Shared publicly  - 
I know The Scream is Norway's best known work of art but mass murder seems more than a little inappropriate for parody by The Sunday Times. Do you agree?
Jonathan Martinez's profile photoDon Frøystadvåg's profile photoMichael Heyman's profile photoSteve Masters's profile photo
Jae Kay
Erm... please tell me this is a joke? Please.
Well, after their somalia famine/belly-full of phone-hacking cartoon the other day, I didn't think it was possible for them to stoop any lower. But this... Wow. What the hell were they thinking?
Indeed it is for real. The cartoon on today's iPad edition so I assume also in the print version
I am a little at a loss as to how low even a Murdoch paper can stoop. This is not just bad taste; it is disgusting and I just wish there would be a way to actually report this.
Who is editing cartoons at that newspaper? First the tasteless Murdoch apologia dragging in starving children and now this.
I feel pity for a newspaper that thinks it has to make fun of mass murder.
Crikey. As others have said, even for a Murdoch rag, that's low. Appalling taste.
@Michael - we could report it to the PCC. I think I'll do just that. Right now.
I don't think the illustrator meant it in the way in which it is being taken. The issue isn't whether the Scream has been used, but rather society's view of the Scream. Re-evaluate what the Scream is portraying and what it's actually saying, then take another look at the illustration.
That's pretty repulsive. But sadly, the PCC won't actually care, because they don't pay any attention to "third party complaints." You might, perhaps, have a change if you are norwegian and personally affected, but otherwise, they don't give a damn.

You might be right, perhaps, Dave Nash in suggesting it might not mean that. But while there's an appropriate place for cartoons that might require people to consider the interpretation of a piece of art before thinking about a cartoon that references it, I don't think that place is necessarily next to a developing news story about an atrocious massacre.

Context and location mean a lot - that's why you can libel for juxtaposition, for instance - and whatever the noble ideals of an artist, publishing something like this and then saying "well, it's not our fault people thought with their hearts, not their heads," when you know damn well that what they'll do, is just incendiary. Some might even call it cynical.
No I disagree... I think it sadly reflects Norway today.

You cannot censor on the basis this might offend someone, somewhere all the time.
I do feel that it's all a little bit raw at the moment for that.
Well horses for courses. It reflects a REALLY sad situation. No worse than some of the graphic photos that came out after 7/7.
If anything the screaming figure should be the killer not the victim if one was to use the meaning of the painting. Instead it is merely a screaming Victim trying to escape an armed killer
hardly a parody - more a comment on how people in Norway must be feeling
If you look at the killer, his head also resembles the screaming figure too...
The scream figure represents Norway, the nation and the armed figure, the attacker.
Think of Norway as the screaming figure and not as a child and it makes far more sense!
One is a social commentary, in art, on the plight of Norway, the other is a death scene...
Again I disagree. When else to run it? Tomorrow, Tuesday? Never?
Given a choice between the "cartoon" or the Mail on Sundays front page that +Tim Coldwell published above, then I have to say I prefer the scream and +Jonathan Marriott is spot on with his comments.
That is in VERY poor taste.
Between this and the Daily Mail's coverage of Amy Winehouse's death [blame everybody but an intrusive press and post pictures of her body being taken out], I think I'm going to be sick. You'd think the Right-wing press would perhaps show a modicum of respect after their malice has become so transparent in light of the hacking scandal. Humble, a touch of humility? don't hold your breath. I'm embarrassed to British.
This is one of the most stomach-turning things I have seen for a while. Unbelievably tasteless. Who are these people who would create something like this?
There are two problems with this childish parody. Firstly, the cartoon face has none of the deep angst of Munch's original, and makes its suffering look comical. Secondly the gunman is a gross perversion of the terrifying presence of Munch's bystanders/passers-by. In every way, it would have been more striking, and a more profound commentary, to simply re-publish the original. But what can we expect from a company which, as has been shown, consistently misjudges and misreads people's feelings?
What a shame! I am sorry to see that some foreign newspaper can piss on our cultural history after this tragedy! :(
I consider it HIGHLY unlikey that anyone commenting would have bought the Sunday Times if it had been the only thing, to wipe their backsides with, available. Me included.

BUT if you want to be outraged, email them. I see it differently. I certainly won't think any the better or worse for Mr Murdoch than I did a week ago over it.

One person's "life model" art, is another person's pornography, after all!
I just don't think that a tragedy like this should be the subject of any kind of cartoon.
What sort of response is he expecting of people?
What was going through his head when he even doing considered a cartoon?
What they left off the cartoon is the caption: "James Murdoch realises he is still in the firing line."
This is all together a prove that papers don't care about the people, lets sell numbers instead. Disgusting
Am I the only one who thinks this cartoon is actually funny? I know, I have a very, very baad taste. Don't get me wrong. I am shocked about the happenings in Norway, like you all.
With it being a Murdoch title I fully expected to be shocked and appalled by the bad taste... then I wasn't. Cartoons don't have to be 'funny', sometimes they just reflect a bitter event in a very shorthand way.

