Politicisation of Science in COVID-19 Editorial Cartoons: A Comparative Study of Cartoons in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

This study explores the representation of scientists and politicians in editorial cartoons from three countries: Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Of 466 cartoons collected from six Sunday newspapers (two from each country) over an 18-month period, 226 (49%) contained some reference to COVID-19. A qualitative analysis of cartoons highlights the politicisation of science and the relative absence of scientists in the cartoon discourse. Cartoonists focus on the political aspects of the pandemic, often portraying politicians as juggling competing demands, such as health needs versus personal freedom. However, they often miss the opportunity to address the reasons for the imposition of COVID-19-related restrictions or the effectiveness of health measures, instead portraying scientists as oppositional figures. In addressing COVID-19 in this way, cartoonists subtly suggest conflicts between the values of scientists, politicians and society. Cartoonists also tie the pandemic into broader political discourses in each country, for example, states’ rights, corruption and Brexit in, respectively Australia, South Africa and the UK. This work provides insights into journalistic coverage of complex, science-related issues, with a particular focus on the ways that editorial coverage reflects public sentiment, policy responses and social attitudes.

KEYWORDS:

• COVID-19
• editorial cartoons
• scientists
• political communication
• visual communication
• media

Introduction

Along with other sections of global news media that covered COVID-19, the most pertinent societal ramifications of the pandemic were captured by editorial cartoonists. Editorial cartoons are recognised as a special form of visual journalism with an agenda-setting and societal watchdog role (MacKay 2017; Scully 2019).

Of particular importance in the context of COVID-19, cartoons are thought to help people understand their own experiences during challenging times (Greenberg 2002), making them important media formats for science communication researchers to consider. Kelley-Romano and Westgate (2007) argue that editorial cartoons offer a visual record of topics which allow issues with societal impact, such as a pandemic, to be investigated over time.

Importantly, while the COVID-19 pandemic has affected all regions of the globe, it has not affected them equally, nor at the same time. This means that both global and local contexts were reflected in media coverage of the pandemic. To explore these contexts, we investigated how cartoonists in Australia, South Africa and the UK represented the pandemic between 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021. This research contributes to the growing body of work associated with national representations of the COVID-19 pandemic and visual culture, specifically exploring aspects of politicisation of the pandemic. Following a literature review which sets the scene for the paper, exploring first media coverage of COVID-19 and then the role of editorial cartoons within the media landscape, we move on to outline the methods applied to address the research questions. Data are presented, followed by discussion and conclusions.

Literature Review

Media Coverage and Politicisation of COVID-19

The politicisation of science has attracted considerable attention, reflecting the role that political interests play in shaping the presentation of scientific information, e.g., selective use of evidence to support particular positions (Pielke 2007) or using conflict between opposing groups to attract audience attention (e.g., Hart and Feldman 2014). In his commentary about the politicisation of science communication, Scheufele (2014) describes how online and offline news media offer a mediated reality of scientific information to lay audiences. News media construct this mediated reality by covering a finite selection of issues pertaining to specific scientific topics, or by framing topics through a particular perspective (for example, a societal or political perspective). Media-constructed realities can influence public perception and understanding of scientific issues because most people access scientific information indirectly through online and offline media (Scheufele 2014). Bolsen, Druckman, and Cook (2014) suggest that politicisation forms an element of broader frames applied to scientific topics and that in this context politicisation introduces uncertainty about the trustworthiness of scientifically-based arguments.

News media coverage of the coronavirus pandemic presents such a mediated reality of this health issue, and several studies suggest that media representation of COVID-19 has been highly politicised. For example, politicians appeared in the media more often than scientists (Hart, Chinn, and Soroka 2020; Tejedor et al. 2020) and lockdowns were originally framed as a violation of Western values of personal freedom (Zhang 2021). Analysis of the New York Times coverage of the lockdowns in Wuhan and Italy in 2020 found that the newspaper focused on the political implications of the lockdown rather than on scientific aspects (Zhang 2021). The New York Times gave little attention to the effectiveness of the lockdown as a measure in containing the spread of the virus; instead, it argued that lockdowns conflicted with values and personal freedoms, which are characteristic of Western democracies. Moreover, several scientists and health professionals’ comments about the Wuhan lockdown focused on the societal implications of the restrictions and were used to criticise the Chinese government’s decisions, whereas experts’ comments on the Italian lockdown were more health-focused (Zhang 2021). Similar findings were observed in Spanish and Italian newspapers’ coverage of COVID-19 (Tejedor et al. 2020). These authors found that national political figures were featured on newspapers’ front pages and in photographs, while medical and science experts were mostly absent. These findings highlight the highly polarised and politicised nature of newspapers’ coverage of the pandemic, as well as suggesting a level of spectacularisation by linking the pandemic to public figures and celebrities (see, for example, Lasco 2020) and grounding the discourse in the exceptional (political) responses, rather than scientific or health discourses. Yet few studies have explored the way that the pandemic was covered on the editorial pages, including how cartoonists engaged with the pandemic. Editorial pages typically reflect and critique public sentiment, policy responses and social attitudes, so it is on these pages that we might expect to gain insight into the role journalists played in reflecting the social zeitgeist.

Metcalfe et al. (2020) analysed media coverage of the coronavirus pandemic in countries, including Australia, South Africa, Kenya, Canada and India, finding that national coverage of the scientific themes varied depending on the cultural context, political decisions and policy interventions. Nevertheless the initial focus in several countries was on the scientific and health aspects early in the pandemic, then moving on to societal impacts as the pandemic progressed. Similar shifts from an early focus on health risks to societal and economic impacts were seen in Canadian (Poirier et al. 2020) and US (Hubner 2021)newspapers.

