Karl O'Doherty

Media and Foreign Policy

Submitted Wednesday, 16 December 2009.

The Political Cartoon's Next Step – The Politics of Family Guy

“[P]olitical satire has changed public opinion, influenced international diplomacy and in many cases

enraged people to action” (Heller and Anderson, 1992 cited in Bal et al., 2009, p. 229). As a tool for

criticism and commentary the political cartoon is a versatile one. Thought provoking, incisive and

humorous, their ability to cut quickly to the core of an issue and present their message in a neat

visual has ensured their popularity for hundreds of years.. Cartoonist Mark Fiore, former president

of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AACE) put it truthfully and succinctly when

he said “Would Americans rather watch cartoons or read a long column of text?”(2004, pp.41).

Fiore's insight can be taken further. The decline in printed newspapers in the last few years,

coincides with the rise in youth voter apathy identified by many who study politics in the U.S.

(Keiser, 2000). This also coincides with the rise in the internet and television as the vastly preferred

method of information gathering among young people. Fiore identifies what many people have

known for a long time, it is easier to view things visually than read dense text.

Sadly, with the decline in newspaper revenues, the position of staff cartoonist at a newspaper is in

decline as well. According to Matt Davies, Pulitzer prize winning cartoonist and staff cartoonist at

The Journal News, “(t)en years ago there were 150 or so salaried editorial cartoonists working at

daily newspapers. There are now about 85 of us left.” (2004, pp.6). In 2006, this figure dropped to

approximately 60 staff cartoonists for the whole U.S. print media (Summers, 2006). This for an

industry that as of February 2009, had 1 408 individual daily newspapers and 902 Sunday papers

(Editor & Publisher, 2009).

Here a difference must be made between a the different types of cartoon. There are, as identified by

Thomas M. Kemnitz two distinct types: The Opinion Cartoon and the Joke Cartoon. “Cartoons of

opinion are primarily visual means of communicating opinions and attitudes or of "summing up"

situations; Humour may present but is not a necessary part of a cartoon of opinion. Joke cartoons,

on the other hand, are designed to communicate humor.” (Kemnitz, 1973, p.82).

This essay seeks to explore the political cartoon in a new incarnation, the televised animated

version. The cartoon Family Guy is known for its irreverent sense of humour. It is an adult

orientated animation whose stories more often than not revolve around absurd occurrences and

ridiculous premises. So not that different from any other comics and animated cartoon such as the

fantasy worlds of humanistic mice, dogs, rabbits, ducks and road runners (the majority of Warner

Brothers and Disney cartoons). What sets it apart is that it is set in the modern (fairly) real world

and it's frequent engagement with real world political issues. Through this essay I intend to find

Family Guy's place in the world with regard to television cartoon series and also the evolution of

political cartoons. This essay is not going to offer a critique of the show's political messages, or how

good a cartoon it is or is not, but solely focus on the question whether the show can be read, at

times, as an animated political cartoon.

I intend to analyse Family Guy using a combination of headings for analysis used by Dori Moss

(Moss, 2007), and Bal et al. (Bal et al., 2009). Mori uses four master “tropes” identified by the critic

Kenneth Burke as a framework to examine “how political cartoons persuade.” (Moss, 2007, p. 241).

In the Bal et al. text we can find key elements that form a political cartoon, the elements that make

it a political cartoon as opposed to a purely comic or character ed cartoon or animation. I will

compare and contrast selected sections of episodes of Family Guy with the animated work of

political cartoonist Mark Fiore. To conclude, I present my argument that not only is Family Guy a

cartoon made to titillate and entertain, it should be taken as an animation where humour is used to

carry serious points and the creators should be counted among other political and editorial

cartoonists.

