Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The Madcap History of Mad Magazine Will Unleash Your Inner Class Clown

News Feed
Tuesday, September 17, 2024

In March 1976, a great American portrait debuted to an adoring public. It was a bicentennial appreciation of George Washington … of a sort. Inspired by The Athenaeum Portrait, Gilbert Stuart’s 1796 painting featured on the one-dollar bill, this rendering of the first president featured one distinction. The original showed Washington with swollen, tightly closed lips due to a new set of ill-fitting dentures, while the 1976 version had a gap-toothed smirk instantly recognizable to America’s middle school reprobates. Equally recognizable was the blank stare that those same kids knew evoked the iconic question: “What, Me Worry?” Drawn by 80-year-old illustrator Norman Mingo, Mad magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman graced the cover of Issue No. 181 in a glorious powdered wig. It’s one of 275 original drawings—alongside 150 physical objects—on display in “What, Me Worry? The Art and Humor of Mad Magazine,” an exhibition running through October 27 at the Norman Rockwell Museum in western Massachusetts. It covers the full 72-year history of Mad, highlighted by the stretch from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, when the magazine pilloried mass culture—television, movies, politics and more—in a way that introduced satire to kids raised on tamer entertainment like “Leave It to Beaver.” Nothing was off-limits in Mad, a newsstand stalwart that would reach peak annual sales in the 1970s of 2.5 million issues by delivering belly laughs and self-satisfaction to America’s class clowns through cartoons, parodies, sarcastic characters and an unending stream of gross-out gags. Mad gave mainstream American teenagers license to thumb their nose at institutions in a way that had never really happened on a mass scale, a seismic change that would have a huge influence on pop culture through the likes of “Saturday Night Live,” David Letterman, Conan O’Brien and “Family Guy.” On a sunny August afternoon, I spent a few hours slowly wandering throughout the five galleries, reveling in the Mad days of my youth. At 53, I grew up falling in love with the magazine during the last years of its self-described “classic era.” Looking at all the amazing artwork, particularly the movie drawings of “The Odd Father” and “Jaw’d” by the legendary caricaturist Mort Drucker, took me back to the way-way-facing-the-rear-window-back of an Oldsmobile station wagon. In our family, Mad was strictly a road trip treat. Being immersed in all things Mad in the summer of 2024 transported me to 1980, thumbing through issues with my brothers while listening to Billy Joel and Queen on a battery-powered single-speaker eight-track player loop for the long trip from Montana to Los Angeles. In this illustration for Mad magazine #155 from 1972, cartoonist Mort Drucker sent up the massive hit The Godfather.  MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. Used with permission from Norman Rockwell Museum And I’m hardly alone in my adoration. The Tuesday I visited the museum was crowded, with more than a few tie-dyed gray-hairs audibly laughing at the subversive spreads once hidden under their mattresses. The exhibition is the best kind of memory lane stroll, one that thrilled co-curator Steve Brodner, who came of age in the magazine’s heyday. “In the period before puberty hits, you start to get an awareness of yourself in the world, and for kids wired a certain way you start questioning parents, teachers, other adults, and that’s what Mad did: It showed how important it was to be skeptical of institutions and so-called authority figures of all kinds,” says Brodner, whose own satirical art has appeared in a variety of publications over the last 50 years. “Mad was a cultural earthquake. It engaged us to consume newspapers, movies, political speeches, advertising, books and so on differently.” “It was the first place that told me, ‘This is a load of crap they are trying to sell you for their own self-interest, and you don’t have to buy it.’ Mad was encouraging what we now call critical thinking, which is a dangerous thing,” he adds. The antihero’s origin story Mad magazine had its beginnings in 1947, when publisher Maxwell Gaines’ death in an upstate New York boating accident left his Educational Comics company to his 25-year-old son, William Gaines. Under Maxwell, the comics featured stories of science, animals, history and Picture Stories From the Bible. When William took over, he quickly shifted gears to “Entertaining Comics” (EC for short) and started publishing romance, westerns, science fiction, war and horror stories, most notably Tales From the Crypt. Gaines the younger had more than laughs and frights on his mind, however; woven into EC Comics were progressive ideals around racial equality, pacifism, environmentalism and the existential nuclear-age dread rarely spoken of in the placid, conformist 1950s. In 1952, a comic book poking fun at other comic books debuted, but it would take four issues for Tales Calculated to Drive You MAD to take off. That fourth one featured the parody “Superduperman,” a blueprint for making hay of pop culture and politics. Amid a panic over youth corruption, inspired in part by EC’s other publications, editor Harvey Kurtzman convinced Gaines to retool Mad from a comic book into a magazine, and in July 1955 (Issue No. 24), a future mockery machine emerged. Mad quickly found an audience, which prompted Kurtzman to ask Gaines for majority ownership in the company. Denied, Kurtzman took his small stable of talent with him to launch a short-lived competitor. Undeterred, Gaines installed EC Comics veteran Al Feldstein as editor, a position he would hold for 29 years. Feldstein’s 2014 New York Times obituary described him as the guiding spirit who “gave Mad its identity as a smart-alecky, sniggering and indisputably clever spitball-shooter of a publication with a scattershot look.” Feldstein filled out the roster of artists and writers; the full-time staff was small, often just a half-dozen people give or take, so nearly every contributor worked freelance. Gaines paid good rates, and for freelancers, Mad was a steady side gig—plus, they could work from home, which was unique for the time. As publisher, Gaines created a hands-off atmosphere that let his creative team of artists’ freak flags fly. Mort Drucker was a Mad magazine legend, drawing illustrations for the publication for decades. Courtesy of the Normal Rockwell Museum “There were no rules at Mad. Everyone wrote whatever they wanted. Now whether it was accepted was a different thing, but [Gaines] left us to our own cockamamie ideas,” says Dick DeBartolo (aka “Mad’s Maddest Writer”), who successfully submitted in 1962 as a 17-year-old high schooler and went on to be featured in every issue for over 50 years. “I sent in a self-addressed stamped envelope, and six weeks later I received a piece of cardboard with a $100 check stapled to it with a note: ‘Thought your story was being returned?’” From its earliest days, Mad was steeped in a New York Jewish sensibility (the original Neuman is certainly in the “Seinfeld” DNA), so Gothamites would drop their work off at the Midtown Manhattan offices, but submissions came from all over the country. Writers and illustrators also didn’t work together. DeBartolo wrote movie parodies as actual screenplays, which were then sent to the artists. “[Gaines] was a father figure to a bunch of kids, sometimes delinquent, who created an atmosphere for artists and writers to thrive,” says DeBartolo. “All he cared about was that the magazine was funny. His approach is the reason Mad took off.” What it added up to was a publication put out eight times a year—Gaines thought some months, like near the start of school, would be bad for sales—that didn’t have the conformity of something put together by a staff forced to attend all those boring meetings. There were, of course, plenty of recurring features and characters, but page-to-page, the humor and style matched the whims of the talent and kept Mad from getting stale. “The movie parodies were more than humorous versions of the films—they were often analytical and critical deconstructions of huge box-office hits. Roger Ebert wrote an introduction to one of our collections and said, ‘I learned to be a movie critic by reading Mad magazine,’” says illustrator Sam Viviano, who made his Mad debut in 1981 with a J.R. Ewing-Alfred E. Neuman mashup cover and would go on to serve as art director. “Going back decades, Mad had fake ads hammering the tobacco industry and how awful cigarettes were, which came after Gaines quit and a lot of contributors followed suit. They were ahead of the times, saying, ‘Don’t believe what you’re told about smoking: It’s gross, harmful and certainly doesn’t make you look pretty,’ in hilarious fashion.” Cover illustration for Mad magazine No. 223, June 1981 MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission from Norman Rockwell Museum It was a Mad, Mad, Mad magazine world One of the most important, and beloved, magazine elements made its debut in April 1964, Issue No. 86, the one with the “Alfred of Arabia” cover: the “fold-in” back cover. Cartoonist Al Jaffee’s signature stroke of brilliance turned the Playboy centerfold inside-out. The “fold-in” required doing just that to the inside back cover, which Gaines loved because he thought diehards would buy two copies: one destroyed, the other kept pristine. Jaffee’s first effort, the first of 33 in black and white, was constructed around the torrid Liz Taylor-Richard Burton affair. The fold-ins went color in 1968, and Jaffee cranked them out until 2020, when he retired at the age of 99, having contributed to 500 of the 550 Mad issues overall. The Rockwell Museum exhibition covers the introduction of the fold-in, as well as other memorable regular features in the magazine’s pages. A “part leering wiseacre, part happy-go-lucky kid” was Kurtzman’s description of the nameless character whose first prominent appearance came in April 1956 (Issue No. 27). In December of that year, after