power in France, caricature appears to have been perceived by the different regimes, throughout the nineteenth century, as having a greater impact and accessibility than the
printed words, precisely because they were accessible and understandable by everyone, including the illiterate from the lower social classes (Goldstein, 1989). That kind of official state-censorship of cartoons has been noticed in France up until the 1970s (France 3 Picardie, 2012). In the United States too, “politicians and other influential figures have tried to silence editorial cartoonists for nearly as long as the country has existed” (Lamb, 2007, p.715). The renowned corrupt politician of New York city, William Tweed, gave a good summary of this idea by saying that he didn’t care about what the newspapers were writing about him while thinking the opposite about cartoons: “Let’s stop them damned pictures…my constituents can’t read; but damn it, they can see pictures” (Paine, 1904, p.179).
Forms of media censorship still exist today in Western societies and two very different kinds seem to occur in France and the United States respectively. In France,
constraints imposed on media by the government are still a reality. In addition to the laws that exist to punish those who make efforts to justify wars against humanity or to incite to
discrimination, the French government appears to have a major impact on media (Freedom House, 2013). According to the Freedom House (2013), this influence can be explained by the fact that “many private media outlets - print as well as broadcast - are owned by
companies with close ties to prominent politicians and defense contractors” (p.170). Those links between media and politicians, which are discreet and often hidden from the general public, are more difficult to grasp and to identify than official censorship
(Institut-numerique.org, 2012). Nevertheless, they create a form of censorship. A few concrete cases, revealed by independent media observers, have shed light on the influence of those links.
In the United States, another kind of censorship prevails, which could be called economic censorship. Donohue and Glasser (1978) claim that the American media system shows “an apparent dissolution of (the American) libertarian heritage” that is due to “a much
more subtle and insidious” form of censorship than governmental censorship: “the exigencies of the economics that have been facilitating a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas”
(Donohue & Glasser, 1978, p.592). In other words, although U.S media are characterized by an extremely limited control from the state (that is consistent with the legal tradition of the First Amendment for press freedom), U.S. media suffer from a lack of diversity (Hallin & Mancini, 2004) that leaves many “voices” unheard (Iosifides, 1999, p.158). Indeed, if U.S. tradition is very much towards the internal pluralism of news media, which would suggest a diversity of viewpoints within outlets, U.S. media actually focus only on the mainstream (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). This can be explained by the will for newspapers to sell as many papers as possible and leaves de facto alternative stories and opinions aside. This problem may be an explanation for why in the United States “we find the fiercest critics of media concentration” (Iosifides, 1999, p.158). For those reasons, “media ownership concentration is an ongoing concern in the United States” (Freedom House, 2013, p.400) and, given the importance of opinion in a cartoon, this issue seems to be of great interest regarding cartoonists and freedom of expression.
Taking those aspects of historical and current censorships into consideration, another important issue that rises regarding cartoons and freedom of expression is the use of self-censorship.
Avoiding Troubles: Self-Censorship and Cartooning
Flemming Rose, the editor who chose to publish the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jylland-Posten, recently expressed fears that the attack on Charlie Hebdo would encourage self-censorship and that editors would become more cautious, thus leading media to “a tyranny of silence” (Winkler, 2015).
Self-censorship in cartooning is understood as a process that suppresses parts of or the whole of a cartoon in relation to the extent to which a cartoonist uses his freedom to express himself. In academic literature, a distinction is being made between public and private self-censorship but both are closely intertwined and have to do with sensitivities and taboos.
The notion of public self-censorship, refers to “a range of individual reactions to a public censorship regime” (Cook & Heilmann, 2012, p.178), has to be understood as the anticipation by the cartoonist of a censor’s attitude in order for him not to be censored. This type of self-censorship is found when a censee (e.g. the cartoonists) accepts the authority and ability of a censor (e.g. the editors) to restrict what they publish (Cook, Heilmann, 2012). Here, the “censorship regime between the newspapers and its contributors is broadly consensual” (Cook & Heilmann, 2012, p.186). In this case, a somehow “multilevel”
censorship can be described. Indeed, if the editor is the censor of the cartoonist, he may also be a censee as, at a higher level, he may be censored by his “bosses” which can
hypothetically mean, that the publishers, who themselves are censored by the shareholders of the publication, are under pressure from the readership’s demands.
The second type of self-censorship is called private self-censorship and refers to “the suppression by an agent of his or her own attitudes where a public censor is either absent or irrelevant” (Cook & Heilmann, 2012, p.178). As both types of self-censorship have to deal with coping with sensitivities, the difference between the two can be explained as followed: if in public self-censorship, the cartoonist doesn’t necessarily think he should avoid drawing on this taboo or sensitive topic, in private self-censorship, the cartoonist deliberately chooses not to draw something because he decides to embrace a taboo or a sensitivity. This latter action is driven either by taking the point of view of a potential “victim” of a cartoon or by personal reflection or reasoning (Cook & Heilmann, 2012).
The will for a cartoonist to censor himself has a lot to do with the fear of confronting sensitivities or taboos. But in order to understand why such a process exists, this fear has to be understood within the context of a specific culture. For instance, self-censorship in the United States notably applies to the representation of race. Indeed, historically, “humor and cartoons have been used to portray racial prejudice” (Keane, 2008, p.850). In the United States, “prior to the civil rights movement, a cartoonist could probably portray blacks in an openly stereotypical or derogatory fashion with relative impunity” (Thibodeau, 1989, p.483). Since then, Thibodeau (1989) notices that black people are not portrayed in cartoons for non-racial reasons and finds a possible explanation in the fact that, because norms regarding what constitutes racism remain unclear, cartoonists may fear to find themselves accused of racism.
Besides, self-censorship can also easily be linked with political correctness. According to Israeli cartoonist, Michel Kichka, the real enemy of cartoonists is political correctness (Caricaturistes - Fantassins de la démocratie, 2014). Although thisconcept is somehow contested, political correctness can be understood as the “suppression of expression by cognitive assent or social pressure” (Reinelt, 2011, p.134). Reinelt (2011) explains:
Its does not usually refer to the exercise of state power but most often refers to judgments taken about the political and social volatility of expression, and a decision to avoid (or not) sensitive or offensive expressions, or to utilize some expressions rather than others in the light of a competing social ‘good’. (p.134)
This competition to do ‘good’ can be closely linked with social responsibility and its opposition to freedom of expression. For instance, Cohen-Almagor (2013) describes social responsibility as the responsibility to behave, act and express ourselves in a way that makes society better and restrains us from doing any harm to it. In this sense, if one is free to say
anything, it is expected by society and for the society that he should be held responsible if his freedom of expression stands in the way of a competing social ‘good’.