Background of Political Cartooning

According to Ilan Danjoux (2007, pp. 245) of the University of Manchester, the political cartoon

has been around since about 1360 B.C. Images lampooning unpopular or harsh leaders both civil

and military, and even religious movements and the Gods themselves have been found from the

ancient Greek and Roman Empires. Scrawled on walls or baked on pottery, art and imagery has

been used for centuries in various forms to lampoon those in the public eye and their actions. They

were at first restricted by being hand drawn and having to be hand copied to spread them. Then the

printing press was invented and they could be mass produced, albeit for a price. The political

cartoon branched out and became the editorial cartoon. That is, they provided “editorial

commentary to the reported news” (Danjoux, 2007).

It was due to the advances in printing technology that newspapers first were formed and then

flourished. As the presses developed, economies of scale meant that the newspapers, and thus the

editorial cartoons they carried, could be sold to more people, at less price and for more profit (Duus,

2001). Before they were disseminated in widely available newspapers, editorial cartoons were

printed in limited numbers and sold in print shops, usually priced beyond the reach of all but a

minority in society. “(T)he language of the cartoon was not the language of the masses, but of a

cultivated, educated minority able to understand the allusions . . . of visual satire.” (Duus, 2001).

The decline in price of the carriers of the cartoons also meant that it was not only the wealthy elites

in society that could buy newspapers, but the less educated, and less literate majority and so the

subject matters of editorial cartoons expanded to include all readers, not just the knowledge base of

the educated few.

The nineteenth century saw a remarkable surge in the popularity and influence of the printed

cartoon. Political caricature was even banned in France in 1835 (Childs, 1992, p.35). In Britain,

there was an abundant supply of titles of magazines printed to accommodate the political cartoon,

the most remembered of which is Punch. America had “Harper's Weekly, Frank Leslie's, Vanity

Fair, Puck, Judge and the Wasp.” (Johnson, 1937) magazines.

In the U.S., cartooning proved it's power with, among many others, the work of Thomas Nast. His

work was so influential it scared, and eventually helped bring to account, the most powerful man in

in New York in the 1860s and 70s, “William “Boss” Tweed. He is quoted as saying ““Let's stop

them damned pictures” . . . “I don't care so much what the papers write about me – my constituents

can't read; but, damn it, they can see the pictures”” (Johnson, 1937). Nast can also be credited with

introducing some of today's most recognisable icons. The Republican parties symbol of an Elephant

and the Democrat's Donkey are attributed to him (Johnson, 1937, p.42) as is the American image of

Santa Claus (America's Civil War, 2009). Another example of the enduring power of a political

cartoon is the image put forth in what is recognised as the first American political cartoon. The

snake from Benjamin Franklin's “Join or Die” cartoon has been adapted and reproduced

continuously throughout history. It was used by Paul Revere, and more recently at the World Social

Forum in Brazil in 2003 (Bryant, 2007).

As technology progressed so too did the cartoons. Colour printing and advances in page layout

software meant the cartoons could become an even more important part of a paper's editorial pages.

The golden age passed however, and the papers, once seen as noble entities that pursue truth and

justice and serve the people, became fixated on the bottom line of their accounts. They were bought

up and as staff cartoonists died or retired their positions were not filled. “Controversy, that life force

behind the political cartoon, is of course completely anathema to those nursing the books: when you

are making 20 to 30 percent on your investment annually, there's no point in making waves.”

(Oliphant, 2002). For those media that still wanted editorial cartooning, there was economic sense

in not hiring a staff cartoonist. Thanks to the practice of syndication and what Matt Davies also

identifies as a fear or controversy and spinelessness on behalf of editors, most newspapers are

“buying syndicated creators-generally ones who are also earning a salary at another newspaper-for a

very small sum. If they are adventurous with their budget, editors can buy images done by several

cartoonists, then perform a sort of editorial triage and publish only the least offensive material.”

(2004 p.7). This practice has put a lot of cartoonists out of work, but thankfully for them, there is

another outlet for their work.

