On Thursday, The Gleaner published a cartoon lampooning Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller in her response to a news story about expenditure on her official overseas travels, and possible breaches of government guidelines relating to per diem usage. The cartoon evoked strong reactions, both pro and con. Below we publish some of the comments.

The cartoonist's role

Las May's cartoon in the February 1 edition of The Gleaner portraying Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller as a donnette declaring "A long time unnu waan draw mi tongue", "Mi always travel in style" and showing a credit card with the remark, "Seet ... mi husband gimme credit card!", has been criticised by some people, including the Minister of Information and Development, Donald Buchanan.

It was clear that many of those criticising the cartoon, which is an important part of journalism, do not fully understand the role of a cartoonist, which is to caricature or symbolise, often satirically, some action, situation or a person or persons of topical interest. Webster's New World Dictionary describes a cartoon as a satirical picture featuring the mannerism of someone and is used to ludicrously exaggerate behaviour and can satirise a person with the use of ridicule and contempt.

The cartoonist, therefore, has a great deal of licence that other journalists do not have, and this has been so in other countries which enjoy freedom of expression. In England, the Queen is not excluded from harsh cartoons, nor is the President of the United States of America. Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, got some hard hits which makes The Gleaner's cartoon of Mrs. Simpson Miller look like a drawing of the Virgin Mary.

Cartoonist had a field day caricaturing Jamaica's former Prime Minister and one-time journalist, P.J. Patterson. He sometimes received harsh treatment from the newspaper cartoonists without complaining publicly. Edward Seaga, also a former Prime Minister, was caricatured as a devil. He never complained. The truth is that cartoonists have always been sometimes harsh here in Jamaica and elsewhere for many years.

The question is, did Mrs. Simpson Miller deserve to be satirised in the way she was by the cartoonist? First, we must do away with the notion that the cartoon had to do with her social background. Rather, it is a satire capturing how she sometimes behaves - how she said things and what she said. Once she got into a temper on a public platform and declared and acted like an old time bad woman, "A long time unnu want to draw mi tongue." At the time, I cautioned in my column in the Jamaica Observer, that whether in the role of Prime Minister or as ordinary citizen, she is expected to act with dignity and decorum at all times. She has tried hard to do this and succeeds at times.

However, recently when she was interviewed on RJR 94FM, she clearly lost her composure and made some statements that she should not have made as Prime Minister. The cartoonist caricatured all this in a harsh manner. What he did was to satirise her behaviour as that of a donnette in an inner-city community. The bottom line is that neither the cartoonist nor The Gleaner should be challenged, but rather, it is the Prime Minister who should try to keep her composure at all times, even in the face of provocation. The cartoonist has a right to portray her when she slips. This should keep the Prime Minister on her toes.

The Press Association of Jamaica, the professional body of journalists, needs to launch an educational campaign on the different aspects of journalism, defending the press when warranted and criticising it when the need arises.

Ken Chaplin

Veteran journalist

The PM was not bellicose

The publication in The Gleaner of Thursday, February 1, of an editorial cartoon of the Prime Minister, has done the rounds from condemnation to distasteful to downright offensive, and it would appear the reactions are coloured by class and politics.

Media research is consistent in the view that a constant barrage of negative, depressing information can only serve to weaken one's confidence and capacity to do well. Likewise, positive images will have the opposite effect. It, therefore, follows that consistent portrayal of such characterisation of our leaders cannot have a positive influence on the society.

An editorial cartoon, like the work of the opinion writer, is communicating a message to the reader. It has been, and remains, an important part of journalism, and must, therefore, be judged by the same journalistic principles of responsibility, good taste, accuracy and fairness.

Cartoonists are in their journalistic right to caricature and make light of public officials. But that is not the issue here. Like all responsible media practitioners, they are not at liberty to distort and misrepresent the facts.

If a cartoonist is commenting on an event or an utterance, that cartoonist cannot overstep the facts and fabricate his own 'truth' and then proceed to caricature that misrepresentation. Could a journalist or opinion writer get away with such misrepresentation?

In the case of the cartoon in question, the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister in her response on the matter of the cost of overseas trips did not speak in a bellicose, angry tone. Neither did she behave in a manner which could in anyway be construed as vulgar and demeaning.

So why depict distortion? What was depicted in that editorial cartoon was a misrepresentation, and where such misrepresentation takes place - whether in standard reportage, written commentary or cartoon - it should be equally reprehensible and condemned.

Editorial cartoonists should not be allowed the freedom to violate the sacrosanct journalistic commitment to truth and objectivity. We must not unwittingly devalue the work and worth of the cartoonist, especially the editorial cartoonist, by having a lower bar of judgment on his/her work than we do for our reporters and columnists.

Lincoln Robinson

Prime Minister's Press

Secretary

Disrespect to all women

I have noted with great anger and disappointment the caricature of the Prime Minister in The Gleaner of February 1, 2007. I construe the depiction as a blatant disrespect to the office of the Prime Minister and disrespect to all women and especially hose who strive for public office.

The caricature demeans not only the Prime Minister but all women and assumes categorically that women will resort to debased behaviour to deal with issues that are brought out in the public forum.

Despite Jamaica being democratic and freedom of expression being an integral part of our existence, we must still be cautious, especially when we have a responsibility to the public to up-hold discipline and prevent moral decay in our society.

It is hard enough to be a female leader, especially in a public office, without having to combat this level of abuse from the media.

The views I have expressed above are personal and do not reflect the views of the Jamaica Manufacturers' Association (JMA).

Doreen Frankson

President of the JMA

You would never do this to a man

As a woman in public life I am shocked and revolted by your cartoon in The Gleaner on Thursday. Cartoons are expected to be humorous, satirical and even poke good-natured fun at people in public leadership. But the February 1 offering was a poor attempt at satire.

Our Prime Minister does not deserve or merit such a portrayal. While it is a fair expectation that our actions are open to public scrutiny when we enter public life, we do not expect to be exposed to the despicable ridicule as depicted in your cartoon.

The outrageous portrayal of the Prime Minister is a new episode in a series of abrasive depiction of women in public life. It implies a misogynistic tendency that in and of itself requires careful review.

No wonder more of us as women do not come forward for public service, and those of us who do must be crazy.

You have never and would never have portrayed a man in this way.

Aloun N'dombet-Assamba

Minister of Tourism, Entertainment and Culture

Dismayed and appalled

I am dismayed and appalled at the reactions to one of the most recent cartoons by Las May regarding the Prime Minister's comments about her overseas travels.

I fail to understand what all the uproar is about.

Maybe what was illustrated by Las May was not in character of the Prime Minister with regards to her mode of dress, but certainly her verbal behaviour and "draw mi tongue" carryings on have surely depicted the character unbecoming of a lady and a Prime Minister to boot.

All other ministers have had their share of bad/amusing/interesting illustrations by Las May, none more so that Mr. Seaga himself, who was constantly being portrayed as a don with his big 'cargo chain' and bell around his neck.

He and the others handled the situation well, took it in good stride and concentrated on other important matters.

The "don't-draw-mi-tongue" behaviour is unbecoming of a Prime Minister and I am imploring her to give it a rest.