Findings from these studies reflect Scheufele’s observations that media coverage often politicises science (2013; 2014). Scientific uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus pandemic meant that some lay audiences drew on their personal or political values and religious beliefs to interpret and respond to the pandemic in ways that made sense for them (De Luca Picione et al. 2021). News media may have politicised the coverage of COVID-19 events to assist readers in making sense of the pandemic in times of uncertainty. As Scheufele (2013) argues, news media “make values an even more salient part of the debate by focusing on the conflict between competing value systems in society” (14,045). Furthermore, the politicisation of health controversies by media outlets may have negative impacts on public perceptions and acceptance of health interventions. For example, Fowler and Gollust (2015) found that politicisation of the HPV vaccine by the media reduced public support for vaccine regulations and policies, and public trust in governments and doctors.

Editorial Cartoons

Editorial cartoons address contemporary news events in a visual format, blending artistic expression with social and political commentary. They form a longstanding element of news media in many countries, where cartoonists capture and convey current and topical political and social issues in ways that aim to be easily interpreted by their readers (Giarelli and Tulman 2003; Medhurst and DeSousa 1981). Editorial cartoons “are editorials in pictures” (Seymour-Ure 2008, 75) and offer comment and interpretation on current events that “take a stand” (El Refaie 2009) rather than remaining “neutral”. Gombrich (1960) argues that because cartoons act as powerful political and social commentaries, an understanding of the cultural and historical contexts in which they are created is essential for their interpretation. Because they work “chiefly through pictures, a cartoon may have layers of meaning which are left to the reader to infer” (Seymour-Ure 1997, 17).

Typically, cartoons address political issues, often criticising leadership, as well as commenting on current events. Furthermore, cartoons may explicitly seek to prompt action, thereby provoking reaction against injustice (Kleeman 2006; Knieper 2023; Kotzé 1988; Panneerselvan 2020). Rather than conveying specific information as news articles are expected to do, or making particular arguments as written editorials do, editorial cartoons work through assertion (Seymour-Ure 1997), following recognised conventions, largely based in caricature, to convey meaning and raise emotional responses in readers (Gombrich 1960; McCloud 1994). For example, cartoonists may use emotion to give hope and instil a sense of solidarity amongst readers (Greenberg 2002). Cartoons attempt to provide humorous, visual perspectives on contemporary issues (Greenberg 2002) and they form part of the opinion discourse around social problems and political events. Cartoonists offer a “simplified version of the very complex political reality” by condensing this reality into a single image (Silaški and Đurović 2019, 1).

However, the same features that make cartoons particularly dynamic and influential also open them up to the risk of misinterpretation, particularly when viewing cartoons without understanding their specific historical and national context or where irony is used. To overcome some of these limitations, cartoons rely on simplified visual symbols (or schemata) that are easily recognisable (Gombrich 1960), such as the COVID-19 spikey blob (Joubert and Wasserman 2020). These symbols facilitate the sharing of ideas across time because they encompass audience perception as well as artists’ intentions. Furthermore, because cartoons work primarily through symbols, cartoonists can express extreme opinions that might not be acceptable when expressed in words. Seymour-Ure (2001, 353) argues that political cartoons have a unique quality, “the ability to convey the unspeakable through graphic images”. For example, by drawing attention to how editorial cartoonists captured AIDS-related issues, Wigston (2002) argues that political cartoons played an essential role in the circulation of public information, communicating aspects of the disease that are challenging to present in written form. Through satire and parody, editorial cartoons help people process current social and political events, such as COVID-19 (Rutherford 2020), situating these “problems” in the context of everyday life (Greenberg 2002). Indeed, editorial cartoons may offer a useful barometer of social perceptions of infodemics such as COVID-19 (Labbé et al., 2022). As such, editorial cartoons have become recognised objects for research exploring attitudes and values within society at particular times (Gamson and Stuart 1992).

Collectively, editorial cartoons have the potential to play a particular and meaningful role during a time of crisis, and this may be the time when they reach their full potential, as Katz (2004) has suggested. A few prior studies have explored cartoonists’ portrayals of viruses, notably HIV (Obonyo 2011; Wigston 2002) and Ebola (Nwabueze, Igboeli, and Ubah 2017). These studies highlight the importance of the symbols used in cartoons to convey their messages, and that these symbols must be chosen with care to enable readers to interpret the intended message. Wigston (2002, 92), for example, argues “that readers (and even highly educated ones) are likely to misinterpret elements in a cartoon”, though others have argued that it is the reader's interpretation, rather than cartoonist's intention, which is important (Asiru and Bello 2021; Edwards and Winkler 1997). The studies consider the important role that entertainment plays in the construction and consumption of cartoon imagery; even when the images themselves are sinister, cartoonists incorporate humour to offer new perspectives and attract attention. Notably, Rabe (2018) argues that while cartoonists may use humour, satire and ridicule as emotional hooks to engage their readers, they are not necessarily intending to be funny and that these cartoons are often very solemn and serious.

Given the potential of editorial cartoons to help publics make sense of contemporary scientific issues, their role in representing crisis situations involving science, such as the pandemic warrants further exploration. Research has explored the ways in which blame and stigma are reflected in editorial cartoons about COVID-19 (Labbé et al., 2022), highlighting the ways that blame shifts from an initial focus on “others” (e.g., foreigners, travellers) to negative portrayals of those failing to “follow the rules”. Other studies suggest that editorial cartoonists draw on a range of communicative tools used in other media, including metaphors (Abdel-Raheem 2021; Filardo-Llamas 2021). Kazanevsky (2020) argues that the visual imagery used in pandemic cartoons coalesces, with repeated tropes (such as the spikey virus itself, reported by Joubert and Wasserman 2020) and stereotypical contents (e.g., masks), which result in a certain uniformity, reflecting Gombrich’s idea of schemata. For Rutherford (2020), an important aspect of cartoonists’ responses to the pandemic is the way that they subvert authoritative discourse. In contrast, Baumgartner and Kassab (2022) provide historical examples of how cartoonists have supported governments during a national crisis, taking on the roles of cheerleaders, rather than critics. The authors found that this held true in their study of syndicated cartoons during the first six months of the pandemic and that these cartoons mostly echoed dominant narratives in mass media coverage.

