I think that David Watson should be praised for the efforts of his April 16 editorial cartoon, not chastised. I found the depiction of (Yasser) Arafat extending a stick of dynamite disguised as an olive branch to be clever and substantive.
I can understand that some might interpret this caricature of Arafat as racist stereotyping, but the fact of the matter is that the cartoon aptly represents Arafat's appearance. A caricature is supposed to emphasize and exaggerate the features of its subject. Would anyone expect Watson to ignore Arafat's ethnic features in the hopes of preserving political correctness? Or perhaps it would be better to simply identify him by his head wear, with no face at all?
Furthermore, I think it's great to see a Daily Tar Heel cartoonist tackle a global issue like that of the Middle East crisis. In doing so, Watson has stepped beyond the realm of relatively petty University issues and has edified the student community and encouraged academic debate by portraying these issues.
I would argue that ignoring the Middle East conflicts would be an even more "reckless and irresponsible" approach. By bringing an issue such as this to the forefront, journalists and cartoonists drive the academic environment in which we as a University thrive, bringing more substance and less irrelevance into our daily lives.
Of course, when an artist or journalist does cover an important issue, especially one that divides people as much as this, some will be offended. If you disagree with Watson's stance on this issue, more power to you. However, do not simply disregard his work as "a grossly biased media representation."
His depiction of Arafat is sound within the domain of caricature and his message relevant and thought provoking; and so, I applaud David Watson for his April 16 cartoon.
Andrew Johnson
Sophomore
Journalism and Mass Communication
