In the early 1980s, roughly 2,000 full-time editorial cartoonists worked at US newspapers. Today, that number has collapsed to fewer than 50. The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune have all eliminated or drastically reduced their cartoonist positions since 2015. The syndicates that once spread a single cartoon to hundreds of papers have shrunk their rosters. The profession that helped bring down Boss Tweed and defined American political satire for over a century is now on life support.
But the economic forces that killed the staff cartoonist don’t reflect the value these artists still provide. In an era of information overload and political polarization, a single, sharp image can cut through the noise in a way that a 2,000-word essay cannot. The cartoonist’s craft is not a luxury – it’s a civic necessity. As the space shrinks, we’re losing more than just a few drawings in the back pages; we’re losing a unique form of democratic accountability.
The Numbers Tell a Stark Story
The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists reports that the number of full-time editorial cartoonists at US newspapers has fallen from about 2,000 in the early 1980s to fewer than 50 today. That’s a 97.5% decline. The losses aren’t isolated to small papers – the biggest names in journalism have abandoned the craft. Since 2015, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune have either eliminated their staff cartoonist positions or drastically reduced their use of political cartoons.
Syndication, the economic engine that once made cartooning viable, has also faltered. Major syndicates like Tribune Content Agency and Andrews McMeel have dramatically cut their political cartoon rosters, relying instead on a small stable of freelancers. As of 2024, only a handful of daily newspapers still employ a dedicated staff editorial cartoonist – The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Austin American-Statesman are among the few.
What Killed the Cartoonist?
The primary culprit is money. Print advertising revenue has fallen by roughly 70% since 2005, and newspapers have responded by cutting what they view as non-essential positions. Cartoonists were often seen as a “luxury” – a nice-to-have rather than a necessity.
The digital shift compounded the problem. Online readership doesn’t generate the same per-reader revenue as print subscriptions, and cartoons are easily shared – or stolen – online without payment. The syndication model, which once sold the same cartoon to hundreds of papers, collapsed as fewer papers remained in the market. With per-cartoon revenue plummeting, the profession became financially unsustainable for many artists.
A Historical Role Worth Remembering
Political cartoons have been a staple of democratic discourse since Benjamin Franklin’s “Join or Die” in 1754. They distill complex political issues into a single, visceral image that can be understood at a glance. In the late 19th century, Thomas Nast’s cartoons brought down Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall – a feat that cemented the cartoonist’s role as a democratic watchdog.
From the 1920s through the 1990s, nearly every major newspaper had a staff cartoonist. Cartoons were a point of identity and readership loyalty. People clipped them and passed them around, making them one of the most shareable formats in the pre-digital era. The economics worked because a successful cartoonist could be syndicated to 100+ papers, generating income that allowed newspapers to pay the artist a salary.
The internet broke that scarcity model. Cartoons, once scarce and valuable, became infinitely reproducible and freely shareable. Newspapers lost the ability to monetize them. In the attention economy, cartoons now compete with memes, GIFs, and video clips – and the satirical function they once served has been partly absorbed by social media humor and late-night TV monologues.
The Case for Keeping Cartoonists
Newspaper executives argue that cartoons don’t drive subscriptions or ad revenue in the digital age. They’re a discretionary expense, not a necessity. But this view misses the bigger picture. Cartoons are a low-cost, high-engagement format. They generate social media shares and brand identity. Cutting them saves little but loses a distinctive voice.
More importantly, cartoonists hold a unique position in journalism. They can say things in images that journalists cannot say in words. They are the court jesters who speak truth to power. When cartoonists lose staff positions, they become more vulnerable to pressure. A freelance cartoonist who depends on a single outlet for income is less likely to bite the hand that feeds them. The chilling effect is real.
The craft itself is also under threat. Editorial cartooning requires a unique combination of drawing skill, political knowledge, and wit. It takes years to develop. The loss of staff positions means fewer young artists are entering the field, and the pipeline of talent is drying up.