Feldstein christened him Alfred E. Neuman, he appeared on the Mingo-drawn cover of Issue No. 30 as a write-in candidate for president, and he’s run in every election since. Similar looking gap-toothed imps had appeared in advertisements, playbills and elsewhere over the years, and a lawsuit filed by the widow of cartoonist Harry Spencer Stuff claiming Neuman had been copied from her husband’s cartoon, “the Original Optimist,” known as “Me-worry?” went nowhere. And by that time, Neuman had become synonymous with Mad. This Al Jaffee fold-in, "What Simple Pastime is Becoming a Luxury that Many Americans Can No Longer Afford?" appeared in issue #172 in 1979. Collection of Dr. Louis Kaminester MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission by Norman Rockwell Museum Another beloved feature came from the pen of Cuban artist Antonio Prohías. Forced to flee his native country after his cartoons took aim at Fidel Castro’s totalitarianism and he was accused of working for the CIA, Prohías would get his venganza in January 1961 (Issue No. 60), when he sold three drawings for $800. The world now knew the wordless Cold War enemies of espionage, the Black Spy and the White Spy, two interchangeable spooks hellbent on destroying one another. (The two were joined sporadically in the early years by the female Gray Spy, who didn’t have the face and beak of a crow and always outwitted her male counterparts.) Using a Morse code byline for “By Prohías,” the artist contributed 241 “Spy vs. Spy” cartoons, up until 1987, when the pen was handed off to other artists to keep the dynamite duo alive. Prohías died in Miami in 1998, knowing full well, as he told the Miami Herald 15 years prior, “The sweetest revenge has been to turn Fidel’s accusation of me as a spy into a money-making venture.” In October 1961 (Issue No. 66), another long-running staple debuted with Dave Berg’s “The Lighter Side of the Television Set.” These pieces were often sendups of the then-burgeoning suburban lifestyle: office life, parties, winter, Little League baseball, hippies, sex, shopping and so on. Berg, who also created bumbling, cranky, pipe-smoking, hypochondriac alter-ego Roger Kaputnik, would end up writing for 46 years, penning “The Lighter Side of …” for 365 issues before his death in 2002. Two reasons Mad had so many lifers were their personal loyalty to Gaines and their love of his lavish trips. Gaines was stingy with raises but generous with a huge perk: taking the staff and regular freelance contributors on elaborate vacations all over the globe. The first trip, taken in 1960 after hitting the million mark in sales, was to Haiti. It included a stop at the home of the island’s one lapsed subscriber. Gaines loaded up the crew in five jeeps, and they all got on their knees on his front lawn as the man received a renewal card. A neighbor saw the commotion and came over to check it out. Gaines proudly announced that they doubled their Haitian subscriber base. What began as weeklong trips to tropical islands grew into full-on multiweek adventures—eventually with spouses and partners—to Japan, France, Russia and Kenya. These weren’t really work trips, either; it was all for fun, excitement, jokes (presumably plenty that wouldn’t fly today), and so much food and drink, as Gaines had a major gourmand’s appetite and the build to match. “I went on my first trip in 1987, excited to go to Switzerland and Paris, but nervous I would have to sit at the kid’s table because these guys had been working together, and taking these vacations together, for a long time. But they embraced me with no hesitation, and I became a Mad guy for life,” says Viviano. “Gaines really was the Big Daddy, but he never forgot his roots. Well into the 1980s, he was still running it like a mom and pop comic books shop, using an old-fashioned check-writing machine. Anything to keep it from feeling corporate. DeBartolo pointed out Gaines had the clause that he ‘had the right to be unreasonable’ written into every contract, because nobody read them anyway.” “Raiders of a Lost Art” Gaines’ death in 1992, at the age of 70, was the beginning of Mad’s long, slow decline. DeBartolo says it wasn’t long before the “suits” came in and started cleaning up the place, starting with all the original art on the walls, which he thinks they sold for a couple million dollars. Gone were the days of white wine in the water cooler and a massive King Kong head hidden behind blinds in the boss’s office. After the mid-1970s, circulation dropped precipitously, down to 208,000 in 2001 when the magazine switched to color and started taking real advertisements. In 2017, Mad’s corporate owner, DC Comics, moved the offices to Burbank, California. Pay rates were cut, and none of the aging New Yorkers were interested in making a West Coast go of it. Six issues were published that year, but in 2019, after 67 years, Mad issues with original content were officially kaput. Originally conceived by Cuban dissident Antonio Prohías, "Spy vs. Spy" became yet another hallmark of Mad magazine, with two dueling characters finding inventive ways to one-up each other. Here, artist Peter Kuper with a version that appeared in a 2007 issue of Mad. Collection of the artist. MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission. Technically, Mad is still being published, but it’s recycled material from the glory days with a new fold-in and cover. It’s a niche’s niche now, and kids like Bart Simpson who dreamed of meeting their Mad idols were left in the last century. (To wit, I sent my 13-year-old Swiftie daughter a postcard from the exhibition of the April 2024 issue featuring Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce to her sleepaway camp. She said nobody in the cabin had ever heard of Mad.) Given that the magazine’s readership peaked 50 years ago; that so many of the early Mad men—it was always a boy’s club—have died; and that Alfred E. Neuman is basically a museum artifact himself these days, an exhibition this year celebrating it makes perfect sense. The question is: What’s the connection between the folksy Norman Rockwell and the ribald Gang of Idiots? Turns out, it’s literal. “We are a museum fully dedicated to art of illustration, generally what is published in one form of mass communication or another,” says Stephanie Plunkett, the museum’s chief curator. “Rockwell, who drew 322 Saturday Evening Post covers, was a great humorist and a cartoonist in certain ways, so from a curatorial standpoint, I knew this is where a Mad exhibition of this size and scope belongs.” The show evolved out of conversations many years ago between Plunkett and Murray Tinkelman, an artist and historian who was crazy about the magazine. Whenever anyone involved in the pre-planning mentioned it, even in casual conversation, people’s eyes got as wide as a Don Martin bug-out. “People who knew Mad didn’t need any sort of explanation as to what the exhibit would be. You could see from the smiles they understood it and wanted to see it,” Plunkett says. “We thought that during challenging times, everyone could benefit from laughter. It’s mainly been middle-aged fans and up on a warm nostalgia trip, but we’ve had a dedicated viewership that’s driven higher attendance than usual.” The most entertaining wrinkle of the curation process is that it included its own Indiana Jones—or “Inbanana Jones,” to use Mad lingo—Ark of the Covenant moment. Buried in the archives were 1964 letters from Feldstein and art director John Putnam attempting to commission Norman Rockwell for “a definitive painting of the sly little elf, Alfred E. Neuman, who represents our mascot and ubiquitous presence.” Mad offered $3,000 for a charcoal print and a full-color oil painting. Rockwell made a note to ask for his standard $5,000, but in a short letter found in a private collection, the then-70-year-old eventually declined the offer, saying he and his wife thought better of it and, “I hate to be a quitter, but I’m afraid we would all get in a mess.” “We thought a correspondence between Mad and Rockwell was a long shot, so finding the back-and-forth letters made for an amazing day. Norman rarely did commissioned drawings to begin with. Both Marvel and Bob Dylan were turned down,” says Plunkett. They are certainly simpatico hanging on the wall. One of the exhibition’s highlights is Rockwell’s 1960 Triple Self Portrait side by side with its spoof, the 2002 Alfred E. Neuman rendering by Richard Williams. The stately paintings offer a nice contrast to some of the wilder bits of ephemera like the board game many of us played as kids (whoever goes broke is the winner), the Charles Schulz-drawn Peanuts panel with a special Mad guest, a roasting Christmas display and a nightmare-inducing clip of Fred Astaire hoofing it in full Alfred E. Neuman getup. The curators know who the target audience is: people who still get a kick out of decades-old barf japes. Richard WilliamsIn the exhibition, a famed Rockwell triple-self portrait hangs alongside a classic Alfred E. Neuman spoof, showing the grinning cover boy, also in triplicate. Courtesy of the Norman Rockwell Museum “In putting the show together, nobody mentioned Mad ever being considered high art. It was written to make kids laugh, all these artists and writers in a state of arrested development because they had to get into that mindset,” says Brodner, who posts new daily illustrations at The Greater Quiet. “This didn’t mean talking down to their audience. There were sophisticated political references like Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew burning subpoenas as the conmen from The Sting, but always with the understanding of what 11-year-olds find funny.” I was one of those 11-year-olds, and you couldn’t wipe the big, broad, goofy Alfred E. Neuman smile off my face at the Norman Rockwell Museum. And what do you get when you cross Mad magazine with the illustrator synonymous with 1950s Americana? The museum has an answer with a brand-new fold-in: “Freedom From Worry.” "What, Me Worry?" is on view at the Normal Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, through October 27, 2024. Get the latest Travel & Culture stories in your inbox.