Although editorial cartoons have been uniformly recognised as political communication (Seymour-Ure 2001), they undeniably play a role in reflecting and reinforcing science-related concepts, such as the representation of viruses, their causes and research-informed responses. Yet, no studies have sought to understand the national and international political and social contexts that reflect and reinforce mediated representations of COVID-19 in editorial cartoons. Because editorial cartoons necessarily draw on home cultures to represent a global phenomenon, such as COVID-19, the pandemic provided us with a unique opportunity to explore similarities and differences in its representation.

Here we extend earlier work (Joubert and Wasserman 2020), which explores the representation of the coronavirus in South African editorial cartoons. This comparative study investigates how COVID-19 media discourse in editorial cartoons reflects different national contexts – in Australia (AU), South Africa (SA), and the United Kingdom (UK). Specifically, we look for visual imagery, repeated tropes, caricatures, humorous visual perspectives and simplified versions of complex political and social realities that offer powerful political and social commentary. We focus on how COVID-19 science, including the virus, its causes, its management and its treatment, has been politicised in the editorial cartoons published in prominent weekend print publications in these countries over a 1.5-year period of the pandemic.

Data Collection and Analysis

We collected editorial cartoons from six prominent weekend print newspapers (two per country) from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021. As far as possible, newspapers were chosen to reflect different political spectra within the countries. We hoped that this would enable us to capture any differences that might arise from the political stance of the newspaper. We focused the study on weekend newspapers which routinely printed editorial cartoons, because weekend newspapers often provide a perspective on events occurring in the prior week. We included national newspapers (Australia, UK and South Africa) and prominent newspapers with wide national coverage (Australia). We also selected newspapers that enabled us to access digital versions of the cartoons, including searching back issues. We gathered a data set of 466 cartoons, drawn by eight cartoonists. Out of these 466 cartoons, 226 (49%) mentioned COVID-19 (Table 1).

Table 1. Countries and newspapers included in the study.

	Australia		South Africa (SA)		United Kingdom (UK)
	The Weekend Australian (TWA)	The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)	City Press (CP)	Sunday Times (ST)	Observer (Obs)	The Sunday Telegraph (TST)
Total cartoons	78	78	78	76	78	78
COVID-19-related cartoons	39 (50%)	29 (37%)	32 (41%)	24 (32%)	49 (63%)	53 (68%)

The researchers involved in this study inductively developed a codebook building on Joubert and Wasserman’s (2020) study. Cartoons were coded for the presence of COVID-19-related content, visual portrayals of the pandemic (e.g., illustrations of the virus, the presence of facemasks, images of death), broad themes associated with the pandemic (societal issues, politics, economics, etc), and the presence of politicians or scientists. The quantitative results of this first coding analysis are discussed in Joubert et al. (2023).

The qualitative analysis of cartoons presented here explored how the political, economic and social contexts of each country are reflected in the representation of the pandemic. We were particularly interested in the ways that scientists and the underpinning science were represented, and the role that cartoonists might have played in enabling readers to make sense of pandemic times. Thus, we were primarily interested in the ways that politicians, scientists and science were framed (Greenberg 2002). We took a visual semiotic approach in so far as we assert that pictures are signs that contain meaning (Nöth 2011) arguing cartoons are important representations of the politics and science of the pandemic (Aiello 2020). However, as we were mainly interested in the representation of scientists and politicians, we have not sought to deconstruct each element of the cartoons, e.g., use of colour. Instead, we focused on how scientists and politicians were portrayed in relation to each other. To this end, we drew on framing theory to examine editorial cartoonists’ contributions to pandemic discourses and the relationship with broader journalistic outputs.

We adopted an inductive and iterative approach; each researcher reviewed cartoons repeatedly until no further themes emerged. We examined visual imagery and any text or captions included with the cartoon (Gombrich 1972). Our analysis included identifying individuals as well as generic representations (e.g., generic scientists). We explored how both identifiable and generic individuals were represented and if these representations differed between politicians and scientists. We explore representations of COVID-19 information and misinformation.

A comprehensive dataset of cartoons was constructed for each country, including all cartoons with representations of politicians, scientists and/or misinformation. We used a qualitative coding method to explore the themes emerging. This involved five steps: data familiarisation; initial code generation; thematic searches; thematic review; thematic definition and naming (Braun and Clarke 2006). We explored the combination of embedded text and visual imagery, as both often worked together to convey meaning. Thus, in exploring the representation of scientists, for example, the first task was to determine whether a scientist was present (either through recognising a well-known figure, such as chief health officer, or using visual cues such as lab coats) and whether the image represented a specific person or generic figure. Other elements of visual analysis included objects, such as syringes or microscopes, metaphorical representations (such as elephants) and other recurring visual representations of national discourses (such as chests of money, which represented corruption). Individually, exploring these elements informed our judgement of the messages and meanings held within the cartoons.

Gombrich (1972) reminds us that as a largely picture-based medium, cartoons are open to interpretation by their readers and interpreting images requires a knowledge of the context in which that image has arisen. Likewise, Medhurst and DeSousa (1981, 201.) point out that to interpret a cartoon viewers need to “be somewhat familiar with the literary or cultural source to which it refers” and to be familiar with the people and events to which the drawing refers (Seymour-Ure 2008). While we sought to agree on themes at a broad level, we also recognised that the different socio-political contexts in which the cartoons were created means that understanding these contexts was essential for interpretation (El Refaie 2003; Gombrich 1972). While COVID-19 provides the focus of our study, a need to understand national context meant that in practice we took a lead on interpreting cartoons from our own countries. After the researchers had shared their interpretations and these were discussed, we came to agreement on the broad themes and theme names. Selected cartoons are presented below to illustrate findings.