The demonstrations in the Muslim World against cartoons representing the prophet of Islam, which happened after the Danish cartoons’ affair and the Charlie Hebdo attack, have opened a debate on the social responsibility of cartoonists regarding their use of freedom of expression, in particular when it comes to religious issues.
Cartoons as a matter of great Controversy: when Religious Sensitivities Clash with Freedom of Expression
In light of the past ten years, religion appears to be a particular minefield for cartoonists (Keane, 2008). Indeed, some cartoonists actually consider, for instance, that conflicts with editors on whether a cartoon should be published usually involve religious issues rather than political (Lamb, 2004). The opposition between religious beliefs and
freedom of expression is cited by academic literature (Berkowitz & Eko, 2007; Hussein 2007) as one of the major aspects revealed by the Danish cartoons’ affair. In fact, since then,
debates on whether cartoons showing the prophet should be published have swamped
newsrooms across the world. According to researchers Berkowitz and Eko (2007), this debate on whether newspapers should re-publish caricatures of the prophet of Islam goes to “the heart of the clash between freedom of expression and respect for religion” (p.779). Hussain (2007) also asserts that media’s framing of the debate on the Danish caricatures has been between free speech and religious sensitivities and has finally contributed to exacerbate misconceptions and misunderstandings both in the Western World and in the Muslim World.
The Danish cartoons’ affair has also lead academic research to examine reactions and attitudes of the public and the media. It has notably been shown that the general public may have completely different views from journalists on whether or not an opinion showing a
lack of respect towards religion should be published or whether freedom of expression and defense of religion is more important (Mauri-Rios, Perez-Pereira & Figueras-Mas, 2014). Regional origins, cultural background and other characteristics may also influence
perceptions about respect for religious sensitivities (Mauri-Rios, Perez-Pereira & Figueras-Mas, 2014). Those differences also exist among journalists and can therefore exist between editorial cartoonists. According to Berkowitz and Eko (2007), the debate within media over the republication of the incriminated drawings was not only a form of journalistic solidarity but also represented the “maintenance of a journalistic paradigm and a sacred right to exercise it in the national culture in which it resides” (Berkowitz & Eko, 2007, p.779). This reaffirmation of a journalistic paradigm, defined as “the way of seeing and interpreting the world that is taken for granted as the way by those who practice it” (Berkowitz & Eko, 2007, p.782), clashes de facto with other cultures, especially in the global media age.
Regarding the approach towards religion, France and the United States present strong contrasts. Indeed, many French media have republished the Danish cartoons while American media usually refused to republish them, fearing to offend believers. The same pattern could be noticed after the Charlie Hebdo attack when a large majority of American media decided not to show the cover of the post-attack issue of the satirical newspaper (LeMonde.fr, 2015). This may be explained by the completely different posture towards religion between France and the US. If in France, the Revolution of 1789 led to the
secularization of the country along with a strong historical anti-clericalism (Berkowitz & Eko, 2007), the contemporary American society and its “American way of life”, founded on
Puritan values, are existing through shared religious values like belief in God and good behaviour towards others (McCann & McBrien, 1990).
French cartoonists have indeed attacked and denounced virulently the influence and the place of religion over the state and the society. Stéphane Charbonnier, the assassinated director of publication of Charlie Hebdo better known as Charb, was a strong advocate of the right to blasphemy. Interviewed on French television in 2012 after Charlie Hebdo won a trial, he insisted on the sacred right to blasphemy in France: “In France, we have the right to
criticize religion. We criticize it with the same tone than any other ideology. It is a guaranteed right” (France 3 Picardie, 2012). In this sense, it is also relevant to notice that France shares some principles with other EU countries among which press freedom and freedom of expression occupy a prominent role, while respect for religion appears to be secondary (Triandafylidou, 2009). In this regard, Charb explained that Charlie Hebdo endorsed the role of using freedom of expression as much as possible within the limits of French legislation and that, when suited, justice usually made decisions in favor of freedom of expression,
preventing a case-law that could have potentially made blasphemy a crime (France 3 Picardie, 2012).
Finally, the Danish cartoons’ affair has also emphasized the fact that the global media age has made matters of audiences complicated (Rolfe, 2009). While a cartoon needs to be understood in the context it is drawn and published, modern communication technology has lead some cartoons to be online and therefore put in front of people that were not aware of the context. The question of whether the cartoonist has a responsibility here appears to be even more pressing. In that regard, both after the Charlie Hebdo cover and after the Danish cartoons’ affair, demonstrations in Muslim countries have lead to deaths of civilians, putting into question the responsibility of cartoonists. Indeed, considering the assumption posed by Delporte (1992) suggesting that cartoonists are also considered as journalists, cartoonists appear to be entitled to similar responsibilities than journalists. On that matter, a divide
between cartoonists can be noticed. Plantu, the cartoonist of Le Monde, estimates that cartoonists should be careful with fanatics and think of the sensitivities and potential casualties their cartoons may cause (Simonnet, 2006). On the other hand, Luz, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist who made the cover of the post-attack issue representing Mohammed, strongly claims that cartoons have to be irresponsible again, in reference to the former slogan of the satirical newspaper (VICE News, 2015).
To sum up, it has appeared that freedom of expression is an essential notion in the cartoonists’ environment. Nevertheless, it is subject to many constraints and challenges that deserve to be discussed, ideally with the most directly concerned: the cartoonists.
Methodology
This study’s intention is to give insights of the way French and American cartoonists perceive their own attitude and their colleagues’ attitudes regarding issues of freedom of speech with the goal to figure out how cultural context shape such perceptions. Thus, this study aims at answering the following research question: “How do French cartoonists perceive their role and attitudes in regards to freedom of expression, compared to American cartoonists?” In order to make the aims of this paper more precise, this paper will attempt to answer the following sub-research questions: “How do French cartoonists perceive their role and attitudes in regards to censorship in the context in which they work, compared to
American cartoonists?”, “What are French cartoonists’ attitudes towards self-censorship, compared to American cartoonists?” and “What are French cartoonists’ attitudes towards religious issues, compared to American cartoonists?”.