In a twist befitting its pages, the satirical, anti-establishment publication that delivered laughs and hijinks to generations of young readers gets the respect it always deserved with a new museum exhibition

In March 1976, a great American portrait debuted to an adoring public. It was a bicentennial appreciation of George Washington … of a sort. Inspired by The Athenaeum Portrait, Gilbert Stuart’s 1796 painting featured on the one-dollar bill, this rendering of the first president featured one distinction. The original showed Washington with swollen, tightly closed lips due to a new set of ill-fitting dentures, while the 1976 version had a gap-toothed smirk instantly recognizable to America’s middle school reprobates. Equally recognizable was the blank stare that those same kids knew evoked the iconic question: “What, Me Worry?”

Drawn by 80-year-old illustrator Norman Mingo, Mad magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman graced the cover of Issue No. 181 in a glorious powdered wig. It’s one of 275 original drawings—alongside 150 physical objects—on display in “What, Me Worry? The Art and Humor of Mad Magazine,” an exhibition running through October 27 at the Norman Rockwell Museum in western Massachusetts. It covers the full 72-year history of Mad, highlighted by the stretch from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, when the magazine pilloried mass culture—television, movies, politics and more—in a way that introduced satire to kids raised on tamer entertainment like “Leave It to Beaver.”

Nothing was off-limits in Mad, a newsstand stalwart that would reach peak annual sales in the 1970s of 2.5 million issues by delivering belly laughs and self-satisfaction to America’s class clowns through cartoons, parodies, sarcastic characters and an unending stream of gross-out gags. Mad gave mainstream American teenagers license to thumb their nose at institutions in a way that had never really happened on a mass scale, a seismic change that would have a huge influence on pop culture through the likes of “Saturday Night Live,” David Letterman, Conan O’Brien and “Family Guy.”


On a sunny August afternoon, I spent a few hours slowly wandering throughout the five galleries, reveling in the Mad days of my youth. At 53, I grew up falling in love with the magazine during the last years of its self-described “classic era.” Looking at all the amazing artwork, particularly the movie drawings of “The Odd Fatherand “Jaw’d” by the legendary caricaturist Mort Drucker, took me back to the way-way-facing-the-rear-window-back of an Oldsmobile station wagon. In our family, Mad was strictly a road trip treat. Being immersed in all things Mad in the summer of 2024 transported me to 1980, thumbing through issues with my brothers while listening to Billy Joel and Queen on a battery-powered single-speaker eight-track player loop for the long trip from Montana to Los Angeles.

Mad magazine spoof illustration of 'The Godfather'
In this illustration for Mad magazine #155 from 1972, cartoonist Mort Drucker sent up the massive hit The GodfatherMAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. Used with permission from Norman Rockwell Museum

And I’m hardly alone in my adoration. The Tuesday I visited the museum was crowded, with more than a few tie-dyed gray-hairs audibly laughing at the subversive spreads once hidden under their mattresses. The exhibition is the best kind of memory lane stroll, one that thrilled co-curator Steve Brodner, who came of age in the magazine’s heyday.

“In the period before puberty hits, you start to get an awareness of yourself in the world, and for kids wired a certain way you start questioning parents, teachers, other adults, and that’s what Mad did: It showed how important it was to be skeptical of institutions and so-called authority figures of all kinds,” says Brodner, whose own satirical art has appeared in a variety of publications over the last 50 years. “Mad was a cultural earthquake. It engaged us to consume newspapers, movies, political speeches, advertising, books and so on differently.”

“It was the first place that told me, ‘This is a load of crap they are trying to sell you for their own self-interest, and you don’t have to buy it.’ Mad was encouraging what we now call critical thinking, which is a dangerous thing,” he adds.

