'Clones,' Codes, and Conflicts of Interest in Cartooning: Cartoonists and Editors Look at Ethics.

A study examined differences between political cartoonists and op-ed page editors on both traditional ethical issues (such as conflicts of interest) and the special, style-related concerns of editorial cartoonists. Hypotheses proposed were that editors and cartoonists (1) would condemn "cloning" or copying, reflecting an ethical principle transcending journalism or art; (2) would disagree on ethical concerns such as conflicts of interest, "freebies," or affording preferred status to prominent advertisers; and (3) would disagree on who should make publication decisions when ethical questions arise. Subjects, 117 editorial cartoonists and 93 editorial page editors, responded to a mailed questionnaire on editorial policy and demographics. Findings showed a measure of support for all three hypotheses. Both sample groups condemned "cloning" of styles or stealing of ideas, with artists more concerned about idea integrity than were editors. The two groups disagreed on the influence of superiors' pressure on such practice. Second, the groups disagreed on responses to several potential conflicts of interest, with editors seemingly advocating for cartoonists the noninvolvement ethic that guides journalists. Third, the samples disagreed on decision making, with cartoonists endorsing joint decision making when ethical questions arise, and editors preferring editor autonomy. Results suggest that at least some of the cartoonists' responses to particular items may be due more to some type of underlying principle unique to cartoonists than to the influence of such factors in ethical socialization as age and religion. However, several item responses were related to demographic traits that cut across the editor-cartoonist distinction. (Tables of data are included.) (NKA)