Interviews
To investigate the proposed research question, 11 semi-structured in-depth
Previous studies have focused on the place of cartoons in society and freedom of expression but they have mainly done so by focusing on media and their position or framing regarding cartoons like the Mohammed ones (Berkowitz & Eko, 2007; Hussein, 2007; Rolfe, 2009) rather than on cartoonists themselves. The research question requests to inquire the
perceptions of cartoonists by probing the diversity of viewpoints, the oppositions, similarities and nuances existing throughout interviewees’ answers. In this sense, qualitative interviewing and the semi-structured approach offered much flexibility. This enabled me to delve into the complexity of the context in which cartoonists were working and to grasp all the nuances of the respondents’ answers regarding their role and attitude (Bryman, 2008).
The large flexibility has lead some of interviewees to insist and elaborate more about some topics rather than others. This gave me the possibility to better embrace their
understanding of issues, behaviours and events relevant to my research. In this sense, interviews were both held inductively and deductively. By always adding questions or follow-ups, my attempt was to confront viewpoints to make sure that I understood the differences, similarities and nuances properly. I also had some vignette-questions that enabled me to ask participants to give their opinion on an event (such as the demonstrations that happened after the first post-attack cover of Charlie Hebdo), or on the words of a cartoonist or a political figure (such as the words of Plantu about his use of self-censorship). By using such proceedings, I was able to ground interviewees’ accounts and views of
behaviour in particular situation thus enabling me to elicit reactions (Bater and Renold, 1999; Bryman, 2008).
Sampling
To find appropriate and relatively diverse cartoonists, I looked on the Internet for names of cartoonists having worked for French or American print or online publication. I also
carried out snowball sampling; once I interviewed the first cartoonists, I asked them to give me a couple of contacts. I chose to contact cartoonists working for mainstream media so I could end up with a somewhat mainstream sample. This concretely means that I purposely avoided interviewing cartoonists publishing cartoons in far-right newspapers so that my sample would be compounded by cartoonists sharing similar values. Consequently, it resulted in a sample with cartoonists leaning more to the left or endorsing liberal values rather than conservative or nationalist ones.
Taking this into consideration the sample eventually comprised 11 cartoonists. Information about them can be seen in Table 1. Within this sample, some differences between cartoonists can be noticed, ranging from staff cartoonists, freelancers to syndicated, among others. Lastly, they all differ in their cartooning style: some do single panels while others do more comic strips or multiple panels.
Table 1
Sample cartoonists
Name Nationality Job characteristic, media and media political
leaning Length of interview (minutes) Camille Besse
French Staff cartoonist of Causette (feminist, liberal magazine), former Charlie Hebdo (satirical, left-wing).
70
Daryl Cagle American Head of syndicate Caglecartoons. 48
Aymeric Chastenet
French Freelancer. Draws for l’Urtikan, Siné Mensuel (satirical, left-wing).
88* Jeff
Danziguer American Freelancer. Draws for L.A. Times syndicate. 48 Damien Glez French-Burkinabe,
lives in Burkina Faso
Managing editor of Le Journal du Jeudi (Burkinabese satirical magazine, liberal)
71 Steve
Greenberg
American Freelancer. Draws for Ventura County Reporter (liberal)
Pascal Gros French Staff cartoonist of Marianne (left-wing magazine). Draws for Charlie Hebdo (satirical, left-wing).
94
Emmanuel Letouzé
French, lives in the US Freelance. Draws for Rue 89 (online magazine, left-wing)
79 Milt Prigree American Freelancer. Draws for Kitsap Sun (liberal) 125 Ted Rall American Freelancer. Draws for L.A. Times (liberal) 75 Nicolas Vial French Staff cartoonist of Le Figaro magazine, former
Le Monde (centre-left, liberal)
60*
*Those were held face-to-face in Paris Data Analysis
The interviews conducted were recorded with a phone and/or a professional recorder and were then transcribed. The transcripts were analysed without using any software. During the first readings of the transcripts, before analysing them, I defined deductive/inductive categories that can be seen in Appendix B. I then identified relevant patterns across the responses of the cartoonists. Topics and quotes were chosen to be in the results section based on originality and commonality of answers or explanatory power.
Results
Based on the interviewees’ answers regarding their own attitudes and based on their perception of other cartoonists’ attitude, the major finding of the present study shows a clear divide between American and French cartoonists attitudes vis-à-vis censorship and self-censorship.
Two main attitudes related to freedom of expression have therefore been
differentiated. One, that will be called the “hold back attitude”, refers to a more restrained attitude where cartoonists may be more careful about what they draw and it appears to be mostly dominant in the United States. The second attitude, which will be called the “freed attitude”, refers to an attitude where the freedom of cartoonists is prioritized, which appears
to be more widely endorsed by French cartoonists. That divide is however subject to many nuances and has to be thoroughly contextualized. The following section will explain the main results on that matter by firstly focusing on censorship to move towards the more complex issues of private and public self-censorship.
In addition, the approach of cartoonists towards religion and religious sensitivities is also presented. Nevertheless, since it displays different results about the freed attitude of French cartoonists and given the relevance of this issue in the post-Charlie Hebdo attack context in which the interviews were held, it will be analyzed in a separate section. Hints of State-censorship in France, Economic Censorship in the U.S.
Most of the interviewed cartoonists think that they are relatively free by their country’s standards in terms of their ability to draw freely what they want. They believe they enjoy a large freedom of expression in their respective countries. However, many cartoonists reckon that, in legal terms, France offers less freedom than the United States, notably because Americans are seen to “have much stronger protections against civil liability” (Cagle,
American) and cannot suffer lawsuits of any kind, compared to French cartoonists that can be suited by being accused of racism, Holocaust denial or anti-Semitism (Besse, French). As Ted Rall (American) posed it, most American cartoonists feel “remarkably free by American standards to draw what (they) want”. In France, one cartoonist points to the presence of an indirect state-censorship. Nicolas Vial, who was dismissed after two cartoons on François Hollande published in the renowned newspaper Le Monde, notably expressed fears for freedom of expression in France and compares the current situation of the country, in terms
of censorship, to Vichy France2. Those cartoons and a short description of this affair can be seen in Appendix C.