The antihero’s origin story

Mad magazine had its beginnings in 1947, when publisher Maxwell Gaines’ death in an upstate New York boating accident left his Educational Comics company to his 25-year-old son, William Gaines. Under Maxwell, the comics featured stories of science, animals, history and Picture Stories From the Bible. When William took over, he quickly shifted gears to “Entertaining Comics” (EC for short) and started publishing romance, westerns, science fiction, war and horror stories, most notably Tales From the Crypt. Gaines the younger had more than laughs and frights on his mind, however; woven into EC Comics were progressive ideals around racial equality, pacifism, environmentalism and the existential nuclear-age dread rarely spoken of in the placid, conformist 1950s.

In 1952, a comic book poking fun at other comic books debuted, but it would take four issues for Tales Calculated to Drive You MAD to take off. That fourth one featured the parody “Superduperman,” a blueprint for making hay of pop culture and politics. Amid a panic over youth corruption, inspired in part by EC’s other publications, editor Harvey Kurtzman convinced Gaines to retool Mad from a comic book into a magazine, and in July 1955 (Issue No. 24), a future mockery machine emerged.

Mad quickly found an audience, which prompted Kurtzman to ask Gaines for majority ownership in the company. Denied, Kurtzman took his small stable of talent with him to launch a short-lived competitor. Undeterred, Gaines installed EC Comics veteran Al Feldstein as editor, a position he would hold for 29 years. Feldstein’s 2014 New York Times obituary described him as the guiding spirit who “gave Mad its identity as a smart-alecky, sniggering and indisputably clever spitball-shooter of a publication with a scattershot look.”

Feldstein filled out the roster of artists and writers; the full-time staff was small, often just a half-dozen people give or take, so nearly every contributor worked freelance. Gaines paid good rates, and for freelancers, Mad was a steady side gig—plus, they could work from home, which was unique for the time. As publisher, Gaines created a hands-off atmosphere that let his creative team of artists’ freak flags fly.

Middle-aged man sitting at a drafting desk
Mort Drucker was a Mad magazine legend, drawing illustrations for the publication for decades. Courtesy of the Normal Rockwell Museum

“There were no rules at Mad. Everyone wrote whatever they wanted. Now whether it was accepted was a different thing, but [Gaines] left us to our own cockamamie ideas,” says Dick DeBartolo (aka “Mad’s Maddest Writer”), who successfully submitted in 1962 as a 17-year-old high schooler and went on to be featured in every issue for over 50 years. “I sent in a self-addressed stamped envelope, and six weeks later I received a piece of cardboard with a $100 check stapled to it with a note: ‘Thought your story was being returned?’”

From its earliest days, Mad was steeped in a New York Jewish sensibility (the original Neuman is certainly in the “Seinfeld” DNA), so Gothamites would drop their work off at the Midtown Manhattan offices, but submissions came from all over the country. Writers and illustrators also didn’t work together. DeBartolo wrote movie parodies as actual screenplays, which were then sent to the artists.

“[Gaines] was a father figure to a bunch of kids, sometimes delinquent, who created an atmosphere for artists and writers to thrive,” says DeBartolo. “All he cared about was that the magazine was funny. His approach is the reason Mad took off.”

What it added up to was a publication put out eight times a year—Gaines thought some months, like near the start of school, would be bad for sales—that didn’t have the conformity of something put together by a staff forced to attend all those boring meetings. There were, of course, plenty of recurring features and characters, but page-to-page, the humor and style matched the whims of the talent and kept Mad from getting stale.

“The movie parodies were more than humorous versions of the films—they were often analytical and critical deconstructions of huge box-office hits. Roger Ebert wrote an introduction to one of our collections and said, ‘I learned to be a movie critic by reading Mad magazine,’” says illustrator Sam Viviano, who made his Mad debut in 1981 with a J.R. Ewing-Alfred E. Neuman mashup cover and would go on to serve as art director. “Going back decades, Mad had fake ads hammering the tobacco industry and how awful cigarettes were, which came after Gaines quit and a lot of contributors followed suit. They were ahead of the times, saying, ‘Don’t believe what you’re told about smoking: It’s gross, harmful and certainly doesn’t make you look pretty,’ in hilarious fashion.”

magazine cover showing man in cowboy hat
Cover illustration for Mad magazine No. 223, June 1981 MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission from Norman Rockwell Museum

It was a Mad, Mad, Mad magazine world

One of the most important, and beloved, magazine elements made its debut in April 1964, Issue No. 86, the one with the “Alfred of Arabia” cover: the “fold-in” back cover. Cartoonist Al Jaffee’s signature stroke of brilliance turned the Playboy centerfold inside-out. The “fold-in” required doing just that to the inside back cover, which Gaines loved because he thought diehards would buy two copies: one destroyed, the other kept pristine. Jaffee’s first effort, the first of 33 in black and white, was constructed around the torrid Liz Taylor-Richard Burton affair. The fold-ins went color in 1968, and Jaffee cranked them out until 2020, when he retired at the age of 99, having contributed to 500 of the 550 Mad issues overall.

The Rockwell Museum exhibition covers the introduction of the fold-in, as well as other memorable regular features in the magazine’s pages. A “part leering wiseacre, part happy-go-lucky kid” was Kurtzman’s description of the nameless character whose first prominent appearance came in April 1956 (Issue No. 27). In December of that year, after Feldstein christened him Alfred E. Neuman, he appeared on the Mingo-drawn cover of Issue No. 30 as a write-in candidate for president, and he’s run in every election since. Similar looking gap-toothed imps had appeared in advertisements, playbills and elsewhere over the years, and a lawsuit filed by the widow of cartoonist Harry Spencer Stuff claiming Neuman had been copied from her husband’s cartoon, “the Original Optimist,” known as “Me-worry?” went nowhere. And by that time, Neuman had become synonymous with Mad.

MAD magazine fold-in
This Al Jaffee fold-in, "What Simple Pastime is Becoming a Luxury that Many Americans Can No Longer Afford?" appeared in issue #172 in 1979. Collection of Dr. Louis Kaminester MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission by Norman Rockwell Museum

Another beloved feature came from the pen of Cuban artist Antonio Prohías. Forced to flee his native country after his cartoons took aim at Fidel Castro’s totalitarianism and he was accused of working for the CIA, Prohías would get his venganza in January 1961 (Issue No. 60), when he sold three drawings for $800. The world now knew the wordless Cold War enemies of espionage, the Black Spy and the White Spy, two interchangeable spooks hellbent on destroying one another. (The two were joined sporadically in the early years by the female Gray Spy, who didn’t have the face and beak of a crow and always outwitted her male counterparts.) Using a Morse code byline for “By Prohías,” the artist contributed 241 “Spy vs. Spy” cartoons, up until 1987, when the pen was handed off to other artists to keep the dynamite duo alive. Prohías died in Miami in 1998, knowing full well, as he told the Miami Herald 15 years prior, “The sweetest revenge has been to turn Fidel’s accusation of me as a spy into a money-making venture.”