Results

Politics and politicians emerged as a dominant theme within our initial thematic analysis. Of the 226 cartoons that included a verbal or visual reference to the pandemic, politics and government were the primary theme in 60% (n = 136) of these cartoons. The number of cartoons containing political content varied across countries and newspapers; for example, in South Africa, only 46% (n = 26) of the COVID-19 cartoons were primarily about politics or government. In contrast, politics and government was the primary theme for 62% (n = 42) of Australian and 67% (n = 68) of British cartoons. The City Press featured the theme Government and Politics least (38%, n = 12; SA;) while the Observer featured this theme most (82%, n = 40; UK).

Politicians were a recurrent feature in cartoons. Politicians were included in 74% (n = 50) of Australian, 57% (n = 32) of South African and 64% (n = 65) of UK cartoons. The distribution of politicians within the cartoons varied by newspaper; The Weekend Australian, the City Press (SA), The Sunday Telegraph (UK) and the Observer (UK) published most images of politicians. Alongside national leaders, these cartoons also included depictions of Donald Trump (15 times, all countries), Xi Jinping (twice, Australian only), Joe Biden (twice, Australia and UK); Ursula von Der Leyen (three times, UK only), Emmanuel Macron (once, UK only), Jair Bolsonaro, alongside Trump and Boris Johnson (once, SA only). State politicians were a prominent feature in the Australian cartoons.

Scientists: Causes of the Pandemic, Delayers of Freedom and Failing to Act

In contrast to politicians, scientists rarely featured in cartoons. We only found one cartoon depicting a scientist (City Press, 31/01/2021) in the two South African newspapers. In most cases where scientists were present, they were depicted with politicians or with an explicit reference to politicians (80%, n = 10). Cartoons portraying identifiable scientists only numbered seven in our sample; Chris Whitty, the UK Government's Chief Medical Adviser (three cartoons,The Sunday Telegraph); Salim Abdool Karim, South African clinical infectious diseases epidemiologist (one City Press cartoon); while The Weekend Australian portrayed Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the US, once, and Australia’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Paul Kelly once. The Sydney Morning Herald depicted the Queensland Chief Health Officer Jeanette Young once. The Weekend Australian and The Sunday Telegraph (UK) were the only two newspapers that also represented generic scientists in three and one cartoons, respectively. Neither the Observer (UK) nor the Sunday Times (SA) represented any scientists in their Sunday cartoons.

The portrayal of scientists in these cartoons falls into three categories: as a cause of the pandemic, as representatives of institutions opposed to individual freedom (i.e., in support of lockdowns) or as failing to act (e.g., on vaccine rollout). However, these portrayals differ between countries. The Weekend Australian mobilised scientists in the relation to the country’s complex relationship with China in two cartoons that refer to the origins of the pandemic (TWA, 25/04/2020 and TWA, 29/05/2021). In Figure 1, the person on the left is dressed in a laboratory coat and holds a mobile phone. He says: “It’s Scott Morrison sir, he wants to inspect your laboratory.” The figure on the right is the head of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, who says, “Which one?” On the far right are cages labelled, “Uyghurs”, “Falun Gong” and “Digital Spying”. COVID-19 is represented by a skull with viral spikes in a round laboratory flask.

Figure 1. “Which one?”, by Spooner, The Weekend Australian, 25 April 2020. Reproduced with permission from John Spooner.

This cartoon suggests that COVID-19 was intentionally developed by China, a view promoted by prominent Australian politicians at the time. In the first six months of the pandemic, Australian politicians led calls for an independent international inquiry into claims that a Wuhan laboratory had created COVID-19, aligning opinions with conservative political actors in the United States, including Donald Trump. Political commentators believe that these calls for investigation have damaged Australia’s important trade relationships with China; in referring to these accusations from Australian politicians, China’s state media editor referred to Australia as “the gum stuck to China’s shoe” (Kuo, 28 April 2020).

Most cartoons featuring scientists in the UK present them in opposition to then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, usually portraying the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, in some way blocking plans to ease lockdown regulations. An example is a cartoon from The Sunday Telegraph (TST, 22/11/2020) with Chris Whitty sitting on a “Christmas Party Hamper” which Johnson is attempting to open, and another that shows scientists moving a goal post behind then prime minister Boris Johnson (TST, 2021/06/06), thereby preventing him from lifting social restrictions. In contrast, the single cartoon from South Africa that pictures a scientist (CP, 31/01/2021) criticises both the scientists and government for the slow rollout of vaccination. In this cartoon (Figure 2), South African President Cyril Ramaphosa (CR) is pictured alongside Deputy President David Dabede Mabuza (DD) and eminent epidemiologist Salim Abdool Karim (AK); all three men are shown as relaxed and wasting time, seemingly unaware of, or unphased by, the urgency of the vaccine rollout. Their comments, “now”, “just now” and “now now” indicate that they are vague and uncertain about when the rollout will begin.

Figure 2. “Now Now”, by Dr Jack and Curtis, City Press, 31 October 2021. Reproduced with permission from John Curtis.

