An interesting case was discussed on Smerconish.com this morning. I love to watch this show and feel it brings depth to current issues. The poll questions also are helpful, and this week’s concerns The Washington Post’s removal of an editorial cartoon from its pages.

The Post’s position

The editorial page editor apologized for allowing the cartoon to run, though the original cartoon is still running in the daily newspaper in Las Vegas, Nevada. Some readers complained that the cartoon was racist.

Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist

The cartoonist, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, is Michael Ramirez. He said the cartoon, drawn in his normal exaggerated style, was a caricature of a Hamas spokesman complaining about the Israeli attacks. As you can see, the man is drawn with a large nose and snarling mouth. He has two infants and two children bound to him, along with a woman wearing a hijab.

Editorial Page editor’s positiion

The cartoon appeared in Post print editions on Tuesday. It was removed from online on Wednesday. The editorial page editor, David Shipley, said, “I saw the drawing as a caricature of a specific individual, the Hamas spokesperson who celebrated the attacks on unarmed civilians in Israel. However, the reaction to the image convinced me that I had missed something profound, and divisive, and I regret that. Our section is aimed at finding commonalities, understanding the bonds that hold us together, even in the darkest times.”

Detractors said

One Post letter writer called the cartoon “deeply malicious and offensive”. The letter said the cartoon employs “racial stereotypes.” It added, “Depicting Arabs with exaggerated features and portraying women in derogatory, stereotypical roles perpetuates racism and gender bias, which is wholly unacceptable.” There were others, on both sides.

Editorial page love

I’m a big supporter of strong editorial pages, which The Post has. I love editorial cartoons. The one Ramirez drew of Hamas Spokesman Ghazi Hamad seemed to be similar in style to other cartoons shown on Smerconish. But I differ with Shipley when it comes to the role of the page. I don’t see it as helping find common group. Rather, I see the purpose as offering diverse perspectives to help us think critically about the issues of the day. We hope in that way, the editorial cartoons and opinion pieces help us reach enough common ground for consensus. That’s what Ramirez did.

Smerconish poll results

Most Smerconish watchers agree with Ramirez and with me, apparently. With more than 37,000 voting, the results were 84 percent opposed to the removal of this cartoon.