Mark Fiore is a nationally syndicated cartoonist, and concentrates almost solely on producing

content for the web with a great focus on animation. He believes it is the way forward for the

political cartoon, the logical next step forward “I now have color, motion, music and sound effects

all at my disposal. Done correctly, an animated political cartoon can reach inside someone's brain

and grab just the right spot.” (2004, p.42).

With cartoonists working online now, taking advantage of the available technology to enhance their

work, it was inevitable and logical that animated political caricature would find it's way onto

television and with the proven popularity of political satire and cartooning, it is again only logical

that the televised animation would be as popular as the printed panels in cartooning's heyday.

Despite the turbulence though, the themes and subjects have remained the same and these can be

used as an analytical tool. These are “domestic politics, social themes and foreign affairs” (Kemnitz

1973, p.83).

Family Guy

Seth MacFarlane created the show in 1999 for the Fox channel. The story centres around a Rhode

Island man, Peter Griffin, and his family and friends. It frequently uses crude humour and vulgar

jokes. It's use of cutaway sequences with little or no relation have become a trademark for the show,

but has earned them negative attention from critics saying the show relies too much on “cutaway

gags as opposed to plot-driven humour” (Clack, 2009). The show was in trouble at the end of its

second season with Fox threatening to drop it, it was even announced that it was cancelled. They

did eventually cancel the show after the third season. It was only after the channel saw how popular

the show was through DVD and merchandise sales and the viewing figures for the cartoon on other

channels such as Adult Swim (James 2005). At the time of writing, the show is contracted to keep

producing content until 2012 (Goldman 2008) and is attracting over 7 million viewers for the

airings of new episodes (Zap2it, 2009).

Both MacFarlane (Clack, 2009) and executive producer (and showrunner) Steve Callaghan (2009)

agree that the show would not be on the air without others that blazed the trail for those who wanted

to make animation for adults. “We're really only able to be here because of The Simpsons. They

proved that animation did not have to be solely for children, and serious issues could be tackled and

points made with it” (Callaghan, 2009).

MacFarlane himself admits in an interview for thr.com that the show “tends to be very liberal

because it's written by liberals.” (Hibberd, 2009). This bias is felt by the viewers and noted in many

online discussions on message boards. A main focus for the criticism on the boards is that

MacFarlane uses his show as a vehicle for his personal political opinions. There is criticism that the

show is too liberal, and unfairly portrays some issues.

But Callaghan says that the show does not in fact set out with a political agenda. He says that the

jokes and ideas are very much the product of a group of writers and contributors rather than just one

man having all the power. The production go with what feels to be the funniest, and it just happens

that some of the time it is a joke about conservative values or figures that is the funniest (2009).

He points out that the show does attempt to present balanced arguments on issues it feels are

important. Callaghan cites one of the episodes to be used for this study (You May Now Kiss the …

Uh... Guy Who Receives) as an example of the show trying to address a serious issue properly. He

also cites two episodes that have not been aired yet (one is to be released on DVD, not broadcast) as

further examples that the show is trying to be more equal in it's commentary. In one, the character

Lois (the wife of Peter) has an abortion. In among the comedy, it is a cartoon after all, there are

serious points made for both sides of the argument on abortion. In the other, prominent conservative

figure Rush Limbaugh will appear as himself. Callaghan and MacFarlane are in agreement on this

too, saying that it was to “give the other side some face time” (Hibberd, 2009).

Callaghan does not see the show as an overly political cartoon. Politics is there for the most part as

a target for humour, not to make statements and editorialise, but with some exceptions. Callaghan

mentions that during the writing process, single panel cartoons, much like the recognisable editorial

cartoons, are often used by MacFarlane, who is a fan of Gary Larson's Far Side Gallery as a way to

think about some of the cutaway sequences. This kind of thinking becomes clear when we see

examples of cutaway cartoons on the televised show that would be identical in the way they are

constructed to those produced by political cartoonists working with animation like Mark Fiore.