Two cartoons from Australia also refer to scientists in relation to social rules, although in this case they are portrayed more positively. In one, Australia’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Professor Paul Kelly seeks to reason with Black Lives Matter protesters about the risk of COVID-19 transmission (TWA, 13/06/202), while in the other (Figure 3), then US President Donald Trump is seen blaming Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor, for the state of the COVID-19 pandemic in that country. Figure 3 (SMH, 18/07/2020), features Donald Trump giving a speech. The speech bubbles in the first illustrations say: “It’s time to admit … to take it on the chin, … where, in the end, the blame and responsibility … for the tragic … US COVID mess lies … .”. In the next illustration Donald Trump points to his left at Dr Fauci, who also has a halo. Rather than implicating scientists, this cartoon explicitly criticises then President Trump for his failure to act and accept the consequences of ignoring scientific advice. Other cartoons in our dataset also reference Trump’s inaction, such as a British cartoon published in the Observer, where the figure of Liberty directly criticises Trump for his ignorance and electioneering (Obs, 20/10/2020).

Figure 3. “Blame”, by Moir, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 July 2020. Reproduced with permission from Alan Moir, moir.com.au

Politicians: Misinformation, Sleaze and Incompetence

An interesting facet of politicisation within the COVID-19 cartoon dataset was the difference in the ways that cartoonists approached misinformation. This theme was prominent in South Africa with the City Press (19%) and the Sunday Times (13%) both addressing misinformation. Our sample had limited coverage of misinformation in Australia (3%) and none in the UK. Of the cartoons addressing misinformation, five depict former US President Donald Trump peddling misinformation (e.g., use of disinfection, hydroxychloroquine). For example, a cartoon from the South African Sunday Times (ST, 26/04/2020) labels Donald Trump “The (mis) Leader of the Free World … ”. He has disinfectant and bleach in his pockets and is playing a syringe as though he was the Pied Piper (from the children’s tale). Following him are the US dead. In a similar vein, the cartoonist at The Sydney Morning Herald depicts Donald Trump as the three wise monkeys, but in an ironic twist, hear no evil sits on a plinth labelled “black lives matter” and thinking “lies”, while see no evil sits on a plinth labelled COVID, also thinking “lies”. Finally speak no evil is yelling “IT’S THE TRUTH” on a plinth labelled “Republican Economy Claims” (SMH 29/08/2020). In these cartoons, Trump is drawn as a major source of misinformation, a treatment that is not applied to other national leaders, including those of the three studied countries. Perhaps, Trump was seen as a safe scapegoat since he was not associated with national efforts to address the pandemic in the studied countries.

Particularly in the UK, two other issues emerge in relation to politicians: sleaze and incompetence. The UK had an (ongoing) discourse relating to the ways in which COVID-19 rules were implemented and a public sentiment that these rules did not apply to the political classes. The idea that politicians are not bound by the rules they set was also seen in cartoons from South Africa. Examples include “a bad apple” in a barrel labelled “Trust” (Obs, 08/08/2020) and a rule book with many pages for the public, and none for the African National Congress (ST, 02/08/2020). Examples of critiques of government competence include illustrations from the UK showing Gavin Williamson, then Minister for Education, as a clown (over the handling of the awarding of grades for school certificates, GCSE and A-levels). Prime Minister Boris Johnson hides behind this fiasco, allowing it to divert attention from other aspects of government policy (TST, 16/08/20). In South Africa, Minister of Police Bheki Cele is sarcastically referred to as “highly decorated”, but the medals and badges on his uniform relate to police brutality, unnecessary arrests and profiteering from illegal tobacco trade during the pandemic (ST, 31/05/20). South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is criticised for his lukewarm and wavering style of leadership during the pandemic (CP, 17/05/20). This cartoon illustrates the many opposing issues and crises the President has to deal with, including the virus, but the title of the cartoon “We’re stuck in the middle with Cyril” speaks to his leadership style characterised by an absence of decisive leadership that left many South Africans frustrated.

National Contexts

Cartoonists provide interesting insights into the national experiences of the pandemic. Below, we further discuss examples from each country to illustrate some of these themes.

UK Case Study

In the UK, two themes emerged which illustrate how the political alignment of the newspaper influences the content of the cartoons, but also shed light on the way that the pandemic became intimately bound up with wider political issues. In the case of the Observer, a left-leaning newspaper, the cartoonist regularly depicted the pandemic alongside the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (“Brexit”). Taking a different approach, The Sunday Telegraph, a conservative-leaning newspaper, portrayed the UK vaccine rollout largely as a success, but often particularly as a success arising from the UK’s departure from the European Union (EU).

Many of the Observer cartoons reference the grim reaper (COVID-19) and the Brexit troll, or use idiomatic references, such as “the elephant in the room”. Examples include a cartoon from April 2020 where the Brexit elephant asks: “You do still love me, don’t you Boris?” as the then Prime Minister contemplates lockdown regulations (Obs, 25/04/2020). A cartoon from later in 2020 (Obs, 28/11/2020) depicts the Grim Reaper (whose scythe reads COVID CRISIS) hiding the Brexit Troll (with spiked club reading BREXIT BLUNDER) under his cloak. These cartoons present both the pandemic and Brexit as political failures of the Prime Minister, suggesting he is incapable of leading the country. This is shown particularly well in a cartoon published on the 13th of December 2020, where Boris Johnson is depicted as Sir Winston Churchil while celebrating one year of his “Golden Age”. He has a burning cigar labelled COVID-19, and a champagne bottle with “Brexit Bollinger” written on it – though the liquid burns through his clothes like acid. In the cartoon, Johnson shows a victory sign while saying: “Now is not the beginning, it is not even the end of the beginning, but it is, perhaps, the beginning of the end” a reference to Churchill’s “Their Finest Hour” speech (18th June 1940, correct wording: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”).