In October 1961 (Issue No. 66), another long-running staple debuted with Dave Berg’s “The Lighter Side of the Television Set.” These pieces were often sendups of the then-burgeoning suburban lifestyle: office life, parties, winter, Little League baseball, hippies, sex, shopping and so on. Berg, who also created bumbling, cranky, pipe-smoking, hypochondriac alter-ego Roger Kaputnik, would end up writing for 46 years, penning “The Lighter Side of …” for 365 issues before his death in 2002.

Two reasons Mad had so many lifers were their personal loyalty to Gaines and their love of his lavish trips. Gaines was stingy with raises but generous with a huge perk: taking the staff and regular freelance contributors on elaborate vacations all over the globe. The first trip, taken in 1960 after hitting the million mark in sales, was to Haiti. It included a stop at the home of the island’s one lapsed subscriber. Gaines loaded up the crew in five jeeps, and they all got on their knees on his front lawn as the man received a renewal card. A neighbor saw the commotion and came over to check it out. Gaines proudly announced that they doubled their Haitian subscriber base.

What began as weeklong trips to tropical islands grew into full-on multiweek adventures—eventually with spouses and partners—to Japan, France, Russia and Kenya. These weren’t really work trips, either; it was all for fun, excitement, jokes (presumably plenty that wouldn’t fly today), and so much food and drink, as Gaines had a major gourmand’s appetite and the build to match.

“I went on my first trip in 1987, excited to go to Switzerland and Paris, but nervous I would have to sit at the kid’s table because these guys had been working together, and taking these vacations together, for a long time. But they embraced me with no hesitation, and I became a Mad guy for life,” says Viviano. “Gaines really was the Big Daddy, but he never forgot his roots. Well into the 1980s, he was still running it like a mom and pop comic books shop, using an old-fashioned check-writing machine. Anything to keep it from feeling corporate. DeBartolo pointed out Gaines had the clause that he ‘had the right to be unreasonable’ written into every contract, because nobody read them anyway.”

“Raiders of a Lost Art”

Gaines’ death in 1992, at the age of 70, was the beginning of Mad’s long, slow decline. DeBartolo says it wasn’t long before the “suits” came in and started cleaning up the place, starting with all the original art on the walls, which he thinks they sold for a couple million dollars. Gone were the days of white wine in the water cooler and a massive King Kong head hidden behind blinds in the boss’s office.

After the mid-1970s, circulation dropped precipitously, down to 208,000 in 2001 when the magazine switched to color and started taking real advertisements. In 2017, Mad’s corporate owner, DC Comics, moved the offices to Burbank, California. Pay rates were cut, and none of the aging New Yorkers were interested in making a West Coast go of it. Six issues were published that year, but in 2019, after 67 years, Mad issues with original content were officially kaput.

The Madcap History of Mad Magazine Will Unleash Your Inner Class Clown
Originally conceived by Cuban dissident Antonio Prohías, "Spy vs. Spy" became yet another hallmark of Mad magazine, with two dueling characters finding inventive ways to one-up each other. Here, artist Peter Kuper with a version that appeared in a 2007 issue of Mad. Collection of the artist. MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission.

Technically, Mad is still being published, but it’s recycled material from the glory days with a new fold-in and cover. It’s a niche’s niche now, and kids like Bart Simpson who dreamed of meeting their Mad idols were left in the last century. (To wit, I sent my 13-year-old Swiftie daughter a postcard from the exhibition of the April 2024 issue featuring Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce to her sleepaway camp. She said nobody in the cabin had ever heard of Mad.)

Given that the magazine’s readership peaked 50 years ago; that so many of the early Mad men—it was always a boy’s club—have died; and that Alfred E. Neuman is basically a museum artifact himself these days, an exhibition this year celebrating it makes perfect sense. The question is: What’s the connection between the folksy Norman Rockwell and the ribald Gang of Idiots? Turns out, it’s literal.

“We are a museum fully dedicated to art of illustration, generally what is published in one form of mass communication or another,” says Stephanie Plunkett, the museum’s chief curator. “Rockwell, who drew 322 Saturday Evening Post covers, was a great humorist and a cartoonist in certain ways, so from a curatorial standpoint, I knew this is where a Mad exhibition of this size and scope belongs.”

The show evolved out of conversations many years ago between Plunkett and Murray Tinkelman, an artist and historian who was crazy about the magazine. Whenever anyone involved in the pre-planning mentioned it, even in casual conversation, people’s eyes got as wide as a Don Martin bug-out.

“People who knew Mad didn’t need any sort of explanation as to what the exhibit would be. You could see from the smiles they understood it and wanted to see it,” Plunkett says. “We thought that during challenging times, everyone could benefit from laughter. It’s mainly been middle-aged fans and up on a warm nostalgia trip, but we’ve had a dedicated viewership that’s driven higher attendance than usual.”

The most entertaining wrinkle of the curation process is that it included its own Indiana Jones—or “Inbanana Jones,” to use Mad lingo—Ark of the Covenant moment. Buried in the archives were 1964 letters from Feldstein and art director John Putnam attempting to commission Norman Rockwell for “a definitive painting of the sly little elf, Alfred E. Neuman, who represents our mascot and ubiquitous presence.” Mad offered $3,000 for a charcoal print and a full-color oil painting. Rockwell made a note to ask for his standard $5,000, but in a short letter found in a private collection, the then-70-year-old eventually declined the offer, saying he and his wife thought better of it and, “I hate to be a quitter, but I’m afraid we would all get in a mess.”

“We thought a correspondence between Mad and Rockwell was a long shot, so finding the back-and-forth letters made for an amazing day. Norman rarely did commissioned drawings to begin with. Both Marvel and Bob Dylan were turned down,” says Plunkett.

They are certainly simpatico hanging on the wall. One of the exhibition’s highlights is Rockwell’s 1960 Triple Self Portrait side by side with its spoof, the 2002 Alfred E. Neuman rendering by Richard Williams. The stately paintings offer a nice contrast to some of the wilder bits of ephemera like the board game many of us played as kids (whoever goes broke is the winner), the Charles Schulz-drawn Peanuts panel with a special Mad guest, a roasting Christmas display and a nightmare-inducing clip of Fred Astaire hoofing it in full Alfred E. Neuman getup. The curators know who the target audience is: people who still get a kick out of decades-old barf japes.

Museum exhibition installation of two triple self-portraits
Richard WilliamsIn the exhibition, a famed Rockwell triple-self portrait hangs alongside a classic Alfred E. Neuman spoof, showing the grinning cover boy, also in triplicate. Courtesy of the Norman Rockwell Museum

“In putting the show together, nobody mentioned Mad ever being considered high art. It was written to make kids laugh, all these artists and writers in a state of arrested development because they had to get into that mindset,” says Brodner, who posts new daily illustrations at The Greater Quiet. “This didn’t mean talking down to their audience. There were sophisticated political references like Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew burning subpoenas as the conmen from The Sting, but always with the understanding of what 11-year-olds find funny.”

I was one of those 11-year-olds, and you couldn’t wipe the big, broad, goofy Alfred E. Neuman smile off my face at the Norman Rockwell Museum. And what do you get when you cross Mad magazine with the illustrator synonymous with 1950s Americana? The museum has an answer with a brand-new fold-in: “Freedom From Worry.”