The show has a production turnaround of anywhere from nine months to a year for each episode.

According to Callaghan, because of the time change it is difficult for the show to comment on

political issues, as by the time the show airs, the joke would be rendered obsolete, but there are

some instances where some cutaway jokes are inserted near the end of the production schedule if

the writers and producers feel it is worth it. It becomes then though, not so much a matter of

whether they want to comment on an issue, but whether it is worth it economically to the show.

Methods of Analysis.

The master tropes identified, by Burke to analyse rhetoric, in Moss (2007) are metaphor, irony,

synecdoche, and metonymy. These are explained by Burke himself, summarised in Winterowd

(1985, p.157, 176):

'The basic strategy of metonymy is "to convey some incorporeal or intangible state in

terms of the corporeal or tangible. E.g., to speak of 'the heart' rather than 'the emotions."'

(Gram, p. 506) . . . " As to irony, this cryptic statement: "Irony arises when one tries, by the

interaction of terms upon one another, to produce a development which uses all the terms."

(Gram, p. 512) . . . Another word for "symbolic." KB considers synecdoche to be the basic

figure of speech, and, of course, "representative anecdote" is synecdoche, as are "the

fetish," the "scape- goat," "the name." Form may be synecdochic, in that one episode may

represent all. (PLF, pp. 23-28)'1

Metaphor, according to David Tell when talking about how Burke, uses the word, is “a device for

1 Where “Gram” is Burke, K., 1968. A Grammar of Motives, Berkley: University of California. And “PLF” is Burke, K., 1957. The Philosophy of Literary Form, Revised Edition, New York: Vintage.

seeing something in terms of something else.” (Tell, 2004, p. 37)

Irony is further elucidated by Denise Bostdorff (1987 cited in Moss 2007, p.242) with “Editorial

cartoons present “images that are frequently juxtapose(d) with those of threatening political figures,

resulting in a transcendent meaning or irony.”

“Applying Burke's tropes to political cartoons narrows the gap between audience understanding and

argument structure.” (Moss, 241). Moss uses the tropes to analyse the argument of a set of political

cartoons. In this essay I shall apply them to the animations to analyse the political argument. Bal et

al. identify three different elements required for a cartoon to work. These are “sympathy, gap and

differentiation” (Bal, et al. 2009, p.232). Sympathy is summarised as “If one is unable to relate or

identify with the object of satire, one will not understand its point. Being able to relate to, or

identify with, something or someone ensures a joke will not fall flat.” (Bal, et al. 2009, p.232). To

explain gap, “For satire to occur there must be a perceived gap, disparity or dissonance between

image and realty. This gap can be manifest, latent or plausible” (Bal, et al. 2009, p.232).

Differentiation means “The object of caricature must have some sort of unique attribute that

differentiates the object from other objects in a given context.”(Bal, et al. 2009, p.232). In addition

to these elements, a mechanism must be used. Exaggeration. The authors go on to define caricature

as “the exaggeration of difference in an object of empathy so as to reveal a gap between image and

reality.” and produce a simple graphic to illustrate this definition.

(Bal, et al. 2009, p.233)

Using the definitions and elements above, I will now analyse selected sections from the animation

Family Guy and for comparison, an example of a political cartoon from a professional political

cartoonist. Showing that the elements that exist in an animated, purposefully editorial cartoon, exist

in the same way, in the televised animation.

Analysis.

To Illustrate how the different categories of analysis are used, Mark Fiore's cartoon of 12 August

2009 entitled Reform Madness will be analysed first. Then the others will follow in a shortened

format for ease of reading.

Analysing the argument first:

Metaphor – By exaggerating the perceived dangers of health care reform by those that

oppose it, Fiore sends a metaphorical message that the dangers are not, in fact, as bad as

they are being made out to be.