In a contrasting view, The Sunday Telegraph generally visualises the Prime Minister’s handling of the vaccine rollout positively, sometimes also directly criticising the EU at the same time. For example, the cartoon “Ahoy” (TST, 07/02/2021) shows Mr Johnson driving a speedboat with vaccine doses, rapidly passing the SS Ursula of Brussels sitting at anchor. However, just one month earlier, this cartoonist criticised the slow rollout of vaccination in the UK (TST, 03/01/2021) depicting Johnson on the phone leaning against a van labelled Johnson’s vaccine supplies and saying “Yeah, yeah … moving heaven and earth but we can’t get the supplies”. However, just behind the apparently empty van is a depot filled with vaccines. Nevertheless, in general, securing vaccine doses in the UK before other European countries was shown by The Sunday Telegraph as a direct benefit of Brexit, and Boris Johnson was depicted as the person responsible for both events. In these scenarios, European politicians were depicted as “losers” in comparison, hence reinforcing the Brexit values. For example, a cartoon published in The Sunday Telegraph (TST, 31/01/2021) criticised the EU, personified by Ursula Von der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron, for their U-turn after trying to control vaccine exports between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

In The Sunday Telegraph, the vaccine rollout was also associated with the easing of restrictions, the end of lockdowns and the return to normal life. In a cartoon by Davey, Boris Johnson was depicted running toward a closed pub with the keys while keeping the COVID-19 virus at distance with the help of the vaccine (TST, 16/05/21). The cartoon represents the vaccine rollout – promoted by the Prime Minister – as the means to defeat the virus and “return to freedom”.

Australian Case Study

Australian cartoons from The Sydney Morning Herald often criticised the handling of the pandemic regulations by the Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Depictions of the Prime Minister were altogether negative, with a focus on failure regarding the economy and bringing the Australian states together on COVID-19 policy. Essentially the Australian states were represented as ignoring the Prime Minister’s calls to reopen, instead shutting their borders, as well as instituting various lockdown restrictions (SMH, 02/01/21).

The Weekend Australian, the conservative paper, focused on criticising a range of Australian politicians from left-leaning parties, particularly left-leaning state premiers who aligned strongly with their medical advisors to keep state borders closed. For example, Figure 4 depicts the Premier of the state of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk with the state’s Chief Medical Officer, Jeannette Young in May 2020 physically holding the border closed despite mounting pressure from southern visitors, represented by the travelling caravans wanting to enter Queensland. Reference to two full incubation periods in the embedded text points to a common misunderstanding of how long lockdowns would need to be to effectively limit the spread of disease (with infection numbers often taking much longer to reduce). This cartoon also represents the damage of lockdowns to the hospitality and tourism sectors, in this case represented by “ghouls” dressed as hospitality and tourism workers clambering at the platform on which the political leaders sit. The Weekend Australian cartoons were particularly critical of Dan Andrews, the Premier of the state of Victoria who is portrayed as a Communist leader or dictator in military-style fatigues with a red star on his hat (e.g., TWA, 18/07/2020). The capital of Victoria (Melbourne) is reported to have had the longest COVID-19 lockdown in the world.

Figure 4. “Qld Border” by Johannes Leak, The Weekend Australian, 23 May 2020. Reproduced with permission from Johannes Leak and The Australian.

The Sydney Morning Herald cartoonist focused particularly on the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berjerklian who is portrayed ambivalently in managing to keep things together, by holding up crumbling architecture that is labelled as COVID-19 policies (SMH, 08/08/20) or dodging and juggling COVID-19 along with other political “landmines” (SMH, 22/05/21). But by June 2021, Berjerklian was represented in The Weekend Australian for refusing to mandate a lockdown under pressure of economic interests, while still encouraging people to stay home. In this cartoon she is depicted driving the streets of Sydney in a car with a loudspeaker and urging people to stay home to avoid a lockdown (SMH, 28/06/21).

In striking contrast to South Africa and the UK, the nation’s relationship with China was a prominent feature of COVID-19 reporting; seven of the cartoons in the Australian set had a focus on China. As discussed, some cartoons specifically referenced the COVID-19 origin story – political accusations that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese laboratory. One cartoon specifically made the connection between Australian political accusations and those made by Trump. The cartoon depicts two people, one holding up a newspaper with the headline, “Trump: Blame China” and the other person in a mask. The person holding the headline points to the newspaper and says, “How dare that dumb, orange-skinned, red-necked narcissistic seppo insult the Chinese like that!!?” (TWA, 21/03/20). Some cartoons focused specifically on economic sanctions imposed by China upon Australia (e.g., Figure 5). While COVID-19 was a secondary theme in some of these cartoons, they depict Australia’s eroding relationship with China, which was thought to arise from political accusations related to COVID-19 and criticism about China’s human rights abuses. For example, in late 2020, China imposed trade restrictions on Australian products including rock lobsters, cotton, wine, barley, timber and coal. Rock lobster was extremely cheap for Australians to purchase for a time over the Christmas holiday period as producers searched for alternative markets, as presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. “China” by Johannes Leak, The Weekend Australian, 26 December 2020. Reproduced with permission from Johannes Leak and The Australian.

South African Case Study

One of the key differences between South Africa and the other countries included in this study relates to the dire socio-economic conditions in the country (high levels of poverty, unemployment and crime), combined with rampant government corruption and concerns over police brutality (as already noted). These concerns were all heightened by the pandemic and captured in our cartoon dataset.

The devastating impact of corruption is highlighted in several cartoons by Dr Jack and Curtis in the City Press. One depicts “stats” on COVID-19 in South Africa, but the numbers are about corruption and associated losses, adding that poor black people were most threatened by this (CP, 09/08/20). Dr Jack and Curtis also captures the unscrupulous looting of scarce pandemic relief funds in a cartoon portraying corrupt officials as hyenas who are quick to steal while politicians are fumbling (Figure 6; CP, 24/04/20). President Cyril Ramaphosa is seen struggling to get his face mask on, referring to an incident that happened during one of his televised “family meetings” with South Africans. Another City Press cartoon by Dr Jack and Curtis highlights the dire (often fatal) consequences of COVID-19 corruption by depicting a healthcare worker with a deceased patient. The healthcare worker is listening to a radio report about how profiteers and crooked officials have been making a killing during the pandemic, adding that this is “literally” true (CP, 26/07/20).