In the United States, cartoonists did not mention state-censorship, but many mentioned the existence of a widespread editorial censorship. All American cartoonists notably agreed that they cannot get everything published in U.S. media whereas, in France, editorial censorship is perceived in terms of editorial lines. According to several French cartoonists, this constraint is not a burden per se, as most of French interviewees actually stated they were drawing for publications that share their opinion and ideas and that, in addition, they already know whether their drawings fit this editorial line. Most of them also affirmed that the external plurality of the press gives them the possibility to publish any type of cartoon, therefore arguing that if there is cartoon they want to do, they can publish it in another newspaper.
On the contrary, many American cartoonists affirmed that media discredit them. For instance, Milt Prigree (American) affirmed that whereas cartoonists were once viewed as assets by media and editors, they are now considered as a liability. In this sense, some American interviewees like Ted Rall, stressed the fact that critics of important issues don’t reach newspapers due to “a lack of diversity of American media” (Rall, American). He vigorously blames editors to be, by definition, censors, but also the general environment in which he sees an economic censorship that affects him and his ideas particularly:
If I do some cartoons about some topics, they don’t get publish. It doesn’t get any attraction and it’s not allowed to take off. It’s not the order comes from the President, it’s a system and it’s pernicious. People don’t even realize that some topics exist. The argument is: “if those ideas were popular there would be political parties and
newspapers to support those ideas”. But then, if you say that there are polls that show that most of Americans are against capitalism then those people are like “La La La, I can’t hear you”…. So what is unacceptable censorship is when important ideas don’t appear due to politics or to fear. If an idea is worthless then who cares, but it’s really problematic that in the U.S. there are a lot of issues or critics towards things like militarism that you can’t get publish about…. I’ve been doing this for a long time and I accept the way it is. It’s just the shitty country that I live in. Going against the wind is perceived as very difficult by several of the interviewees and it generates frustration among them, particularly on the side of the Americans. Besides, a large majority of interviewees concurred the fact that a cartoon should make people think and be striking and all respondents unanimously agreed that a cartoon has to convey a message, an idea or an opinion and reflect their personal attitude on a given issue. But for the
cartoonists that feel they face media censorship or state-censorship, those goals of cartooning are more difficult to reach. While some refuse to censor themselves in their cartoons, but face successive refusals, others practice self-censoring.
Public Self-censorship: a Concern for American Cartoonists
In order to present the differences between attitudes of interviewees regarding public self-censorship, I use the classification developed by Cook and Heilmann (2012) and I apply it to the results of this research. Therefore, I classified cartoonists depending on their
behaviour towards public self-censorship in Table 2. As it appears, only interviewed cartoonists working in the U.S. have mentioned to be confronted to public self-censorship issues, which means they had to decide whether they chose to anticipate editorial censorship in order not to be censored. Consequently, cartoonists that do not appear in Table 2 are not
concerned by public self-censorship or did not give sufficient information permitting to classify them accordingly.
This table “expresses to what extent a censee’s attitudes are in line with those required by the censor and how much his or her privately held and publicly expressed attitudes differ” (Cook and Heilman, 2012, p.182). Therefore, in this concrete case, I
emphasize how cartoonists make their cartoons in line with editor’s demands in terms of what he finds acceptable (i.e. what he would not censor) and how much their private viewpoints and their publicly expressed personal attitude differ.
Table 2
Attitudes of cartoonists regarding public self-censorship when censors are editors
Public opposition Public acceptance
Private opposition Prigree, American Rall, American
Letouzé, French living in the US
Cagle, American
Private acceptance Greenberg, American
Danziguer, American
As it appears, three different cases have to be taken into consideration. Firstly, three interviewees (Letouzé, French living in the US; Prigree, American; Rall, American)
expressed full and private opposition towards editors’ attitudes, which means they have privately denounced editors’ attitudes and they gave concrete examples of public expression of disagreement. In fact, the three of them stated they do the cartoons they want, even if it can be “a waste of time and frustrating” because their cartoons do not get through editorial
censorship (Rall, American). However, within this group, Milt Prigree (American) seems to be the more opposed to bend in front of editors. If he is conscious that his attitude may lead him to lose job opportunities and money, he nevertheless explains that he is going to say what he wants: “I am like a blind javelin thrower” (Prigree, American). Emmanuel Letouzé
(French living in the U.S.) also expressed strong opposition to public self-censorship and does so privately and publicly. He notably wrote a column in the journal of Colombia
University to denounce censorship he suffered from for a cartoon. Yet, both Letouzé and Rall stated that they had to compromise from time to time. Ted Rall notably admits censoring himself “of course all the time”, but states that “it’s not fun if you are pulling your punches all the time” (Rall, American).
Secondly, Daryl Cagle (American) emphasized an interesting dichotomy that is often presented by other cartoonists as widespread in the United States. In spite of blaming in private editors’ attitudes to be prudish, he generally draws what the editors want, which means drawing about topics that rise to the news and not doing radical cartoons (Cagle, American). In this sense, he expresses frustration because “editors and cartoonists have different values”. He also expressed the desire not to waste time at any time, which means doing cartoons that publishers and editors will buy.
The same goes for Steve Greenberg (American) who declared to take into
consideration what the editors want when drawing. He explains that he does so in order not to waste time and money. This latter way of thinking is presented by almost all cartoonists, French and American, as a widespread view due to “the growing lack of job security in the profession” (Chastenet, French). Yet, it was even more noticeable in American cartoonists’ responses. The need to be effective therefore means to compromise with editors in order to get their cartoons “in front of as many eyeballs as possible” (Cagle, American). Nevertheless, Steve Greenberg differs from Daryl Cagle in that he expressed private acceptation of public self-censorship by stating he respects the limits imposed by newspapers, which is something that Cagle does not. The point of view of Jeff Danziguer (American) is also linked to an acceptance of public self-censorship, even if he contests that he does practice self-censorship.