"What, Me Worry?" is on view at the Normal Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, through October 27, 2024.

Get the latest Travel & Culture stories in your inbox.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘Forever chemicals’ contaminate more dolphins and whales than we thought – new research

The sex and age of an animal turn out to be stronger predictors than habitat for higher PFAS levels, suggesting they accumulate over a lifetime.

Getty ImagesNowhere in the ocean is now left untouched by a type of “forever chemicals” called “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances”, known simply as PFAS. Our new research shows PFAS contaminate a far wider range of whales and dolphins than previously thought, including deep-diving species that live well beyond areas of human activity. But most surprising of all, where an animal lives does not predict its exposure. Instead, sex and age are stronger predictors of how much of these pollutants a whale or dolphin accumulates in its body. This means chemical pollution is more persistent and entrenched in ocean food webs than we realised, affecting everything from endangered coastal Māui dolphins to deep-diving beaked and sperm whales. This graphic shows that PFAS contamination affects a range of marine mammals, from nearshore dolphins to deep-diving predators. Science of the Total Environment, CC BY-ND PFAS were originally designed to make everyday products more convenient, but they have ultimately become a widespread environmental and public health concern. Our work provides stark evidence that no part of the ocean is now beyond the reach of human pollution. What are PFAS, and why are they a problem? PFAS are a group of more than 14,000 synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1950s in a wide range of everyday products. This includes non-stick cookware, food packaging, cleaning products, waterproof clothing, firefighting foams and even cosmetics. Many everyday products contain PFAS. Author provided, CC BY-SA They’re known as forever chemicals because they don’t break down naturally. Instead, they travel through air and water, eventually reaching their final destination: the ocean. There, PFAS percolate through seawater and sediments and enter the food web, taken up by animals through their diet. Once inside an animal, PFAS can attach to proteins and accumulate in the blood and organs such as the liver, where they can disrupt hormones, immune function and reproduction. Like humans, whales and dolphins sit high in the food web, which makes them especially vulnerable to building up these pollutants over their lifetime. Whales and dolphins are the ocean’s canaries Marine mammals are an early warning system of the ocean. Because they are large predators with long lifespans, their health reflects what’s happening in the wider ecosystem, including risks that can affect people, too. This idea is at the heart of the OneHealth concept, which links environmental, animal and human health. New Zealand is one of the best places in the world to study human impacts in a OneHealth framework. More than half of the world’s toothed whales and dolphins (odontocetes) occur here, making Aotearoa a rare hotspot for marine mammals and an ideal place to assess how deeply PFAS have entered ocean food webs. We analysed liver samples from 127 stranded whales and dolphins, covering 16 species across four families, from coastal bottlenose dolphins to deep-diving beaked whales. For eight of these species, including Hector’s dolphins and three beaked whale species, this was the first time PFAS had ever been measured globally. PFAS contamination is an additional stress factor for Hector’s dolphins, which are endemic to New Zealand and already threatened. Getty Images We expected coastal species living closer to pollution sources to show the highest contamination, with deep-ocean species being much less exposed. However, our results told a different story. Habitat played only a minor role in predicting PFAS levels. Some deep-diving species had PFAS concentrations comparable to (or even higher than) coastal animals. It turns out biology matters more than habitat. Older, larger animals had higher PFAS levels, indicating they accumulate these chemicals over time. Males also tended to have higher burdens than females, consistent with mothers transferring PFAS to their calves during pregnancy and lactation. These patterns were consistent across all major types of PFAS chemicals. Why this matters Our findings show PFAS contamination has now entered every layer of the marine food web, affecting everything from nearshore dolphins to deep-diving predators. While diet is a major exposure pathway, animals could also be absorbing PFAS through other mechanisms, including potentially their skin. PFAS may further interact with other stressors, including climate change, shifting prey availability and disease, adding further pressure to species already under threat. Knowing that PFAS are present across different habitats and species raises urgent questions about their health impacts. Are these chemicals already affecting populations? Could PFAS contamination weaken immunity and increase disease risk in vulnerable species, such as Māui dolphins? Understanding how PFAS exposure affects reproduction, immunity and resilience to environmental pressures is now central to predicting whether species already under threat can withstand accelerating environmental change. Even the most remote whales carry high PFAS loads and we know humans are not isolated from these contaminations either. Answering these questions is not optional but essential if we want to protect both marine wildlife and the oceans we all depend on. The research was a trans-Tasman collaboration which also included Gabriel Machovsky at Massey University, Louis Tremblay at the Bioeconomy Science Institute and Shan Yi at the University of Auckland. Frédérik Saltré receives funding from the Australian Research Council.Emma Betty, Karen A Stockin, and Katharina J. Peters do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Watch a Wolf Cleverly Raid a Crab Trap for a Snack. It Might Be the First Evidence of a Wild Canid Using a Tool

Footage from British Columbia shows just how intelligent wild wolves can be, but scientists are divided as to whether the behavior constitutes tool use