Figure 6. “Quick!” by Dr Jack and Curtis (CP, 24/04/20). Reproduced with permission from John Curtis.

We also see how corruption concerns intensified over the course of the pandemic. Early during the pandemic, the Sunday Times cartoonist Brandan presented an optimistic cartoon (Figure 7; ST, 22/03/20) picturing South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and (then) health minister Zweli Mkhize as working together effectively to balance economic concerns with the pandemic response. A bit more than a year later, Brandan features Mkhize again (Figure 8; ST 31/05/21), but this time he is linked to the so-called “Digital Vibes” scandal where Mkhize was accused of influencing the awarding of lucrative contracts to do with public communication about the vaccine rollout to friends and family members. Holding a syringe in the air, Mkhize states that “Phase one of this rollout is exclusively for cronies and former colleagues”.

Figure 7. “On the ball” by Brandan, Sunday Times (22/03/2020). Reproduced with permission from Brandan Reynolds.

Figure 8. “Digital Vibes”, by Brandan, Sunday Times (31/05/21). Reproduced with permission from Brandan Reynolds.

Another unique feature of the strict lockdown period in South Africa, was a total government ban on selling any alcohol or tobacco products. During the same period, the government released many prisoners in an attempt to reduce overcrowding in South African prisons. Dr Jack and Curtis captured this irony in a City Press cartoon (Figure 9; CP 10/05/2020) showing an overjoyed prisoner going free, while cigarettes and beer remained “behind bars”.

Figure 9. “Free at last (for some)” by Dr Jack and Curtis, City Press (10/05/2020). Reproduced with permission from John Curtis.

Discussion

Our exploration of the representations of politicians and scientists in editorial cartoons covering the pandemic illustrates the ways in which cartoons reinforce existing narratives. Cartoonists summarised key events and criticised political leaders, but they did not provide the information necessary for the public to take socially beneficial action. Our findings indicate that editorial cartoonists largely adopted a media “watchdog” role, by drawing attention to political failings, and sometimes acting as advocates for particular ideas. In many ways, cartoonists were speaking truth to power as and where they observed injustices or abuses of power, an important function of newspaper cartoons highlighted by Haffajee (2008). However, editorial cartoonists did not adopt other roles observed in science journalism (Fahy and Nisbet 2011), such as civic educator or conduits for public health information. Even in the context of a global pandemic, editorial cartoonists did not extend their role beyond that of commentators on contemporary issues (Gombrich 1960; Greenberg 2002).

Our study also highlights key similarities and differences in the COVID-19 discourse created by editorial cartoonists in Australian, South Africa and the UK. One striking similarity was the dominance of politics and politicians, a finding similar to studies of early news reporting of the pandemic (Hart, Chinn, and Soroka 2020; Tejedor et al. 2020). As with these studies of journalistic reporting, we find few depictions of scientists within our data set, indicating that newspapers provided an information diet focused on the politics of COVID-19 at the expense of examining the scientific rationale for decision-making (despite government calls to “follow the science”). Where we do find scientists illustrated, they are shown either as oppositional figures (promoting unpopular actions, such as lockdowns), as a cause of the pandemic or as failing to act. For example, a cartoon from the UK shows scientists moving a goal post behind then prime minister Boris Johnson (TST, 06/06/21), thereby preventing him from lifting social restrictions. Such framing pits scientists against freedoms highly valued in Western societies a finding mirrored in other forms of journalism (e.g., Zhang 2021) and one which suggests a broader concern around the role of media in helping publics to make sense of a public health issue. Rather than support the public to make sense of the extraordinary events through which they lived, editorial cartoons, like many other forms of journalism, reflected back public sentiment and social attitudes.

Similarly, the Australian cartoon pitting a scientist against protesters (TWA, 13/06/20) although it criticises society/individuals for acting irrationally, portrays competing value systems between science and society. In this cartoon, science/scientists promote actions to reduce the spread of contagion, which are directly in conflict with public desires. As in Zhang’s study of news coverage, we failed to find any examples of cartoonists reflecting on the efficacy or rationale for lockdowns or mobilising any scientific evidence to support such restrictions. This suggests some surprising similarities between the hard news and opinion pages during this time, which may have contributed to a public information vacuum – one which could be filled by misinformation propagated online (Nielsen et al. 2020). This failure to consider underpinning science may also limit cartoonists’ ability to help the public make sense of key issues, such as the pandemic or climate change. By representing scientists as oppositional figures, cartoonists create conflict between scientists and politicians – and in some cases wider society (Hart and Feldman 2014; Scheufele 2013) and question scientific authority (Bolsen, Druckman, and Cook 2014). These findings resonate with an earlier study highlighting how editorial cartoonists in South Africa criticised the actions and attitudes of political leaders during the Aids crisis, particularly targeting those whose policies and attitudes had a direct effect on the course of this epidemic (Horne 2011; Wigston 2002).

Previous work on the roles of science journalists suggests they often take on roles as cheerleaders, taking an uncritical approach to science coverage (Franks et al. 2022). A study of syndicated cartoons during the early months of the pandemic also suggests that some cartoonists acted as cheerleaders for political decisions taken at the time (Baumgartner and Kassab 2022). In contrast, our study indicates that editorial cartoonists often criticised political leaders and scientists, pitting them against each other in quite simplistic ways. Readers were then left to draw their own conclusions about the appropriateness of social restrictions, without being provided any evidence from which to make those judgements.