Indeed, he states that he would be careful about drawing someone overweight like a fat American because, by doing so, some people could get angry and therefore, editors wouldn’t run it, fearing to hurt some of their readers that would be overweight. Nevertheless, he argues that it is not self-censorship: “it isn’t censorship any more than you censor your own
statements in normal conversation; you don’t just say what ever comes to your mind, you don’t insult people.”
Although some cartoonists are here classified as fiercely opposed to practice self-censorship when editors act as censors, some of them admit that, sometimes, they do. Ted Rall (American), who explained he did not “give a shit about the editors”, in fact admits that he has “to stuff the thing down a bit”. Also, editorial censorship may be accepted after they submit their cartoon: cartoonists that present themselves as opposed to any kind of
self-censorship actually accept, from time to time, to modify their cartoon after being asked by the editor. For instance, Milt Prigree (American) accepted to withdraw a caption on one of his cartoons that was judged misplaced. Nonetheless, he chose to publish it on his own website in the category of “killed cartoons”, meaning cartoons that “did not make the cut” (Prigree, American).
Reflecting on Sensitivities
As seen above, in private self-censorship, the cartoonist deliberately chooses not to draw something because he decides to embrace sensitivities without having any interaction with a censor. Here, a divide between cartoonists’ attitudes regarding private self-censorship is clear. It appears that the hold back attitude in terms of this self-censorship, which means a more cautious attitude towards sensitivities, is more widespread in the United States than in France.
In between those two approaches, Damien Glez (French-Burkinabe, living and working in Burkina Faso) claims that there is the need to adapt satire to culture and he differentiates acceptable self-censorship and unacceptable. Working mostly for a Burkinabe newspaper, he argues that it is important to integrate some taboos in order for the visual content not to get in the way of the message of the cartoon. He gives the example of a cartoon where he represented a penis to talk about a story:
I work on three continents and I am regularly confronted to differences in terms of mentality and it leads to confrontation of taboos that are more or less acceptable. In Burkina Faso, the main taboo I have been confronted to is the representation of sex, which is not a problem in France…. I represented a male sex and I had to admit that people focused more on that small detail rather than on the message of the cartoon…. I realised it was counterproductive to represent things with a sexual aspect. In order to convey a message efficiently, it is better to talk about an issue in a different way…. it’s a taboo that became a kind of self-censorship but it does not contradicts with my freedom so it’s not problem for me.
While Damien Glez said he censors himself, Jeff Danziguer (American) said he would not call what he does self-censorship any more than self-control. This type of thinking, according to cartoonists’ answers, is dominant in the United States and can be related to political
correctness. Contrary to France, the United States are pointed out by interviewees as a country where self-censorship about explicit sexual content or issues of race is nearly always compulsory. Steve Greenberg (American) argues that, because American newspapers are seen as family newspapers, no cartoon that would be extremely provocative (graphically or content wise) could ever get printed.
Race was pointed out as an extremely sensitive topic that leads many cartoonists to self-censor themselves. A difference on that matter between French and American cartoonists was underlined by Emmanuel Letouzé (French, living in the US) who explained that, in terms of graphic representation, French cartoons would probably be perceived by the American society as deeply racist. He gave the example of a cartoon made by Charb, the former director of Charlie Hebdo, representing Christiane Taubira, the black French minister of justice as a monkey. This cartoon, which can be seen in Appendix D, was done by Charb to denounce racist remarks that spread in public discussion towards the minister of justice. Charb notably denounced the fact that a Front National candidate for a local election made this comparison. Emmanuel Letouzé explains:
In the US, a black woman drawn as a monkey would be an atomic bomb…. the problem with that cartoon is that it has often been decontextualized…. but even with the context, I have some American friends on Facebook that told me “anyway it’s racist; it is graphically so, fundamentally, it is”. You cannot freely debate about it. While it appears that French society, still according to interviewees, largely accepts and understands ambiguity and provocation in general, especially to denounce things like racism, cartoonists working in the United States seem to struggle to defend cartoons that would attack racism using racist codes. Milt Prigree (American) gave evidence of this by giving two examples. The first one, which can be seen in Appendix E, showed six different helmets of American football players, each one representing a team with a name. In order to denounce the name of the Washington Redskins team, which he considers as racist because of the use of a stereotype slang term, Milt Prigree used other stereotype slang terms to create imaginary football teams. He explains that his editor refused to publish it because the cartoon was racist. This example can therefore be linked with public self-censorship but, as it deals
with sensitivities, it is also interesting to link it with private self-censorship in the sense that Prigree says he wants to challenge preconceived ideas of society by not taking sensitivities into consideration. Talking about his former editor and this cartoon, Milt Prigree tells:
He had a problem with all the helmets except the one of the Redskins. I told him that was exactly my point: it is so ingrained in our society that we don’t even realize that it is kind of racist. You’re giving me a reason why the cartoon should be published and then you’re saying that’s why we are not gonna publish it; the editor decided he was not going to have this newspaper challenging any of our readers’ preconceived ideas. He was rejecting the very reason of my existence in this newspaper.
Prigree did also an extremely controversial cartoon after Obama won re-election in 2012. He wrote in big bold letters: “Nigger - 2. Racist - 0”. This cartoon was so controversial that even his cartoonist colleagues from the Association of Editorial cartoonists were upset and
pressured him to take it off the website. This because of the use of one the most taboo word in the U.S.: “nigger”. He described the attitude of his colleagues as “a stab in the back”:
People could just not get passed the word nigger. But what do they think racists are using? If I took out the word nigger and put in Obama it doesn’t really have the kick that the cartoon needs. This shows that racists consider Obama not as good as they are because of the color of his skin. And these white supremacists have lost to a man of color, twice now. It was the obvious cartoon; using the “n word” was an evidence. The interviews also showed that ambiguity is one characteristic that is highly valued by some cartoonists whereas it is not by others. This feature, that goes along with irony and which is also often expressed as “second degré” (figurative level), is essentially present in the answers of French cartoonists and is linked with the idea of amusing readers. French
relationship between the reader and the cartoonist. The reader knows the ideas and the political leaning of the newspaper he buys (Besse, French) and therefore knows that even if the cartoon expresses outrageous, awful and racist things, the cartoonist actually means the opposite and aims at attacking racism by making it look like ridiculous (Gros, French). Pascal Gros explains how this tool actually cuts two ways:
The fact that a cartoon is understandable is an imperative. It is a simple imperative but it is the very essence of the job (...) Behind this lies in the problem of ambiguity. You want to erase it to make sure to be understood, but at the same time ambiguity can be an efficient tool to give a funny side to a cartoon (“ressort comique”). The figurative level (“second degré”) works well: you come out with outrageous and crummy things, the most awful ones, but you do it with the complicity of the reader…. But still, playing with this ambiguity means you take the risk of being misunderstood.
