Resignation Over Editorial Cartoon is Chutzpah

While the First Amendment offers constitutional protection for freedom of the press, it does not do so for chutzpah (the Jewish word for audacity, impudence or shamelessness).

Someone should tell that to Ann Telnaes, the editorial cartoonist at The Washington Post, who last week resigned in a huff after the paper refused to publish one of her cartoons.

That cartoon, which she published on Substack, a newsletter format, showed powerful billionaires kneeling in front of a statue of President-elect Donald Trump while offering him sacks of moolah.

Oh, one more “minor” fact: Among the billionaires? Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon who just happens to be the owner of The Post — the top dog at the paper.

Yes, you read that right. Telnaes is complaining about suppression of “freedom of the press” because she was not allowed to mock her boss in his own paper, the one who provides her with a good salary, health insurance, and helps pay for other of her financial needs.

Also, depicted in the cartoon were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong — and a prostrate Mickey Mouse who apparently represents the Walt Disney Company.

Telnaes touches on her duplicity when she writes in her resignation statement: “There will be some people who say, ‘Hey, you work for a company and that company has a right to expect employees to adhere to what’s good for the company.’”

But she adds, “that’s true except we’re talking about news organizations that have public obligations and who are obliged to nurture a free press in a democracy…” and not try to “get in the good graces of an autocrat-in-waiting [that] will only result in undermining that free press.”

There is so much to dissect in that statement that one does not know where to begin, but we’ll give it a shot.

First, need we point out that Bezos should not expect to be ridiculed in the paper he owns? (It was awkward even having to write that sentence.) Carried to its logical conclusion, had Telnaes showed even more contempt for Bezos in a cartoon, would she have asked him for a raise?

Question: Would any Telnaes supporters reading this column mock their bosses publicly and cite freedom of speech as a defense? I did not think so.

Interestingly, there were no reports that she might have been fired, forcing her to resign. Thus, The Post might even be commended for being open-minded and showing commendable toleration.

Second, David Shipley, the Post’s opinion editor, said the cartoon was not killed because of its content but because it was repetitive of other material published on the same subject. But let us assume the cartoon was rejected because of the political message.

Bezos has every right to decide the politics of The Post that he and the paper will express on its editorial pages. Telnaes doesn’t have to agree, of course, and can seek employment elsewhere.

I have mentioned a personal experience in a previous column in which I described being vetted as an editorial writer by a paper on the West Coast. After a four-day trial, it was all too clear that the paper and I were as far apart on political views as possible. It did not offer the job and I would not have accepted had I received one.

I had no reason to complain. The owners have every right to seek and hire writers that shared its views and fire those that would not articulate its politics.

Editorials and political commentary need to be judged differently than news stories.  If Telnaes were complaining that a news story she wrote was spiked for political reasons, she would have a case because news is supposed to be free from political judgments. News stories are touted to be public as being “objective” subject to no political considerations.

Killing a news story or slanting facts would undermine that pledge and while not a violation of “freedom of the press” that Telnaes cites in her case, it would be highly unethical, poisoning hallowed journalistic principles. In those circumstances, she would be justified in resigning and even doing so in the klieg lights which apparently was one of her objectives.

In a sense, by publishing the cartoon on Substack (along with her resignation statement), she stole from The Post since it was drawn while being paid by Bezos.  The paper owns the drawing. But I don’t want to be petty. So, as they instruct jurors in a courtroom, I ask readers to disregard this paragraph.

Third, perhaps Bezos is reaching out to Trump to protect The Post and try to blunt Trump’s anti-media agenda and paranoia. He might have decided that it was better to try and work with Trump in protecting freedom of the press rather than fight him.

We don’t know Bezos’s motivation and we don’t even know if Bezos was involved in spiking the carton. Bezos might very well fail in efforts, but he may have concluded it was worth a try.

Most important: Bezos must not make any concessions to Trump in the coverage of his administration.

Joe Scarborough, and his wife, Mika Brzezinski, co- hosts of “Morning Joe,” and Bret Stephens, an opinion columnist at New York Times, already have sold out by making peace with Trump after criticizing him for nine years.

Let’s hope those precedents do not repeat themselves. But the Telnaes “controversy” is not in that ballpark. Apparently, blinded by her ego, she thought the First Amendment was designed to protect you even when biting the hand that feeds you.

I expect that in upcoming job interviews, she will be asked if she will promise not to skewer her bosses or the owner of her future employer.