Watch a Wolf Cleverly Raid a Crab Trap for a Snack. It Might Be the First Evidence of a Wild Canid Using a Tool Footage from British Columbia shows just how intelligent wild wolves can be, but scientists are divided as to whether the behavior constitutes tool use Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent November 19, 2025 11:53 a.m. Members of the Haíɫzaqv (Heiltsuk) Nation caught the crafty female wolf on camera. Artelle et al. / Ecology and Evolution, 2025 Key takeaways: A dispute over tool use A female wolf figured out how to pull a crab trap from the ocean onto shore to fetch a tasty treat. Scientists debate whether the behavior represents tool use, or if the animal needed to have modified the object for it to count. Something strange began happening on the coast of British Columbia, Canada, in 2023. Traps set by members of the Haíɫzaqv (Heiltsuk) Nation to control invasive European green crabs kept getting damaged. Some had mangled bait cups or torn netting, but others were totally destroyed. But who—or what—was the culprit? Initially, the Indigenous community’s environmental wardens, called Guardians, suspected sea lions, seals or otters were to blame. But only after setting up several remote cameras in the area did they catch a glimpse of the true perpetrators: gray wolves. On May 29, 2024, one of the cameras recorded a female wolf emerging from the water with a buoy attached to a crab trap line in her mouth. Slowly but confidently, she tugged the line onto the beach until she’d managed to haul in the trap. Then, she tore open the bottom netting, removed the bait cup, had a snack and trotted off. Now, scientists say the incident—and another involving a different wolf in 2025—could represent the first evidence of tool use by wild wolves. They describe the behavior and lay out their conclusions in a new paper published November 17 in the journal Ecology and Evolution. This wolf has a unique way of finding food | Science News “You normally picture a human being with two hands pulling a crab trap,” says William Housty, a Haíɫzaqv hereditary chief and the director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department, to Global News’ Amy Judd and Aaron McArthur. “But we couldn’t figure out exactly what had the ability to be able to do that until we put a camera up and saw, well, there’s other intelligent beings out there that are able to do this, which is very remarkable.” Members of the Haíɫzaqv Nation weren’t surprised by the wolves’ cleverness, as they have long considered the animals to be smart. That view has largely been shaped by the community’s oral history, which tells of a woman named C̓úṃqḷaqs who birthed four individuals who could shape-shift between humans and wolves, reports Science News’ Elie Dolgin. Scientists weren’t shocked, either, as they have long understood that wolves are intelligent, social creatures that often cooperate to take down their prey. People aren’t sure how the wolves figured out the crafty crab trap trick. The animals may have learned by watching Haíɫzaqv Guardians pull up the traps, or their keen sense of smell may have helped them sniff out the herring and sea lion bait inside. Or perhaps they started with traps that were more easily accessible, before moving on to more challenging targets submerged in deep water. Wolves are also largely protected in Haíɫzaqv territory, which may have given them the time and energy they needed to learn a new, complex behavior, reports the Washington Post’s Dino Grandoni. Whatever the explanation, experts are divided as to whether the behavior technically constitutes nonhuman tool use, which has been previously documented in crows, elephants, dolphins and several other species. The debate stems mostly from varying definitions of tool use. Under one definition, animals can’t simply use an external object to achieve a specific goal—the creature must also manipulate the object in some way, like a crow transforming a tree branch into a hooked tool for grabbing hidden insects. Against this backdrop, some researchers say the wolves’ behavior represents object use, not tool use. However, some of the disagreement may also be rooted in bias. “For better or for worse, as humans, we tend to afford more care and compassion to other people or other species that we see most like us,” says study co-author Kyle Artelle, an ecologist with the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, to the Washington Post. Marc Bekoff, a biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder who was not involved with the research, echoes that sentiment, telling Science’s Phie Jacobs that “if this had been a chimpanzee or other nonhuman primate, I’m sure no one would have blinked about whether this was tool use.” Regardless, scientists say the footage suggests wild wolves are even smarter than initially thought. In less than three minutes, the female efficiently and purposefully executed a complicated sequence of events to achieve a specific goal. She appeared to know that the trap contained food, even though it was hidden underwater, and she seemed to understand exactly which steps she needed to take to access that food. Tool use or not, the findings point to “another species with complex sociality [that] is capable of innovation and problem solving,” says Susana Carvalho, a primatologist and paleoanthropologist at Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique who was not involved with the research, to the New York Times’ Lesley Evans Ogden. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

What Catastrophes Get Our Attention, and Why It Matters

When catastrophe becomes celebrity, we stop witnessing and start scrolling, turning suffering into spectacle. But we can break that cycle. The post What Catastrophes Get Our Attention, and Why It Matters appeared first on The Revelator.

