Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Tom Scott’

Tom Scott and Aramoana’s Long Shadow

From Tom Scott’s collection of cartoons, “Life in New Zealand” – his tribute to the Aramoana massacre on 13 November 1990 where a crazed gunman shot and killed thirteen people.

.

.

The next one is a Public Service announcement to explain to “gun rights” enthusiasts what the purpose of weapons is:

.

.

= fs =

Advertisements

The mark of a true cartoonist…

Dominion Post cartoonist Tom Scott has had one of his cartoons re-published  in French newspaper Le Monde. His caricature of  Syrian dictator, President Bashar al-Assad, has won him accolades,

.

Kiwi cartoonist published in Paris paper

Acknowledgment: Kiwi cartoonist published in Paris paper

.

A cartoonist pokes fun at positions of authority; those in power; and established social “norms”. A cartoonist is a critic , or at least exposes contradictions so the public reader can see an issue or problem from another vantage point.

A cartoonist can also create images that reinforce evil such as racism and other discrimination – but then that raises the question; what is the point?

Reinforcing prejudice is easy-peasy; just repeat what the previous bigot said. No original thought required.

Al Nisbet’s openly racist cartoons in the Marlborough Express and The Press are examples of reinforcing preconceived prejudices. Nothing is challenged. Only reinforced.

.

Al Nisbet's racist cartoon (2)

.

290513 The Marlborough Express Al Nisbet cartoon

Acknowledgment: Marlborough Express & The Press

.

That’s not cartooning. That’s propaganda.

Speaking of “propaganda”…

On 31 May, Deputy Editor of Christchurch’s The Press, Ric Stevens, made this comment defending Nisbet’s cartoons,

“On the wall of my office in Press House in Gloucester St is a drawing by New Zealander David Low, described by Britain’s Guardian newspaper in a 1963 obituary as the “dominant cartoonist of the western world”.

The cartoon I look at every working day, which sadly does not belong to me, is an inoffensive thing.

Canterbury’s founding fathers reach out from a book – the pages of history – to a young couple of 1950, congratulating them on reaching the Christchurch Centenary.

Judging by a furore over our cartoons that blew up yesterday, it seems some readers would want all our cartoons to be that nice.

But not all Low’s cartoons were as gentle. His acerbic Rendezvous of 1939 depicts a meeting between Stalin and Hitler, who are shown politely bowing while describing each other as “the scum of the earth” and “the bloody assassin of the workers” respectively.

After World War II, the British-based Low found his name on Hitler’s blacklist of people to be rounded up should the Nazis ever successfully invade the United Kingdom. But he had enemies at home as well as abroad – the British press once decried him as a warmonger.

Low was knighted in the end.

Low was an exponent of a long tradition of newspaper cartooning which has always tended to push boundaries. Unlike the editorial which often sits alongside them, cartoons do not necessarily represent the view of the newspaper, but very much that of the artist.”

Acknowledgment: Cartoon row misses the point

Low’s cartoon’s vilified dictators like Hitler and Stalin,

.

david low cartoon (1)

.

david low cartoon (2)

.

david low cartoon (3)

.

david low cartoon (4)

.

david low cartoon (5)

.

david low cartoon (6)

.

david low cartoon (7)

.

david low cartoon (8)

.

david low cartoon (9)

.

david low cartoon (10)

.

None of these cartoons vilified the victims of  Stalin, Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini.

Therein lies the difference between Lows cartoons with Nisbets.

Which makes Ric Stevens’ attempt to associate Nisbet with Low as wholly inadequate.

.

*

.

References

The Press: Cartoon row misses the point

Dominion Post: Kiwi cartoonist published in Paris paper

.

.

= fs =

Categories: Media Tags: , , ,

“One law for all” – except MPs

3 January 2012 4 comments

.

.

The government is going after cameraman/journalist Bradley Ambrose with a vengeance, demanding $14,000 in court costs,

.

Full Story

.

It seems that this government is as vindictive as ever, when it comes to “settling scores” with critics. Their recent history has other similar examples of coming down hard on those who would dare criticise the current regime.