Irony – The irony comes from the use of exaggerated voices and music to create an ominous

atmosphere, juxtaposition of the perceived dangers with clearly made up ones, for example

the cartoon addresses the fear of having to have unnecessary operations and then finishes the

sentence with a ridiculous idea. “Their real plan is to use unnecessary medical procedures to

to turn Sarah Palin into an unattractive man that would kill Todd”(Figure 1).

Synecdoche – Using a small part of something to explain he whole. “This relates to the

inclusion of popular social and political issues that appeal to audiences.”(Moss, 2007,

p.242). Using the already public fears of those against the reform of healthcare, and

exaggerating them to make them humorous, Fiore can attack the issue of those opposed to

healthcare reform as a whole, and not just those specific few fears due to the negative

connotations conveyed through the way they are used.

Metonymy – Similarly to Synecdoche, they both seek to convey bigger ideas through a very

limited medium. This is seen here, as Fiore reduces the massive healthcare debate to a short

animated cartoon.

The analysis of how the cartoon works as a cartoon:

Sympathy – It is easy to see where this element comes in to this cartoon. Health care reform

is an important issue, affecting everyone in the country. There are obviously those on both

sides of the issue, and this cartoon takes aim at those opposed to it. There are many on the

side of reform that can identify with feelings of exasperation at the arguments put forth by

the opposition and it is this identification that the cartoon taps into.

Gap – In this example, there is an acute latent gap identified between reality and what is

being presented as the fears of the counter reform side. By using exaggeration Fiore points

out that even though there will be some changes, it is highly unlikely they will be as bad as

those arguing against them make out.

Differentiation – The issue of healthcare reform was a near bi-polar debate when the cartoon

was drawn. There is clear differentiation between the two sides of the argument.

The mechanical device:

This particular cartoon is a near perfect example of exaggeration. From the traditionally

exaggerated caricatures of the physical features of the actors, to that of the issue under

focus, this cartoon is full of exaggeration (Figure 2).

The analysis of a cartoon purposefully made as an editorial animation shows examples of how the

different elements of argument and cartooning come together in one place. I will now apply these to

a series of Family Guy excerpts and episodes.

You May Now Kiss the … Uh... Guy Who Receives.

Episode 25, Season four. The whole episode concerned with the issue of gay marriage.

Argument:

Metaphor – By having the Ban on gay marriage placed as a distraction to budgetary

troubles, it puts the metaphor that the issue is something that really should be dealt with

quickly but because of some peoples strong, and percieved as wrong on the show, views, it

is made too big and distracts from more pressing issues.

Irony – Lois is originally against the idea of gay marriage, but thanks to a talk with her

parents, she realises she is only against it, not through thought out opinion, but because

that's just how she was raised.

Synecdoche – Gay marriage is an issue that affects a lot of people directly. And indirectly

the vast majority of the population will have an opinion on it. Using one instance of gay

marriage, the show sets out it's argument for it's position.

Metonymy – Condensing the bigger arguments about civil rights and gay rights into one

specific issue enables commentary on the broader spectrum of issues.

Characteristics:

Sympathy – Most people would have personal experience and opinions with this issue. They

identify and engage in the cartoon.

Gap – As it is a 20 minute long cartoon set in a pre-established universe with close ties to

the real world, the gap in this case is not explicit. The cartoon presents as a real world

solution, and ends with a positive and plausible, but as yet unrealised, real world solution.

Differentiation – There is a clear divide in this issue, either accepting of gay marriage, or

not.

Mechanical Device

Exaggeration – The exaggeration comes with the lengths Brian will go to to stop the ban on

gay marriage. This involves taking the mayor hostage at gunpoint.

Short Cutaway Clip (See Appendix)

Taken from Episode 25, Season four. You May Now Kiss the … Uh... Guy Who Receives.

This short cutaway is in the style of the political short produced by Fiore, lasting only 15 seconds.

Argument

Metaphor – Because of the absurd definition of republicans in the short, the GOP is seen as

a ridiculous entity.