Uniquely in the Australian data set are a set of cartoons that tap into theories about the origins of COVID-19, focusing on a theory that the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan. These cartoons fit into the broader Australian discourse around the relationship between the two countries, offering an opportunity for cartoonists to reflect on Australia’s criticism of their larger neighbour. This issue fits an ongoing political narrative (Pielke 2007), in this case one of accusation and distrust and co-opts scientific imagery to make political points, rather than helping the public to better understand the scientific issues. Thus, science merges with political narratives in ways that obscure scientific evidence.

In South Africa, the single cartoon illustrating an identifiable scientist focuses on collusion between science and government to the detriment of society. Here, the scientist is seen alongside politicians as failing to act swiftly to roll out a vaccination programme (Figure 2; CP, 31/10/21). Blame is shared here between scientists and politicians, extending our understanding of how blame plays out in editorial cartoons (Labbé et al., 2022). Blame aligns with critiques of government competence in the UK and wider discourses around corruption in South Africa that emerge in the cartoon data set. Blame, sometimes in the context of spreading misinformation, also emerges in the adoption of former President Donald Trump as a scapegoat in all three countries, suggesting new ways in which blame, competence and corruption coalesce in representations of the pandemic. Although each country has its distinct flavour, issues of blame and competence feature in all three countries, while the related issues of corruption (South Africa) and sleaze (South Africa and UK) are also apparent.

Beyond the specific portrayal of science or scientists, our data point to a pandemic discourse in editorial cartoons that is highly politicised. The pandemic becomes yet one more item in the armoury that cartoonists use to criticise (or support) leadership and government actions; that is, the pandemic becomes a tool to promote particular political positions (Pielke 2007). By framing the pandemic in the context of national concerns – Brexit in the UK, corruption in South Africa and state government rights and trade relationships with China in Australia – it merges with ongoing national battlefields and becomes a way to highlight competing value systems (Scheufele 2013), as well as to provoke public outrage. This is perhaps most starkly evident in the way that the cartoonist Chris Riddell at the Observer mobilises the pandemic in his war on Brexit and South African cartoonists highlight the shameless looting of scarce COVID-19 relief funds in South Africa. In some senses, cartoonists are also simplifying these complex political and social issues, presenting something easily recognisable by the public (Silaški and Đurović 2019).

Limitations

This study explored editorial cartoons across three countries, but we were only able to examine cartoons from two newspapers in each country and we only collected cartoons from the weekend editions. The choice of the weekend papers allowed us to focus on cartoons that captured the zeitgeist of the week, rather than the daily ups and downs of the pandemic. However, it would certainly be useful to investigate differences between daily and weekend editorial cartoonists. In choosing two newspapers from each country, we sought to select papers representing different political spectra (conservative and liberal papers), which was relatively successful in revealing patterns of difference, but by focusing on only two papers in each country we necessarily have a more limited pool of cartoonists within our data set. Cartoonists focus on the issues most salient to them, as is clear from the repeated focus on Brexit within the Observer cartoons, and they are informed by their conceptual schemata (Gombrich 1960; 1972). Thus, the limited number of individuals in our sample means we have necessarily captured a somewhat restricted view of depictions of the pandemic. Including a wider range of cartoonists would likely yield somewhat different results, however we believe that we have captured the general editorial stance of the cartoonists and the newspapers that support them. Finally, this is a study of editorial content and not editorial intention. We have interpreted the content of cartoons through discussion amongst the research team and without recourse to the individual cartoonists. Conducting interviews with these cartoonists would shed light on their motivations and intentions, providing greater insight into why they focused on the topics they did.

Conclusions

We set out to investigate how cultural, political and editorial contexts are reflected in COVID-19 discourse in editorial cartoons published in Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Our data suggest that editorial cartoonists largely focused on political responses to the pandemic, often as a means of criticising leadership. While they may include science and scientists, responses to all actors and issues were highly politicised, with scientists often portrayed in opposition to politicians. Cartoonists failed to address the rationale for, or indeed efficacy of, restrictions placed on society to tackle COVID-19, instead focusing on conflicts arising from the restrictions. Thus, cartoonists contributed to a highly politicised debate but did not offer readers evidence that would help them make sense of their social and political reality at the time.

Politicians are illustrated as juggling, dodging or running away from the impacts of restrictions, such as lockdowns, and in this way cartoonists critique political decision making. However, by pitting scientists in oppositional roles, cartoonists also subtly suggest conflicts between the values of scientists, politicians and society. Further, as our case studies show, these narratives are embedded in wider political and cultural contexts giving a unique national flavour to the responses of editorial cartoonists to the pandemic, supporting prior research that points to the importance of understanding the socio-political (as well as cultural) context of the time in which cartoons are produced. While some imagery transcended international boundaries, other elements, such as the difficult relationship between Australia and China, might not be understood by readers unfamiliar with that specific socio-political context. Thus, our study illustrates the way that cartoons reflect and critique public sentiment, policy responses and social attitudes towards events; thus, the study serves as a historical record, which captures the mood and issues apparent during the pandemic.

Finally, our study adds to prior research on the ways in which editorial cartoonists have engaged with scientific themes, highlighting their role in shaping the public discourse around COVID-19 and how scientists are represented in (or indeed absent from) cartoons in times of global health crisis. Our study is particularly relevant to researchers interested in journalistic coverage of complex, science-related issues, because it provides a snapshot of the period and how society grappled with the uncertainties of the pandemic, including leadership, fears and hopes and how humour was used as a coping mechanism in different national contexts. Future researchers will be able to relate our findings to the challenges of their time. Further, as we have shown, editorial cartoons incorporate specific cultural references and national concerns that make them invaluable for understanding how different cultures interpreted and responded to the pandemic (both in terms of practical responses and public sentiment). This study, thus, makes an important contribution to comparative media studies.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Alice Steiner, Liaison Librarian at the Queensland University of Technology for assistance with sourcing Australian cartoons included in this study.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).