More than editorial writing, editorial cartoons are subject to interpretation, and different people might interpret them in different ways.
But, no matter how many times I look at it, I’m having trouble with any interpretation of this Jack Ohman cartoon other than one which makes this confessed animal torturer a victim of the animals he tortured.
(I’d like to supply a link, but the cartoon does not appear anywhere at the Inquirer’s web site, nor can it be found at Jack Ohman’s cartoon archives.)
Perhaps the Inquirer and Ohman don’t want people on the Internet to contemplate the misrepresentation involved. (I wouldn’t blame them; by any standard, it’s hardly Cartoonistan’s finest hour.)
Remember, dogs which didn’t want to fight were hanged by the neck until they were gasping and strangling, then drowned in five gallon buckets. A female who quit in a high-stakes match was covered with water and then electrocuted.
So I’m really having trouble here, and it isn’t with libertarian theories of animal rights (which I discussed here). I’m just contemplating the sickening reality of what Vick did to the dogs, in contrast to how the editorial cartoon is presenting it.
Animal rights aside, can someone please explain to me under what possible theory Michael Vick can be seen as a victim of the dogs he tortured?
A cartoon is worth a thousand lies
by
Tags:
Comments
11 responses to “A cartoon is worth a thousand lies”
I think the better interpretation is that Vick has been swallowed by his own misconduct.
Or that his hobby came back to bite him.
My feeling is Vick got (or was turned into) his “Just Desserts”…
To the victor go the spoils.
Except there is no reasonable view that the dogs won. The dogs lost. So that is what is wrong with the cartoon. The dogs lost.
And I am bothered by the implicit acceptance that the dog (and its breed) are inherently vicious.
The comments are a bit reassuring. Maybe my interpretation is wrong, and maybe the cartoonist is more sympathetic to the dogs than I thought. There’s just something about it in the context of the anti “pit bull” hysteria (and the people defending Vick) that isn’t reassuring, though.
Perhaps he saw the SNL “Weekend Report” where Amy Pohler said “‘Underdog’ premiered this weekend, but with a surprise ending. He flies to Michael Vick’s house where he eats him.”
I immediately thought of it in terms of Vick getting what he so richly deserves. Of course the artist managed to draw a bull terrier (think Spuds McKenzie) rather than a pit bull but it’s the thought that counts.
Eric
Count me among those that viewed the cartoon as a “just desserts” commentary. I don’t see “Vick as victim” at all in there.
Yes, in reality, the dogs lost on all levels. What a sickening betrayl of human responsibility to be good stewards.
I think given the scattered football accessories remaining, the thrust of the cartoon is that the dogfighting “ate” Vick’s career.
It seems to me that the cartoon is imagining a situation in which the dog wins with a satisfying sense of vengeance. Of course this never happened, but we can imagine it never the less and it might make some of us feel better about things.