Irony – This comes again from the exaggeration in the speech. Saying “ We help those who

already have the means to help themselves.”

Synecdoche – It is easy to connect to the audience with a line that takes a swipe at one of the

two political parties in the country.

Metonymy – The cartoon is used to comment from a liberal democrat viewpoint, how the

Republican party is perceived as having skewed opinions, out of touch with reality.

Characteristics

Sympathy – Those with a liberal viewpoint can relate to how absurd some of the things the

republican party stand for as presented in this cartoon.

Gap – The gap is entirely plausible in this cartoon. The Young Republican party would never

say that those are their defining activities and beliefs.

Differentiation – There are clear differences in the Family Guy liberal viewpoint and the

positions taken by Alyssa.

Mechanical Device

Exaggeration – What the party stands for is greatly exaggerated. Or at least, the idea that

they would advertise themselves like that is.

Short Cutaway Clip (See Appendix)

Taken from Episode three, Season one. Chitty Chitty Death Bang.

Another short, this time presented as a joke in the body of the cartoon, not as a cutaway.

Argument:

Metaphor – That an overweight man resistant to change riding a carnival elephant

symbolises the whole republican party.

Irony – The irony comes from the fact that it is the overweight man in question who is

making the joke.

Synecdoche – Using the elephant, the recognised symbol of the party, as the subject of the

cartoon and having the man on top of it enables the audience to connect it with the

Republican party.

Metonymy – The party are seen by their detractors as being just as presented in the cartoon.

Fat white guys, resistant to change. The cartoon sums up a whole party.

Characteristics:

Sympathy – The audience can identify with the cartoon as there is a lot of commentary

about the difference between the countries two main parties in the media every day.

Gap – In order to have a wide support base, a party does not define itself as being one

specific type of person. The latent gap here is that from a liberal viewpoint, the party is there

just to serve rich, old, white men.

Differentiation – The republican party themselves and their followers would surely see a

difference in their ranks to the view of them expressed here.

Mechanical Device:

Exaggeration – Here it comes from the simplification of a set of millions of people into one

stereotype that seems to fit into the republican mould.

Results:

Even though there were few instances cited from the show, they are examples of many that fit the

same mould. There is an episode devoted in full to the argument about whether Marijuana should be

legalised and the 2007 episode “Boys do Cry” takes on the whole state of Texas with jokes

involving the state's high level of executions and jokes about the president. At the end of the

episode, the makers include a notice to those who don't agree with the political messages contained

in their show and other media, saying that they merely comment on it. There are numerous cutaway

short sections that fill all the criteria laid out above to be counted as a political cartoon amongst

sections of animation made purely for comic value. The results from analysing the samples show

that there is indeed a case for the makers of Family Guy to be counted as political cartoonists.

Conclusions:

Even though there are more politicised cartoons, to wit, South Park, available and competing for the

audience's consumption and favour, Family Guy still maintains it's popularity. There are countless

threads on message boards online that host enraged messages telling the show to stay out of politics.

Websites too dole out their share of vitriol on the issue of the shows politics “there is one thing that

I think we can all agree on: no one f […] ing cares about the politics of Family Guy.”(Videogum,

2009). It seems there are a lot of people that either disagree with the politics of the show or disagree

with having political positions on the show.

That it has retained it's popularity since its launch ten years ago and survived two cancellations

(with MacFarlane claiming “it didn't really faze me” (Clack, 2009)) shows that for the majority of

their audience, the political asides and themes are not a problem and some may actually enjoy them.

Mark Fiore's website showcasing primarily short animated political cartoons, that we have seen are

the same elementally as the political cartoons produced by Family Guy, is a popular one. According

to dnscop.com, a website that compiles lists of website traffic trends, 139 914 pages on the internet

link into Fiore's website. Still political cartoons are also getting good traffic online and they are still

a valuable part of a newspapers editorial section. “While the future of the editorial cartoon

may be uncertain, the future of the political cartoon, especially in its digital

form, has never seemed brighter.” (Danjoux, 2007, p.247).