This list outlines just some of the people who have criticised this government and been abused or derided;

July, 2009

Natasha Fuller &  Jennifer Johnston, solo-mothers

Personal WINZ details released to the media by Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, to discredit both women after they criticised National for canning the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett herself used to pay her way through University).

May, 2011

Jon Stephenson, journalist
John Key derides Stephenson’s research into NZ activities in Afghanistan: “I’ve got no reason for NZDF to be lying, and I’ve found [Stephenson] myself personally not to be credible.”

September, 2011

Nicky Hager, writer, researcher
John Key dismisses Hager’s book, on CIA involvement in NZ military activities in Afghanistan:  “I don’t have time to read fiction,” quipped the Prime Minister, adding that the book contained “no smoking gun”, just supposition, which, “makes it business as normal for Nicky Hager”. (Despite the book having 1300 footnotes to referencing documentation.)

October, 2011

Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, broadcaster, blogger
Criticised John Key on Radio NZ. Subsequently banned/ “uninvited”  from returning to Radio NZ as a panellist for the Afternoons with Jim Mora segment.

November, 2011

Robyn Malcolm, actor
Criticises the John Key led National government for it’s failures at a Green Party campaign launch, and is, in turn, vilified by the ‘NZ Herald’, and by one-time National Party aspiring-candidate, Cameron Brewer.

November, 2011

Bradley Ambrose, journalist/photographer
Investigated by police after complaint laid by the Prime Minister, over the “Teapot Tape” affair. Ambrose investigated and interviewed by Police. Media office raided. Property seized. Eventually, no charges laid. Government considered seeking costs of $13,669.45 from Ambrose – but eventually decided not to.

Whilst “Bomber” Bradbury and Ms Malcolm were not directly attacked by this government,  actions taken against them were made as a direct result of criticising John Key.

It appears that Bradley Ambrose can now be added to that growing list of harassed or vilified dissidents. If it’s any consolation for Mr Ambrose, he appears to be a member of an “exclusive club” of some very talented individuals.

It also seems that the National Party is not averse to resorting to  Muldoonist tactics – where the Prime Minister of the same name had little hesitation in attacking critics on a personal level. Many of us still recall Muldoon’s abuse of power against cartoonist and journalist, Tom Scott, in the 1970s.

.

.

I thought those days were over, and behind us.

Evidently not.

What is even more outrageously hypocritical is that Ministers of the Crown are not above dipping into the public purse to pay for their own court costs – some of which are considerable,

.

Full Story

.

National MP, Gerry Brownlee also tried to seek reimbursement for a $48,000 legal bill – though this was knocked back. Brownlee knew he was “trying it on”, when he admitted,

In hindsight, I would have thought ‘oh well, I’ve got this big bill, I may as well see what is possible’. But quite clearly it wasn’t appropriate.” – Ibid

Nick Smith has received $122,000 taxpayer funding in his case against timber preservative company Osmose, and an undisclosed sum to reimburse his court costs  in his case against David Henderson.

One cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that there is one law for Members of Parliament – and another law for the rest of us plebs.

It was highly ironic then, considering Bradley Ambrose’s case that the Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith referred to  court action against the media, as justification for using taxpayers’ money,

Dr Smith said allowing MPs to use public money was warranted, likening it to a media company paying for a defamation case against a journalist.” – Ibid

John Key also climbed into the fray,  justifying the use of taxpayers’ money thusly,

“”It’s a question about whether ultimately those disclosures are brought into the public domain by greater levels of transparency, but that has never been the rule in the past. I don’t think it would be of concern to me if it was opened up to a greater degree. There’s nothing to hide here.” ” – Source

Well, obviously there was quite a bit to hide when it came to the “Teapot Tapes”. So much to hide, in fact, that police were called in to raid several media offices and punitive action is being meted out to Mr Ambrose. Not very “transparent” at all.

It is quite obvious that this government has little hesitation in using taxpayers money – our money – against members of the public who dare annoy a Minister.

It is also quite obvious that this same government will dip into our wallets and use our taxes when it suits them, to pay for their legal expenses.

The term for this is hypocrisy.

.

***

.

Additional

.

Source

.

.

.