How Cartoonists Are Surviving
Despite the grim numbers, cartooning isn’t dead – it’s adapting. Surviving cartoonists increasingly work freelance, rely on Patreon or Substack, sell original art, or combine cartooning with teaching, illustration, or other work. A new generation publishes primarily on social media platforms like Twitter/X and Instagram, or on digital outlets like Cartoon Movement. The Nib, a digital publication that championed political cartoons, shut down in 2023, but its legacy lives on in the work of its contributors.
Internationally, the picture is more hopeful. In Europe – especially France, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia – political cartooning remains more robust, often supported by state subsidies or stronger newspaper subscription cultures. This contrast suggests that the decline isn’t inevitable; it’s a matter of priorities.
What We Lose When Cartoonists Fade
When a cartoonist is cut, we don’t just lose a drawing. We lose a form of public reasoning that is irreplaceable. Cartoons make complex issues accessible. They provoke laughter and thought in equal measure. They hold power to account in a way that words alone cannot.
Consider the iconic cartoons that have defined eras: the “Join or Die” snake, Nast’s Tammany Tiger, Herblock’s depictions of McCarthyism. These images have outlasted the articles that accompanied them. They’ve become part of our collective memory. The shrinking space for political cartoons isn’t just an economic story – it’s a cultural and democratic loss.
As the brief notes, when cartoonists lose staff positions, they become more vulnerable to pressure. A cartoonist who relies on a single outlet for income is less likely to criticize that outlet’s advertisers or owners. The independence that made the profession valuable is eroded.
The Way Forward
There’s no easy solution, but there are models to learn from. European countries demonstrate that public support can sustain the craft. Digital platforms show that audiences will follow cartoonists directly. Patreon and Substack offer a path for artists to earn a living without a newspaper’s blessing.
Newspapers that still employ cartoonists – like The Boston Globe and The Philadelphia Inquirer – prove that the format still works. They’ve integrated cartoons into their digital strategy, using them to drive social engagement. The question is whether more outlets will follow their lead, or whether the staff cartoonist will become a relic of a bygone era.
The Bottom Line
Political cartoons are not a luxury. They are a form of democratic accountability that has served the public for centuries. The economic pressures that have decimated the profession are real, but so is the value these artists provide. As the space shrinks, we need to find new ways to support the craft – not just for the sake of tradition, but for the health of our democracy.
The decline of the staff political cartoonist is a loss we can’t afford to ignore. These artists have been the court jesters of democracy, using humor and sharp lines to expose hypocrisy and hold the powerful to account. The economics have changed, but the need hasn’t. Whether through new funding models, digital platforms, or renewed commitment from newspapers, we need to ensure that the political cartoonist doesn’t become a footnote in history. The next Thomas Nast might be out there, but without a space to publish, we’ll never see their work.
Summary
- The number of full-time editorial cartoonists at US newspapers has fallen from ~2,000 in the early 1980s to fewer than 50 today.
- Major papers like the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune have cut cartoonist positions since 2015.
- The primary drivers are declining print ad revenue and the collapse of syndication economics.
- Cartoonists are adapting via freelance, Patreon, Substack, and social media, but the craft is threatened.
- Political cartoons are a unique democratic check on power, and their loss is a civic concern, not just an economic one.
FAQ
Q: Why have newspapers cut political cartoonist positions?
A: The main reason is financial. Print advertising revenue has dropped ~70% since 2005, and syndication income has collapsed as fewer papers buy cartoons. Executives see cartoonists as non-essential “luxury” staff.
Q: Are there any staff cartoonists left at US newspapers?
A: Yes, but very few. As of 2024, only a handful of daily papers employ a dedicated staff cartoonist, including The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Austin American-Statesman.
Q: How are political cartoonists making a living now?
A: Many work freelance, rely on Patreon or Substack subscriptions, sell original art, or combine cartooning with teaching or illustration. Some publish directly on social media platforms.
Q: Why are political cartoons considered important for democracy?
A: Cartoons distill complex issues into a single, visceral image, making them accessible to a broad audience. They can say things in images that journalists can’t say in words, acting as a check on power and a voice for the public.
Q: Is the decline of political cartooning happening in other countries too?
A: The decline is more pronounced in the US. In Europe, especially France, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, political cartooning remains more robust, often supported by state subsidies or stronger newspaper subscription cultures.