As you may have seen in the Press Democrat, my husband, Steve, was suspended from his freelance position as Argus Courier editorial cartoonist. The New York Times which owns the Argus decided that Steve needed to be punished for doing the illustrations for four mailers created by an independent expenditure committee opposing Pam Torliatt. And to further appease those who initiated the action, his blog was being pulled from the Petaluma360 website.
This whole situation has been a major topic of conversation in our household. I believe there are some major inconsistencies in the way this was handled and since Steve has been silenced, I am going to address them.
Let me start by saying that in the six years that Steve has drawn the editorial cartoons for the Argus, he has had a great working relationship with the publisher and editor. He is grateful for the opportunity to bring the newspaper’s editorial perspective to life while injecting some humor into the subject matter.
And I think the staff at the Argus would agree that Steve adds value to the paper. While not exactly quantifiable research, people consistently say to me, “Tell Steve we loved the cartoon this week.”
But this wasn’t enough to save him when some sore losers who are having trouble coming to grips with Rabbitt’s win discovered an “ethics violation.” They are furious at the Press Democrat and Argus for endorsing Rabbitt and now that Rabbitt won, they believe somebody has to pay. So in order to placate the vocal liberal faction, the New York Times threw the cartoonist under the bus.
Did Steve violate the newspaper’s ethics policy? First of all, Steve is not a staffer of the Argus Courier, he is a freelancer and like all writers, artists or photographers who work on a freelance basis for the newspaper, he signed an agreement that prohibits him from accepting assignments from current or potential news sources.
What is a “current or potential news source?” That could be absolutely anything because who can predict when the most benign subject matter suddenly becomes a news source? So the agreement is so broad as to be unenforceable – unless of course, someone wants to use it to suit their own purposes as they did invoking it to have Steve suspended.
Also, I doubt that Steve is the only freelancer for the newspaper who has done political work; it’s just that because he is a cartoonist, his particular style of work is more easily recognizable than that of a writer or photographer.
And why was he suspended for drawing cartoons consistent with the position of the newspaper? Steve draws the editorial cartoons based on the subject and direction that the Argus editorial staff gives him. He is not drawing cartoons that promote his own agenda. The Argus endorsed Rabbitt, yet doing work on the independent expenditure committee supporting Rabbitt gets him suspended. It would make more sense if he got suspended for working at cross purposes to the newspaper.
And let’s get practical about what being a freelancer means. The amount of money Steve gets paid per cartoon divided by the number of hours that he spends drawing it, works out to less than minimum wage. So he is certainly not doing it for the money; he draws them because he enjoys the connection with the community. Yet when a job comes along that could actually help us meet our mortgage payment, he is supposed to turn it down, saying, “I can’t take the job; I do the editorial cartoons.” Sorry, but we’re just not that righteous.
Ok, I can accept that the New York Times had to throw a bone to our liberal friends in order to appease them and Steve was the bone that got thrown. But removing his blog from Petaluma360?
That sounds like censorship to me. So much for that website being a forum for all points of view. That part really hurts.
I think you will find similar inconsistencies in their blogger “agreement” which likewise makes no sense. As to being drawn and quartered–yeah, I agree. Another expression that comes to mind is he was “thrown under the bus.” The article in the PD was not really reportage but a press release. The really tough questions were not asked, answered and reported.
By the bye, I will circulate the link to this article through my e-mail lists.
Colleen,
First I am so sorry for what took place. sounded pretty tacky to me.
And this might be a Blessing in disguise.
Steve has the perfect chance now to take a great offer if one does come his way.
I actually saved the flyers that had the illustrations that came, I love them.
The rest went into the garbage.
I am sure these people that were blowing from their pie holes were sore losers ,more that likley Ms Woolsey was the biggest whiner.
Good luck and best of all to the both of you
As much as this feels bad, he is a freelance worker in California. Luckily for him, he has the talent, so he will find work.
What is disturbing is this trend twoards disposing of the “bad guy”. I keep seeing this theme repeated in the news the last year.
Honestly, he must have known these illustrations were inflmmatory, so I can’t image he did not consider the effect.
In the end, I think both did a little wrong: the argus for not sitting down and working things out and the side work that was pretty eye opening.
Regardless of the slant, I thought the illustrations were awesome and powerful though middle America enough to sway opinion without the words.
Not matter what the economy, talent will find clients. Too bad this was a press release and not reporting for the PD. I am surprised to see your blog still around after what you said. It IS their party.
Still, glad to hear some folks actually care about the new regime and how some of us gettng rolled over….
OMG, sorry to not spellcheck!
It was an obvious conflict. Its not as though Rabbitt and the IEC were obscure at the time and became a news source later. He accepted an assignment from a very current news source. Thus, your comments about it being impossible to distinguish what a potential news source might be is obliterated.
BTW: Rabbitt supporter.
Your scapegoating of the New York Times is ridiculous too. The only person mentioned in the article is John Burns. Your husband got called out, hopefully he will be back at some point (I really do enjoy his cartoons). However, looking at this from a pragmatic viewpoint, it is obvious that he was in the wrong.
Curiosity got the better of me so I did a little “research” on the subject of “non-compete” clauses in freelance contracts. Essentially the clause in question regarding “current or potential news source” is a non-compete clause.
Non-compete clauses are strictly construed in that they must be reasonable in terms of scope and time. In California they are illegal on their face. See http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml
Frank; as always, I appreciate hearing from you.
[…] Apparently Steve can’t talk about the issue, but his wife, Colleen, can. She’s posted her response over on Drawn and Quartered: And why was he suspended for drawing cartoons consistent with the position of the newspaper? Steve […]
Frank knows the legalities. For our opinion, the “freelance” agreement is a way of putting Steve Rustad under contract without the pay or beneifits of a contracted employee. (kinda like working for Target, folks) It’s happening to other “journalists” as well. While we could do without Steve’s “editorial direction” his talent is obvious, and we can only wish he were working for a better group, or that, indeed, there were another editorial outlet for him to work for in this country. Our advice, Steve and Colleen, is don’t let people throw gasoline on this story and it will blow over and Steve will be back drawing what the editor tells him to draw and cashing the pittance checks absent benefits that go with the job. Good Luck. Illegitimus Non Carborundum.