In that sense, most French cartoonists expressed a will to not think of sensitivities because they would feel paralyzed (Gros, French) or they would fear to end up doing weak and half-hearted cartoons (Besse, French). However, a majority of French cartoonists admit that, at least unconsciously, their cartoons are probably different depending on which
newspaper they draw for. They also mention particular topics that are more difficult to deal in with France such as the Holocaust or any topic that would usually be more linked to a
minute's silence rather than laughter.
Also, it has to be noticed that one topic appeared to be more problematic in France and has lead some cartoonists to self-censor themselves: religion. This type of self-censorship has today a special feel for French cartoonists. Five of their colleagues died, killed by two French men claiming they took revenge for the cartoons that offended the prophet of Islam.
All French cartoonists interviewed for this research had met at least one of the cartoonists who died; some were friends, some worked with them. The backdrop of this attack has to therefore be taken into consideration.
Religion, a Sensitive Topic for French Cartoonists
Religion appears to be a source of both great concern and interest for French cartoonists, while that issue was not that thoroughly discussed by American cartoonists. In fact, Jeff Danziguer (American) argues that talking about religion and blasphemy in the United States would be like “going to France and discussing Wyoming politics, nobody would care. That is not what this country is about”.
However, both in the United States and France, interviewees underlined that religion can be the target of their critics and that they allow themselves to criticize religion if needed. On the other hand, all French cartoonists emphasized that this exercise is of great importance in France and that it comes along from the French history. Aymeric Chastenet (French) considers that criticizing religion is “part of the DNA of cartooning in a ‘French style’ ”. He adds that French cartoonists “are the product of the history of France” and that in order for someone to understand the importance of secularism and anticlericalism in relation to cartoons in France, there is the need to be acquainted with French history: “if you are not a minimum aware of this, you cannot understand the importance of secularism in this country” (Chastenet, French).
And yet, despite that strong sense of secularism expressed by all French cartoonists, a divide seems to exist between them. If the anticlerical cartoons are done by all, the question of blasphemy creates a divide among them. This divide on blasphemy is, however, mostly salient regarding Islam. Aymeric Chastenet notably argued that he would avoid doing
blasphemous cartoons and notably a blasphemous cartoon about Islam. He explains the difference he sees between blasphemy and anticlericalism:
The anticlerical cartoon aims at attacking religious leaders and religions as institutions. The blasphemous cartoon aims at attacking the faith. It is like saying “God does not exist, what you believe in is stupid”…. I would not like to do a cartoon that shocks or hurts the sensitivities of people that I usually draw for. I do a lot of anti-racist cartoons, I have always been on the side of North African
immigrants and so I would not like to be the one hurting them by making them feel mocked and denigrated because they do not have the reading keys to understand a cartoon.
The impact of the attack on Charlie Hebdo is also perceptible in French cartoonists answers. Nicolas Vial (French) notably explained that he did many cartoons representing Jesus but he would not draw Mohammed: “we know that we should not draw Mohammed…. It is not funny and some people are crazy. I don’t see the point.”
Other cartoonists from both France and the United States denounced this attitude. Pascal Gros (French), for instance, decided to reassert the right to blasphemy by doing a cartoon emphasizing that taking fanatics into consideration would one day make cartoonists unable to draw anything. Made one week after the Charlie Hebdo attack in which he lost his colleague of Marianne, Tignous, the cartoon shows an angry fundamentalist yelling “Who did draw a butt hair of Mohammed?” in front of a white painting with only one black line. This cartoon can be seen in Appendix F. About it, he explains:
It is a cartoon that says a lot about blasphemy…. the painting is only a coma, not a butt hair of Mohammed, but the guy sees a blasphemy in it. And in fact, it’s actually
him who commits the blasphemy. The idea in this cartoon was that one day we will not be able to draw anything.
Interviewed American cartoonists, despite stating that religion is a less important issue in the U.S., are nonetheless divided on the legitimacy of drawing religious figures like Mohammed. Ted Rall (American), who learned a few days before the interview he was himself threatened by some terrorist group3, also considers that no cartoonist should forbid himself to draw something and this includes Mohammed. He states: “once you go down that road, then you’re over. It’s finished. And personally, I am not Muslim so I don’t have to follow Muslim features.” On the opposite, Steve Greenberg (American), like Nicolas Vial (French), does not see the point of doing so and considers, regarding Mohammed cartoons that it is like “taking a stick and hitting a wasp nest”. Reflecting on the demonstrations after the Danish cartoons and the Charlie Hebdo attack, he posed:
It can be painful and dangerous for a number of people…. It’s being provocative and a little offensive on purpose…. I respect that cartoonists have the right to draw whatever they want but there is also the understanding that when you draw a cartoon like that, there is going to be somebody taking offense and, sometimes, that offense takes a violent reaction. So to do a cartoon like that, one has to be aware that there could be a violent response
Among French cartoonists, that question of responsibility is also a matter of division. Camille Besse notably opposed to the vision of Plantu, the cartoonist of Le Monde and co-founder of the organization ‘Cartoonist for peace’. Fiercely opposed to the idea of respecting sensitivities, she considers that taking into consideration religious sensitivities would impinge on her freedom of expression. She explains:
We will always shock someone…. if I start to wonder who I can shock and choose to avoid shocking people, I can stop doing my job straightaway. Freedom of expression is not negotiable in the sense that, if you give in to one point, you are obliged to give in to all the others.