Family Guy is now watched online as well as broadcast to millions. It's political cartoons reach a

massive audience. We have identified that the stylistic elements of a political cartoon are present in

the show through using a few select examples. There is very little to stand in the way of Family

Guy, whether by accident or design, having certain sections of it classed as political cartoons,

carrying on the traditions of American political cartooning started by Benjamin Franklin (Bryant,

2007), and continuing on today, taking advantage of their public position and the technology

available.

References and Bibliography.

America's Civil War, 2009. Christmas Cheer for a Weary Nation. America's Civil War, [Online] 21 (6), pp.58-61. Available at http://web.ebscohost.com.eproxy.ucd.ie/ehost/resultsvid=5&hid= 102&sid=ab80aa3d-bed4-42c5-bf4c-c63e380b8b78%40sessionmgr114&bquery=(JN+%22 America's+Civil+War%22+and+DT+20090101)&bdata=JmRiPWFwaCZ0eXBlPTEmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#18, (Accessed December 10, 2009)

Bal, Anjali S. Et al., 2009. Caricatures, cartoons, spoofs and satires: political brands as butts. Journal of Public Affairs, [Online] 9 (4), pp. 229-237. Available at http://www3.interscience. wiley.com/ journal/122588501/abstract, (Accessed on October 22, 2009).

Bryant, M., 2007. The First American Political Cartoon. History Today. [Online] 57 (12), pp. 58-59. Available at http://search.ebscohost.com.eproxy.ucd.ie/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ukh& bquery=(AN+28044645)&type=1&site=ehost-live. (Accessed on December 10, 2009)

Callaghan, S., Interviewed by O'Doherty, K., (14 December, 2009)

Childs, Elizabeth C., 1992. Big Trouble. Art Journal, [Online]. 51 (1), pp. 26-37. Available at http://journals.cambridge.org.eproxy.ucd.ie/action/displayIssue?jid=PSC&decade=& volume Id=40&issueId=02&iid=1004152#, (Accessed December 10, 2009)

Clack, D., 2009. Family Guy's Seth MacFarlane Interviewed!, FHM, [Online] June 24, Available at http://www.fhm.com/reviews/tv/seth-macfarlane--exclusive-interview-with-the-family-guy-guy-20090624, (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Danjoux, I., 2007. Reconsidering the Decline of the Editorial Cartoon. PS: Political Science & Politics, [Online] 40 (2), pp.245-248, Available at http://journals.cambridge.org.eproxy. ucd.ie/download. php?file=%2FPS%2FP SC40_02%2FS1049096507070370a.pdf&code= 66901c3bc4c05ef1a52396b9fb4b0cce, (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Davies, M., 2004. Are We Witnessing the Dusk of a Cartooning Era? Nieman Reports, [Online] Dec. 1., 58 (4) pp. 6-8. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=780163371&sid= 2&Fmt=4&clientId=13279&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Duus, P., 2001. Presidential Address: Weapons of the Weak, Weapons of the Strong—The Development of the Japanese Political Cartoon. Journal of Asian Studies, [Online]. 60 (4), pp.965, Available at http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlinkdid=94467687&sid=4&Fmt=4& clientId=13279& RQT=309&VName=PQD, ProQuest, (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Editor & Publisher. 2009. U.S. Daily Newspapers Advertising Rates & Circulations. [Online] Editor & Publisher. Available at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/images/pdf/US_Daily_ Adv_Rates_and_Circ.pdf, (Accessed December 10, 2009)

Family Guy, Season 4, Episode 25. You May Now Kiss the … Uh... Guy Who Receives. 2006. [Animated TV Series] Fox, Fox, April 30, 2006.

