3 ms·

Am I weird here thinking that it's pretty obvious that if you bite the hand that feeds you, there will be consequences?

by TheChaplain 2y ago

dwattttt 2y ago
It depends on whether you think you have a job, rights, or a king.
gazchop 2y ago
[flagged]
vintagedave 2y ago
Part of being a journalist and a cartoonist is being able to speak truth to power. It’s inherent in the duties going with the job. So it’s not obvious, no.
- mrayycombi 2y ago
  Speak truth to power? Lol. Journalists and cartoonists sell the appearance of transgression to make their brand edgy. You work for power. Speaking truth is just a slogan to assuage your guilt.
  - vintagedave 2y ago
    That’s deeply cynical, but many journalists I’ve met view their job as a calling and a duty.
    - mrayycombi 2y ago
      Lol. Look up "yellow journalism" - why don't they view their jobs as a legacy of pandering to the rich and lying to the public?
lucianbr 2y ago
Perhaps the cartoonist thought it pretty obvious too, yet felt moved to act as she did. If you think keeping your job comes before everything else you are not weird, but might be wrong. At least your opinion might not be universally held.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
exsomet 2y ago
We talk a lot about having the freedom to criticize those in power (and being rich does give you outsized influence and power in the US). But it’s important to test that assertion regularly, otherwise it is just propaganda. If you cannot publish a cartoon criticizing someone in power, then we do not actually have a free press, no matter what the constitution or the people say. It is the act of testing the assertions without reprisal that grants us the freedom, not the act of simply asserting we have it. So yes - if one of our foundational freedoms is that the press should be able to ‘bite the hand’ without consequences, that’s exactly what we should expect when someone tests that assertion and we should be uneasy when that isn’t the result.

Am I weird here thinking that it's pretty obvious that if you bite the hand that feeds you, there will be consequences?

dwattttt 2y ago

It depends on whether you think you have a job, rights, or a king.

gazchop 2y ago

[flagged]

vintagedave 2y ago

Part of being a journalist and a cartoonist is being able to speak truth to power. It’s inherent in the duties going with the job. So it’s not obvious, no.

mrayycombi 2y ago
Speak truth to power? Lol. Journalists and cartoonists sell the appearance of transgression to make their brand edgy. You work for power. Speaking truth is just a slogan to assuage your guilt.
- vintagedave 2y ago
  That’s deeply cynical, but many journalists I’ve met view their job as a calling and a duty.
  - mrayycombi 2y ago
    Lol. Look up "yellow journalism" - why don't they view their jobs as a legacy of pandering to the rich and lying to the public?

lucianbr 2y ago

Perhaps the cartoonist thought it pretty obvious too, yet felt moved to act as she did. If you think keeping your job comes before everything else you are not weird, but might be wrong. At least your opinion might not be universally held.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

exsomet 2y ago

We talk a lot about having the freedom to criticize those in power (and being rich does give you outsized influence and power in the US). But it’s important to test that assertion regularly, otherwise it is just propaganda. If you cannot publish a cartoon criticizing someone in power, then we do not actually have a free press, no matter what the constitution or the people say. It is the act of testing the assertions without reprisal that grants us the freedom, not the act of simply asserting we have it. So yes - if one of our foundational freedoms is that the press should be able to ‘bite the hand’ without consequences, that’s exactly what we should expect when someone tests that assertion and we should be uneasy when that isn’t the result.