Like interviewees own attitudes differ, French cartoonists are also divided on which attitude on that topic is dominant in their country. Some, like Pascal Gros, consider that the Plantu line (which refers to a cautious approach of sensitive topics) is on the decline,
especially since the Charlie Hebdo attack. Others, like Camille Besse, consider that this line is getting more popular among cartoonists, that they are now being more cautious regarding the particular topic of religion and especially regarding Islam.
Opposed to give up on her freedom of expression, Camille Besse nevertheless stated that she understands the need to explain cartooning and satire to people that do not have “the tools to read a cartoon”. She explained that, after the attack and the debates about young people who affirmed “Je ne suis pas Charlie”4, she felt the need to go to schools to explain and discuss about cartooning. She explains:
Maybe we will disagree on the issue that I draw about in a cartoon, and I don’t ask them to agree with me; but what I want is that they know I am not doing that against them, it’s very important. And maybe the next time they see a cartoon, they won’t feel hurt and attacked as Muslim or anything else.
Finally, it appears to be relevant to notice that many cartoonists mentioned, when talking about religion, problems caused by Internet. If their cartoons should be understood in a certain context, once being decontextualized, they can be understood as offensive, insulting
4 A debate occured after the attack when, in some schools, some students reportedly refused to do a minute of silence. For some people, cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were insulting others and notably Muslims. The slogan « Je suis Charlie » was transformed by some into « Je ne suis pas Charlie ». This has been a matter of great
and despising. To overcome misunderstandings and violence, apart from the solution of not doing the incriminated cartoons, the need to educate people on cartooning (Besse, French) or the idea of putting more information along with a cartoon (Prigree, American) were
mentioned.
Conclusion and Discussion
The purpose of the study was to examine French and American cartoonists depending on their role and attitudes vis-à-vis freedom of expression. The 11 in-depth
interviews conducted with cartoonists from France and the United States provided a restricted but nonetheless fruitful collection of data for an analysis. Despite the lack of academic
research on cartoonists’ perceptions, the interviews responses were analysed within the context of existing academic theory on cartoons, freedom of expression and self-censorship. They were also conducted and analysed within the framework of informal materials giving evidence of the views of other cartoonists and any other relevant public actor for this research.
In the study, cartoonists presented different views and attitudes and a divide was apparent resulting in two differentiated attitudes. Although we cannot guarantee that the sample is representative of the dominant attitude of their national colleagues, we observe that American cartoonists are more likely to have a hold back attitude while French cartoonists are more likely to have a freed attitude. Those attitudes appear to be coherent with the ones found in respective mainstream national media during both the controversy of the Danish cartoons and after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
In the context of past research on historical and current forms of censorship, it is interesting to note that most of the cartoonists living in the U.S. mentioned the existence of a strong and widespread editorial censorship. In accordance with academic literature that underlines the existence of fierce critics towards media concentration (Donohue & Glasser,
1978; Iosifides, 1999), many respondents explicitly reported the difficulty for some ideas to get published and saw it as a result of a lack of diversity in American media. In France, if ideas seem to get published easier, the indirect state-censorship explained by one the French cartoonists appears to be explicable by the close ties many private media outlets have with politicians (Freedom House, 2013).
The economic censorship that American cartoonists face can be seen as the reason why interviewed cartoonists working in the U.S. have been confronted to issues of self-censorship more often and why many of them feel strongly about it. In fact, most of
American cartoonists mentioned the prudishness of editors and their cowardice. In general, all interviewees mentioned the growing lack of job security of cartoonists but it was
expressed more strongly in the U.S. where the number of staff cartoonists is decreasing dramatically (Prigree, American; Rall, American). When cartoonists admitted to censor themselves, the need to earn money was the main reason.
Almost all interviewees stated the fact that cartoonists working in the U.S. have to deal with more sensitivities and taboos than cartoonists in France. Consequently, American cartoonists are more likely to self-censor themselves by taking into consideration sensitivities in order to get published and to avoid any outcry. In this sense, political correctness seems to have a major influence on cartoonists individually but also on editors and publishers who think of their readership’ sensitivities and consequently feel uncomfortable to publish cartoons that would deal with delicate topics, notably racial taboos. Race was incontestably described by all cartoonists living in the U.S. as a major source of potential controversy.
Although the issue of self-censorship in France seems to be less significant, interviewed French cartoonists appeared to be divided on the particular issue of whether or not they should practice self-censorship when it comes to religion, and more specifically
Islam. For most of the French interviewees, the well-known cartoonist of Le Monde, Plantu, symbolizes that divide between two visions: on the one hand there are cartoonists like him, who take into consideration sensitivities and potential consequences and, on the other hand, cartoonists in the same vein than Charb, who decide to use their freedom of expression
without any limits but their mind and within the boundaries that French law permits (France 3 Picardie, 2012). Whether this latter way of thinking is dominant in France remains an open question. Dissimilarities in French interviewees responses on whether or not they can, as individuals, draw Mohammed, as well as the differences on which attitude is dominant according to them, cannot lead to any conclusion on that matter.
However, some respondents emphasized the trend of political correctness that had spread across newspapers. Academic research had on that matter showed that the original bête et méchant (stupid and nasty) spirit of Charlie Hebdo was no longer existing (Weston, 2009). Weston (2009) emphasized this point about Charlie Hebdo by posing that “the original profoundly libertarian tenets of the newspaper now take second place to editorial prudence” (pp.110-111). This trend was feared by Camille Besse (French) to be vitalized by the assassination of her colleagues while Pascal Gros sensed, in the aftermath of the attack, an important call into question of the “Plantu approach”. Accordingly, future research on
cartoonists and freedom of expression should probably look for evidence or counter-evidence that the Charlie Hebdo attack has revived “the rich French tradition for polemical editorial cartooning” (Weston, 2009, pp.110-111).
The study presents a few limitations. Despite the attempt to give a comprehensive insight into cartoonists’ attitudes by embracing their personal attitude as well as their views on their colleagues’ attitudes, the limited number of interviews cannot provide an exhaustive insight of French and American cartoonists’ perceptions. Therefore, the conclusions of this
study should not be generalized without taking this caveat into consideration. Also, further studies could broaden the knowledge on how cartoonists perceive their role and what their attitude is in regards to freedom of speech by focusing on, for instance, cartoonists working for far-right publications. Also, in light of the concerns expressed by the interviewees of this study, the lack of job security for cartoonists should lead researchers to investigate on the prospects for the profession and this notably in the United States where some cartoonists fear to see the profession vanishing.
