Doonesbury controversy
The Doonesbury controversy revolves around the provocative nature of the comic strip created by Garry Trudeau, known for its satirical take on political and social issues. Since its debut in 1970, Doonesbury has sparked debates about the boundaries of editorial cartooning, particularly regarding the portrayal of public figures. Trudeau's work has led to accusations of misrepresentation, raising questions about the legal implications of satire. Notably, in 1993, several newspapers chose not to print specific Doonesbury strips due to sensitivities surrounding recent wildfires in California, igniting discussions about censorship and the responsibility of media outlets. The comic's impactful narratives often reflect real-world events and public figures, which can blur the lines between fact and fiction for its audience. Ultimately, the controversy highlights the tension between artistic expression and societal sensitivities, making Doonesbury a focal point for discussions on free speech, satire, and the role of media in public discourse.
Doonesbury controversy
Type of work: Syndicated newspaper cartoon strip
First published: 1970
Artist: Garry Trudeau (1948- )
Subject matter: Contemporary American life and politics
Significance: A topical cartoon strip that has often used the names of real people, Doonesbury has occasionally contained such barbed satire that newspapers have hesitated to print it
A life-long New York resident, Garry Trudeau is best known for his comic strip Doonesbury, which has been syndicated in as many as 850 different newspapers. In 1975 he won a Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning, and he was nominated for an Academy Award for his animated film, A Doonesbury Special, in 1977. The film also won a special jury prize at the Cannes Film Festival.
Noted for the controversial nature of his editorial cartooning, Trudeau has lampooned such public figures as singer Frank Sinatra, Attorney General John Mitchell, Senator John Warner, and Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo. In October, 1980, he poked fun at “the mysterious world of Ronald Reagan’s brain.” In one strip drawn during the 1980 presidential campaign the narrator comments: “The brain of Ronald Reagan has been shrinking ever since 1931, whereas Jimmy Carter’s brain has only been dying since 1944. To the trained scientist, this represents a clear choice.” Whether film producers and cartoonists may legally satirize or misrepresent public persons has long been debated. Trudeau has often been accused of willful misrepresentation of public figures.
At times editors have decided not to print Trudeau’s cartoons out of fear of legal problems. In November, 1993, the San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, and Escondido Times-Advocate decided not to use six Doonesbury cartoons that depicted a couple in Malibu, California, who panic when they think a neighbor’s yard is on fire and that their own house will burn next. Later it is discovered that the fire—which is quickly extinguished—has been caused by a tipped barbecue. One newspaper editor thought that the strip was in bad taste at that moment because Southern California was recovering from several devastating fires, including one in Malibu that destroyed several hundred homes and killed three people. Although the editors removed the cartoons out of sensitivity for the feelings of the readers, readers accused them of censorship.
Another series of Doonesbury cartoons suggested that Vice President Dan Quayle had taken illegal drugs and that there was a federal “cover-up” of Quayle’s “file” in the Drug Enforcement Administration. One character says that “the file didn’t actually surface until late in the ’88 campaign.” Although Doonesbury is acknowledged to be merely a comic strip that need not be taken seriously, some critics have charged that the contents of the widely distributed strip are believed to be at least partly true by many readers.