If you're not familiar with the artist, google Gerald Scarfe then decide if he's likely to have done this as a comment on a truly tragic, horrific event or if he's likely to have done it to offend.
@Ken Harvey: As cartoonists go the guy is a genius but maybe, just maybe, the timing was a little more than out on this one, especially using The Scream in it as well. But then, it may just be me, and that even though I have a very sarcastic mind at times.

As to the PCC: As was said before, they have no teeth, as we have seen enough, and will not respond to third party complaints. They won't even respond to someone as the offended party, especially not when it has to do with ethnicity, as in Romani-Gypsy, as we have learned more than once.
Is there a pic of this actually in the paper? I'm not going to see a copy to find out, but without some sort of prrof they're running this, I can't believe it.
Usually a Gerald Scarfe fan but this may be a bit of a lapse of judgement.
Let me try this as simply as I can. Editorial comics are about gut reactions. The conventional (and IMHO appropriate) gut reaction to the horrors in Norway is grief. Editorial cartoons the morning after great tragedies conventionally express grief and solidarity with the victims. The classic Munch painting has nothing to do with grief. It's about, among many other things, fear and alienation. The only thing The Scream has in common with the tragedy in Norway is that they're both Norwegian.

That's what makes it cheap and obvious.

(@Dirtbox: See Benjamin Cohen at 4:22 in this thread.)
The massive Tesco masthead on the Mail on Sunday provides a seedy context for the photos of the young person begging for his/her life as well as the tag line of Amy Winehouse.
I think the problem with that Sunday Times cartoon is that you have to explain who the characters are. If you are going to use all those elements, Edvard Munch's Scream, the analogy with Norway, a gun it has to be so clear that there is no ambiguity.
Cartoons in newspapers are designed to provoke thought and reactions, in a way that often touches on sensitive subjects and draws parallels that help people question and often come to terms with such tragedies.
Never reading that newspaper again,

a norwegian.
here's The Guardian's coverage

12.36pm: The Sunday Times cartoon on the Norway attacks, based on Edvard Munch's The Scream, has been attracting criticism online.

Channel Four News technology correspondent Benjamin Cohen, who posted the version of the cartoon from the paper's iPad ap on Google+, writes: "I know The Scream is Norway's best known work of art but mass murder seems more than a little inappropriate for parody by The Sunday Times. Do you agree?"

Several posters do.

Squamp Pilgrimm writes: "Well, after their somalia famine/belly-full of phone-hacking cartoon the other day, I didn't think it was possible for them to stoop any lower. But this... Wow. What the hell were they thinking?"

Pilgrimm is referring to this cartoon in the Times earlier this week, which rather cynically suggested that the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed the paper's owners News Corporation was distracting public attention from the famine in Africa.
Was just thinking, Rupert Murdoch said last week that he calls the editor of the Sunday Times every Saturday to discuss what is in the paper. Do you think he discussed this cartoon?
It's not like there wasn't anything else in the news they could have drawn a cartoon for.
@Oliver Jones Not at all lost; it's just a bad parody, even if it is by Scarfe. I question the view that this cartoon summons up a 'complex of affects' - and it is certainly not 'sophisticated'. The effect is laughable, and rather reduces the gravity of our response to the event, than heightens it. That is what makes it a poor editorial choice.
This parodic cartoon is both horrifying and disgusting (and I am not easily offended). It is running the greatest risk of harm in a very sensitive situation. For those who find it funny: what are you laughing at? If you are laughing, it may well be because you remember the spoof film ‘Scream’ (1996 + sequels), which played – in a funny way, as a particular genre – on fear and the clichés of horror. Dare I say that most of the victims of the Norwegian atrocity were youths, and this film – as well as Munch – could well be within their frame of cultural reference, as it will be for many who are familiar with both ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture. In any case, whatever cultural references it involves, the cartoon is incredibly offensive. It is a very bad editorial choice indeed to publish it.
My gut reaction is that it's inappropriate- but I didn't assume it was meant to be funny. I think of broadsheet cartoons as visual representations of the news, and not necessarily humorous.
I think (mis)appropriating a country's heritage at a time of national grief is the part I have a problem with.
The cartoon (which I also only saw on Google+) representing famine victims 'having a bellyful of phone hacking' was vile... particularly given the context of being in a Murdoch owned paper.
It's the same fu**ing bullshit newspaper as the S*N.. Who blamed Al Quaida, without even knowing anything about what happend.. Murdoch should find something else to use his money on, and just put these rubbish "news"papers to sleep..
These papers (actually all the mass media in the UK without exception) had a big part to play in creating the propaganda environment for acts of violence like that to happen over the past decades. Even if that graphic is expressing shock at the massacre, it's the highest order of hypocrisy.
And the same hypocrisy applies to anyone who's swallowed the 'terrorist threat' propaganda over the past few years and now sheds crocodile tears when the seeds they've sown grow to fruit.
This is all a quandary for Fox News of course. Do they now call for an invasion of Norway?
Add a comment...