In conclusion, by giving voice to cartoonists in academic research, this study fills a gap in scholarship and may serve as a future reference for further research on cartoons. Even if modest, it nonetheless gives a relevant insight of the reflection of cartoonists on their role and attitudes. Despite the many difficulties and challenges they face, cartoonists are still major observers and commentators of contemporary issues. Moreover, considering their cartoons are in the spotlight since the Danish cartoons’ affair and the Charlie Hebdo attack, their opinion may have more influential power in the years to come, especially in France. If in the United States, their importance will very likely continue to erode, their role in France may strengthen. This is largely dependent on which attitude French cartoonists will embrace and which role they want to assume.
References
Berkowitz, D., & Eko, L. (2007). Blasphemy as sacred rite/right. Journalism Studies, 8(5), 779-797. doi:10.1080/1416700701504757
Boulet-Gercourt, P. (2015). “Charlie Hebdo”: le “New York Times” ne publie pas les caricatures. NouvelObs.com. Retrieved from http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/charlie- hebdo/20150109.OBS9581/charlie-hebdo-le-new-york-times-ne-publie-pas-les-caricatures.html
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, P., Delporte, C. (1992). Le dessinateur de presse, de l’artiste au journaliste. Xxs, 35(1), 29-41.
doi:103406/xxs.1992.2563
Donohye, T., & Glqsser, T. (1978). Homogeneity in Coverage of Connecticut Newspapers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quaterly, 53(3), 592-595.
Doi:10.1177/107769907805500328
France 3 Picardie,. (2012). Interview de Charb de Charlie Hebdo. Retrieved from http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xreed6_interview-de-charb-de-charlie-hebdo_news
Freedom House,. (2013). Freedom of the Press 2013. Freedom House
Goldstein, R. (1989). Censorship of caricature in France, 1815-1914. French History, 3(1), 71-107. doi:10.1092/fh/3.1.71
Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heilmann, C. (2012). Two types of self-censorship: public and private. Political studies, 61(1), 178-196.
Hussain, A. (2007) The Media's Role in a Clash of Misconceptions: The Case of the Danish Muhammad Cartoons. The Harvard International Journal Of Press/Politics, 12(4), 112-130. doi:10.1177/1081180x07307190
'I Must Not Draw…'. (2009). European Comic Art, 2(1), 1-19. doi:10.3828/eca.2.1.2
Institut-numerique.org,. (2012). Une collusion forte avec la sphère politique. Retrieved from http://www.institut-numerique.org/1-1-une-collusion-forte-avec-la-sphere-politique-503e120cc6b47
Iosifides, P. (1999). Diversity versus Concentration in the Deregulated Mass Media Domain. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 152-162.
doi:10.1177/107769909907600111
Keane, D. (2008). Cartoon Violence and Freedom of Expression. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(4), 845-875. doi:10.1353/hrq.0.0031
Kemnitz, T. (1973). The Cartoon as a Historical Source. Journal Of Interdisciplinary History, 4(1), 81. doi:10.2307/202359.
Klausen, J. (2009). See No Evil. Index On Censorship, 38(4), 74-81. doi:10.1080/ 03064220903445352
Lamb, C. (2007). DRAWING POWER. Journalism Studies, 8(5), 715-729. doi:10.1080/14616700701504666
Le Monde.fr, (2015). “ Charlie Hebdo” : le numéro d’équilibriste des medias anglo-saxons. Retrived on 4 February 2015, from
http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite- medias/article/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-le-numero-d-equilibriste-des-medias-anglo-saxons_4552134_3236.html.
Mauri-Rios, M., Perez-Pereira, M., & Figueras-Mas, M. (2014). The Public and the
Journalists’ Views on the Humoristic Treatment of Religion in Spain. Journalism & mass communication Quaterly, 91(3), 471-486.
McCann, D., & McBrien, R. (1990). Caesar's Coin: Religion and Politics in America. Journal Of Law And Religion, 8(1/2), 541. doi:10.2307/1051318
Mediapart,. (2015). Luz: «Catharsis, c’est l’histoire d’un enfant qui regarde sans
comprendre». Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrbkF3ivaFY Paine, A. (1904). Th. NAst, his Period and his Pictures. The American Historical Review,
10(4), 907. doi:10.2307/1834510
Pitock, T. (2015). In censoring Charlie Hebdo cartoons, U.S. media bowed to jihadists’pressure. Haaretz. Retrieved from
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.636771
Reinelt, J. (2011). The Performance of Political Correctness. Theatre Research International, 36(02), 134-147. doi:10.1017/s°3077883311000216
Rolfe, M. (2009). Clashing Taboos: Danish Cartoons, the Life of Brian and Public Diplomacy. The Hague Journal Of Diplomacy, 4(3), 261-281.
doi:10.1163/187119109x455900
Simonnet, D. (2006). Le caricaturiste doit passer au travers des interdits. Interview de Plantu.. Lexpress.fr. Retrieved 19 June 2015, from
http://www.lexpress.fr/styles/mode/le-caricaturiste-doit-passer-au-travers-des-interdits_479986.html#b5t4Z4JZ67LwIqw6.99
Thibodeau, R. (1989). From Racism to Tokenism: The Changing Face of Blacks in New Yorker Cartoons. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(4), 482-494. doi:10.1086/269168
Triandafyllidou, A. (2009). The Mohammed Cartoons Crisis in the British and Greek Press. Journalism Studies, 10(1), 36-53. doi:10.1080/1461670080250484
VICE News,. (2015). Exclusive Interview with 'Charlie Hebdo' Cartoonist Luz. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebL1oCy6tgY
Weston, J. (2009). Bête et méchant: Politics, Editorial Cartoons and Bande dessinée in the French Satirical Newspaper Charlie Hebdo. European Comic Art, 2(1), 109-129. Winkler, E. (2015). The Danish Editor Who Published Mohammed Cartoons in 2005: "This
Idea That Charlie Hebdo Had an Anti-Islamic Bias Is Stupid". newrepublic.com. Retrieved 19 June 2015, from http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120748/flemming-rose-interview-charlie-hebdo-massacre