Family Guy, Season 1, Episode 3. Chitty Chitty Death Bang. 1999. [Animated TV Series] Fox, Fox, April 18, 2006

Fiore, M., 2004. Animation and the Political Cartoon. Nieman Reports, [Online] Dec 1, 58 (4),pp 41-42. Available at http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Did=780163501&sid=2&Fmt= 4&clientId=13279&RQT=309&VName=PQD. (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Fiore, M., 2009. Reform Madness. [Online] (Updated August 12, 2009) Available at: http://www.markfiore.com/political/reform-madness, (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Goldman, E., 2008. Big New Deal for Family Guy's Seth MacFarlane. IGN, [Online] May 5. Available at: http://ie.tv.ign.com/articles/871/871629p1.html, )accessed December 10, 2009)

Hibberd, J., 2009. Limbaugh, Rove to guest on 'Family Guy'. [Online] Aug 13. james hibberd's the live feed, thr.com. Available at: http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/08/limbaugh-rove-to-guest-on-family-guy.html, (Accessed December 14).

James, M., 2005. Fox Reuniting Itself With 'Family Guy. L.A. Times, [Online] 13 April. Available at: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/820917751.htmlFMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT &date=Apr+13%2C+2005&author=Meg+James&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition= &startpage=C.1&desc=Fox+Reuniting+Itself+With+%27Family+Gu%27%3B+DVD+sales +showed+that+the+public+wasn%27t+ready+to+let+go+of+the+canceled+animated+show.+This+time+around%2C+the+network+sees+it+as+a+marketing+base. Accessed December 13, 2009).

Johnson, Isabel S., 1937. Cartoons. The Public Opinion Quarterly, [Online] 1 (3), pp.21-44, Available at http://www.j stor.org/stable/2744665 , (Accessed October 22, 2009)

Keiser, M., 2000. Young Adults and Civic Participation. National Civic Review, [Online] 89(1), p. 33-38. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ncr.89106, (Accessed December 11, 2009).

Kemnitz, T., 1973. The Cartoon as a Historical Source. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, [Online] 4 (1), pp. 81-93. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/202359, (Accessed December 12, 2009).

Moss, D., 2007. The Animated Persuader. PS: Political Science & Politics. [Online] 40 (2), pp. 241-244. Available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=1004204, (Accessed on December 10, 2009)

Oliphant, P., 2004. Why Political Cartoons are Losing Their Influence. Nieman Reports, [Online]. 58 (4), 25-27. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlinkdid=780163411&sid=2&Fmt=4 &clientId=13279&RQT=309&VName=PQD, (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Summers, N., 2006. Satire: Singing a Different 'Toon' :[U.S. Edition Edition]. Newsweek, [Online], December18, pp. 14. Available at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlinkdid=1178611151&sid=1 &Fmt=3&clientId=13279&RQT=309&VName=PQD, (Accessed December 10, 2009).

Tell, D., 2004. Burke's encounter with Ransom: rhetoric and epistemology in Four Master Tropes. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, [Online], 34 (4) pp. 33-54. Available at: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&r   es_id=xri:lion&rft_id=xri:lion:rec:abell:R03479767, (Accessed December 12, 2009)

Videogum. 2009. Seth MacFarlane Thinks that Family Guy is Politically Relevant Now?[Online] 20 August. Available at: http://videogum.com/archives/cartoons/seth-macfarlane-thinks-that-family-guy-is-politically-relevant-now_085381.html, (Accessed December 13, 2009).

Winterowd, W. R., 1985. Kenneth Burke: An Annotated Glossary of His Terministic Screen and a "Statistical" Survey of His Major Concepts. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, [Online] 15 (3/4), pp. 145-177. Available at : http://www.jstor.org/stable/3885689, (Accessed December 12, 2009).

ZAP2IT, 2009. TV Ratings, [Online] Numerous dates accessed. Oct 12, Nov 8, Nov 16, Nov 23, Nov 30, Dec 14. Available at: http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/, (Accessed December 14, 2009).