We talk a lot about having the freedom to criticize those in power (and being rich does give you outsized influence and power in the US). But it’s important to test that assertion regularly, otherwise it is just propaganda.

If you cannot publish a cartoon criticizing someone in power, then we do not actually have a free press, no matter what the constitution or the people say. It is the act of testing the assertions without reprisal that grants us the freedom, not the act of simply asserting we have it.

So yes - if one of our foundational freedoms is that the press should be able to ‘bite the hand’ without consequences, that’s exactly what we should expect when someone tests that assertion and we should be uneasy when that isn’t the result.

It depends on whether you think you have a job, rights, or a king.

Part of being a journalist and a cartoonist is being able to speak truth to power. It’s inherent in the duties going with the job.

So it’s not obvious, no.

Perhaps the cartoonist thought it pretty obvious too, yet felt moved to act as she did. If you think keeping your job comes before everything else you are not weird, but might be wrong. At least your opinion might not be universally held.