Last Saturday the Guardian apologised for and removed from its website a cartoon about the resignation of the BBC’s chairman, Richard Sharp, that had been published in that day’s newspaper and online from the night before. Among the 80 readers who – at the time of writing – have directly complained about the cartoon (more have remonstrated via the letters desk, as have commentators in other media), one echoed the remarks of many when she said the image was “laden with antisemitic tropes that recall the darkest days of European antisemitism”.
Martin Rowson, who drew the cartoon, wrote in a personal apology posted on his own website how he had set out to frame Sharp’s departure – which followed a report into his undeclared connection to an £800,000 loan made to Boris Johnson – in terms of Sharp being yet another person “brought low” by the former prime minister; to depict “Johnson’s blithe toxicity by association”.
Entitled The Copros Touch, the image was dominated by Johnson sitting atop a huge dung heap and clutching bags of money. At the base of the heap were wheelie-bins marked “friends”, “family” and “sponsors”, and a black bin bag labelled “the reputation of everything”. In a speech bubble, Johnson was telling Sharp: “Cheer up, matey! I’ve put you down for a peerage in my resignation honours list!”
But Rowson and editors agree that from here the execution went terribly wrong.
At the bottom left corner of the cartoon was Sharp, who is Jewish, drawn with exaggerated forehead, eyelids, nose and mouth. He was carrying a cardboard box bearing the name of Goldman Sachs (the bank where he was once a partner), half-obscured by the CV in his hand so that only “Gold Sac” was visible. This was further crossed out with “BBC” written below. Poking out of the box were a miniature Rishi Sunak (who worked for Sharp at Goldman Sachs – another comment on perceived cronyism) and a pink squid (referencing Matt Taibbi’s description of the bank in a 2009 article for Rolling Stone as a “vampire squid”). Close by, appearing from behind the dung, was a pig, snout down.
I have discussed the cartoon with Rowson and believe he did not mean to conjure antisemitic motifs, but the effect of his depiction of Sharp, alongside references to banking and the tentacles of the squid, inevitably recalled ghastly classic tropes of Jews holding money and power; and in particular the Nazi-era propaganda images of Jewish bankers. Including a pig in the context added to the offence, and it is no wonder readers complained forcefully.
Rowson says he was trying to draw Sharp “looking silently furious … in the standard caricatural way common to all political cartoons of exaggerating various of his features”. He admits he failed and made Sharp “demonic”. He knew Sharp was Jewish (they were, incidentally, at school together), but says it “never crossed my mind as I drew him, as it’s wholly irrelevant to the story or his actions, and it played no conscious role [in his portrayal]”.
Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust, a charity established to protect British Jews from antisemitism, responded to the cartoon in these pages on Monday, arguing that what was on the cartoonist’s mind was beside the point: “The outsized nose and lips, grotesque features and sinister grin have been part of antisemitic imagery for centuries, a way of portraying Jews as repulsive and sinister.”
Some readers thought other dangerous tropes were present: Sunak was taken to be Sharp’s puppet, and the yellow suckers on the squid’s tentacles seen as gold coins. I believe these are misreadings, likely to have been caused by other suspicious cues and what Rowson called “stupid ambiguities”, which also included colouring red the “Dignity Shreds” the pig was eating, so they were mistaken for blood, and leaving “Gold Sac” on show when it had no meaning.
Rowson says he deeply regrets “genuinely upsetting those I did not wish to upset”, through “thoughtlessness, carelessness and ignorance”. On the latter, he said he had been unaware “vampire squid” could be an antisemitic trope, although it was “obvious” once mentioned. In preparing this column, I was in fact struck by how the epithet continues to be used by commentators and cartoonists in publications across the world, despite critics pointing to Nazi propaganda that depicted a supposed Jewish conspiracy in terms of an octopus wrapping its tentacles around the world.
Many concerned readers, including Rich, asked how the cartoon could have appeared in the first place. “The cartoon itself was a disgrace,” said one, “but even more worrying is what its publication suggests about the editors’ attitudes that they let it be published.”
Hugh Muir, the Guardian’s executive editor for opinion, whose brief includes the political cartoon, said it should not have been published, and readers were “right to complain”.
“I feel for all those who were distressed and all those who expect better of us,” he said.
“Editors and production staff routinely seek revision of cartoons when we fear they cross the line from lampooning public figures to causing unjustifiable offence,” explained Muir, but a lack of knowledge and care meant on this occasion the need was not recognised.
He told me at least three opinion desk staff had seen the cartoon, but the “aggravating issue” was that none knew Sharp was Jewish – or, again, “the unhappy lineage of the vampire squid image”. The cartoon therefore went to press “with images that would have been harsh in other circumstances but were disastrous when viewed in light of all the facts. This was an undoubted failing, and there will need to be learning from it,” he said.
While a few readers, including some who mentioned they were Jewish, have said they were unaware of Sharp’s ethnicity and also missed the tropes, the great responsibility that comes with newspaper publishing means taking active steps to build critical knowledge (in this area organisations such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust in the UK and the Anti-Defamation League in the US have guidance to consider) and establish checks that mitigate chances of material slipping through the gaps that inevitably remain. Both the cartoonist and the editors have also acknowledged the potential for unconscious bias.
In this case, I don’t think staff on the desk were bound to have known Sharp was Jewish (it had not been mentioned in any Guardian articles, for example), but this was knowable information. Greater alertness to key tropes might also have brought crucial pause.
Katharine Viner, the editor-in-chief, who is currently in the US, said: “As soon as I saw the cartoon, I immediately removed it from our digital platforms and the Guardian apologised unreservedly to Richard Sharp and to the Jewish community. I welcome the fact that Martin Rowson has also apologised.
“The publication of this cartoon highlights failures in our editorial processes, which we are determined to address. We are working on what those changes might be so that we can be sure that something like this won’t happen again.”
Once the changes are determined, I will update readers.
Elisabeth Ribbans is the Guardian and Observer’s global readers’ editor
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.