Another environmental catastrophe season brought destruction and death to North America this summer. Amid extreme heatwaves and weather, fires raged in northern and western Canada. In Manitoba alone more than 28,000 people, largely rural or Indigenous, were evacuated from their homes. At the same time, floods washed out Hill Country in Texas when the Guadalupe River rapidly overflowed its banks, killing at least 135 people. Similar events could go on indefinitely. Chances are you’ve seen news reports about these disasters, or others like them, but this isn’t just the stuff of headlines. Fires and floods make news because they grab attention, unlike the daily realities of the economically depressed rural and Indigenous communities they often hit so hard. This is the strange logic of catastrophe in the digital age: Some crises become “celebrity” catastrophes while others remain “commonplace,” meaning they’re normalized and invisible on an ongoing basis. Who gets our attention — and who doesn’t — isn’t random. It reveals the value systems we’ve internalized and the limits of the stories we tell ourselves about suffering and survival, and in turn those that invite responsibility. The real currency of the 21st century is attention. And most people, if they’re going to pay attention, want something spectacular: an event worth watching. When Tragedy Turns to Spectacle Our engagement with this reality came from a course we taught at the University of British Columbia on the role of language in shaping environmental behaviors. What started as classroom conversations over a few years eventually evolved into our forthcoming book, Becoming Ecological: Navigating Language and Meaning for Our Planet’s Future, as a way to continue this conversation in public. In characterizing different discourses we’ve been exposed to (and been a part of), we noticed trends in global reporting of catastrophic events. That reporting tends to emphasize spectacular events over those that are just as detrimental, if not more, but occur over longer periods of time without affecting highly visible populations — particularly visible in terms of people who attract mainstream media notice. Our aim is not so much to critique the ways certain types of media function, from traditional broadcasters to social news like TikTok, but to look at how meaning is made and conveyed as catastrophe stories. The ways in which meanings are socially constructed shape what people believe, how they act and interact, and create possibilities to nurture more broadly relational understandings of our roles and responsibilities on and for Earth. They can also hinder or inhibit other possibilities. The systems of language and environment are intricately interconnected. We find it useful to speak of catastrophe by using the term polycrisis — the overlaying of multiple crises where a breakdown in one system leads to cascading effects, causing reverberations through climatic, biological, social, economic, political, scientific, temporal (and so on) systems. The problem with catastrophe in contemporary environmental discourse is that the original meaning, the gravity of this word in ancient Greek — katastrophē, or sudden end — is completely lost. Catastrophe now is characterized as being visually spectacular, rooted in the notion of spectacle, making it newsworthy. To put it crudely, tragedy comes with a photo op or not at all. Yet catastrophe originally implied the point at which fate and destiny are sealed. All hope is lost. No Hollywood ending. Greek tragic theatre made the pain of such a loss accessible safely; it had the effect of making audiences appreciate their existence and work to prevent such events from happening. Today we’re saturated with an unending stream of high-profile catastrophes. They’ve gone from occasional newsworthy stories to a regular feature. But the truth is environmental catastrophe discourse at present has very little in common with ancient Greek theatre. Catastrophe isn’t witnessed as a universal condition. It’s more like getting voted out of a reality TV competition, with winners and losers. It signifies a form of virtual entertainment. It’s a money genre in the economy of attention. What Makes a Catastrophe ‘Go Viral’? Celebrity catastrophes, as we’ve come to call them, are disasters that strike at the right time, in the right place, and often to the “right” people — like the Los Angeles wildfires, which literally affected celebrities, among others, or the floods in Spain. They tend to be sudden and extreme, making them photogenic and emotionally gripping. There’s often an implicit narrative arc involving villains, victims, and often a final resolution or judgment; celebrity catastrophes provide an overabundance of social platforms to spread the story. But what about commonplace catastrophes? These are the slow, grinding emergencies — some might even say boring, meaning people won’t pay attention. In other words, they won’t pay for the attention. Such emergencies might include boil water advisories for rural communities off the grid that stretch into decades, the rising tide of the urban unhoused, lack of accessible healthcare for generations, or the multigenerational trauma of environmental injustice in poorer communities. These quotidian catastrophes don’t trend on social media. They rarely get press briefings in broadcast media. They certainly don’t receive attention from political figures. And yet they shape the lives of millions every day. Beyond being a digital communication problem, it’s also a societal pattern. As environmental educators, we see it in our classrooms often, where students feel despair over ecological collapse but struggle to connect that grief to local issues like energy poverty, food shortages, or environmental racism. It’s as though they understand tragedy, but catastrophe means its hopeless. But if they give up hope, then there’s no motivation other than individualistic ones, a competitive endgame everyone winds up losing. Without hope for the next generation, another turn of civilization’s wheel. There’s nothing they can do but watch catastrophes happen, transfixed by impending fate. That’s what’s selling. The problem isn’t apathy or lack of education. It’s attention. There’s simply too much on the celebrity catastrophes and not enough on the commonplace world they inhabit every day. The Ecology of Attention We often talk about ecosystems in scientific terms of carbon, water, species, and so forth. But attention is an ecosystem too. And like all ecosystems, it can be thrown out of balance. In a healthy attention economy, we would recognize and respond to both sudden shocks and slow harms. We could hold space for grief, not just in the wake of a celebrity wildfire in Maui but in response to ongoing loss — such as land, language, or life — in communities displaced by extractive industries. But right now our attention is hyper-curated. We’re all being filtered by algorithms in our social media feeds, Spotify playlists, or Google searches, among many other aspects of our daily lives, and this influences our political and societal conversations. That warped attention is like water on drought-stricken ground, particularly in how it rushes off quickly, collects in rivers, and overflows. This means that some people must fight for a cup of visibility, while others are flooded with it. It also creates dissonance. Why do we cry over burning vineyards in California but ignore scorched farmlands in Sudan? Why are floodwaters in Germany more moving than footage from Pakistan’s devastating 2022 monsoon season? Our attention has been hyper-curated to look for the extremes and pay (for) attention to the sensationalized events. Disaster as Event There’s a reason why celebrity catastrophes dominate headlines and grab our attention, whether we want it or not. They fit within a monetized logic that values spectacle and saviorism. Disasters become “events” with start and end dates, with heroes and villains, victims and saviors. They can be marked in time, which makes them easier to be marketed. More specifically, they can be monetized, as author Naomi Klein and others have shown. They can sell headlines, influence policy agendas, or affect branded charity campaigns. But commonplace catastrophes resist this framing. There’s no clear starting point to systemic racism or global warming and the cascading effect of “events” reverberates throughout the world. These slow emergencies demand long-term commitment, not quick PR campaigns. They’re part of larger complex of socioecological systems that are often uncontainable, like weather patterns or world hunger. In contrast, becoming more ecologically focused requires that we understand crises as entangled and complex. The flood is not separate from the housing crisis. The wildfire is not separate from extractive economies. Witnessing through this lens challenges us to see the whole picture and act from that place. We’re not suggesting we turn away from the immediate or the dramatic. But keeping up with the latest catastrophic event, and being affected by it, is not enough. It catches us in a loop of mental doomism or constant anxiety, especially when it becomes expected, like a performance — amplified one moment and forgotten the next. The truth is that our attention reveals what we value and what we make time for. And right now, too many people live and die in the fallout of commonplace catastrophes. But there are ways to make the commonplace more important. Witnessing as a Radical Act So how do we begin to rebalance our attention? Something that affects our responses to climate breakdown? One way is through the practice of witnessing. Not just seeing, but being present with, and responding to, what we encounter. Witnessing insists that we don’t turn away from the slow, uncomfortable, or inconvenient. Witnessing brings with it an ongoing responsibility. To bear witness means a duty to speak to what one has witnessed, requiring a different kind of attention. Calls for critical digital literacy are the typical way of addressing this social need to nurture a healthy information intake. But another way is to consider the language we use and how it gets used when we talk about the environment. What stories are being prioritized? Not every catastrophe fits neatly into a sound-bite narrative or a one-liner headline enticing people to click. There’s no easy resolution to poisoned water in Grassy Narrows, how much roadkill happened last night, or positive spins on colonial displacement. But those stories matter, and they need our attention. Language, the fuel of attention, is a powerful site of witnessing. It’s not just a medium of communication. Language is an adaptive, living system. Communication and dialogue are catalysts for ecological transformation. Words evolve, meanings shift, and sometimes, even a single word can carry the weight of an entire worldview. Consider words like “nature” or “climate.” The latter has become a euphemism for a justice movement as much as a science, on the one hand, and a political weapon of division on the other. When we witness deeply, we begin to understand that these so-called “commonplace” events aren’t background noise. And that insight can spark empathy, as well as awareness and action in more profound ways. A Call to Witness The choice isn’t simply between caring about celebrity catastrophes and caring about commonplace ones. It’s about learning to see how they’re connected and how the imbalance of attention itself causes harm. This is a polycrisis in which all the social, linguistic, and ecological systems we rely on are interconnected. Stories must be told even when they’re revealing what Al Gore famously termed an “inconvenient truth” — through them, we begin to see how all facets of our daily lives are interconnected with the sustainability of the planet. And this gives ground to hopefulness, to the sense that what you do and say does matter in the bigger picture. It is the bigger picture, even if there are no film crews and helicopters there to broadcast it, no smart phones to capture and post it within seconds. These actions and the language that promotes them form a periphery around the visible mainstream news. If we look at what’s just outside the camera frame or press release or keynote speech, we see a surrounding discourse, a complex ecosystem of discussion across languages and initiatives that are hidden from regular sight, the actual “movements” of environmentalism. Let’s take an example not from a celebrity catastrophe but from a celebrity event: the COP30 climate summit. Such events, where people tell stories from all over and come together to mobilize global effort toward planetary care, are invaluable for our hope for the future of the species. And yet, some profound ironies exist: To make this happen, we need to facilitate more harmful disruption of natural systems. We also need such events to have celebrity status in order to compete with attention. Ideally, they are exotic and photogenic. COP30 took place this year in Belém, a history-laden freeport town tucked away in the heart of the Brazilian rainforest. To make it easy for attention-grabbing, celebrity global leaders and digital communication to reach the city, government contractors plowed a 13-kilometer road called Avenida Liberdade through protected rainforest. This is land where people and plants and animals coexist and co-depend. The devastation was all in aid of an environmental event that lasted for 11 days (Nov. 10-21). But those jungle-dwelling lives will be affected forever — a prime example of where celebrity meets commonplace. When we’re called to witness the impact on local environments of the attention economy, we start to become aware of how the celebrity and the commonplace are interwoven. We are no longer just spectators of hopeless collapse. As educators we’ve seen what happens when students begin to witness. Not just from a distance, but with proximity and purpose. They stop asking, “Why don’t people care?” and start asking, “What stories do we need to tell?” They begin to name the socioecological systems that make some lives visible and others disposable. In a time of overlapping catastrophes, witnessing isn’t passive. It’s an act of awareness and engagement. And perhaps more importantly, it’s an act of hope, one that integrates the celebrity and commonplace catastrophe in an increasingly unstable world. And sustained witnessing might just be the most radical act we have left. Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator The Last Breath of the Himalayas: Can We Stop the Collapse? The post What Catastrophes Get Our Attention, and Why It Matters appeared first on The Revelator.

How little plastic does it take to kill marine animals? Scientists have answers

Ocean plastic kills sea creatures. For the first time, researchers set out to find out how much it takes. The answer: Surprisingly little.

Ocean plastic kills sea creatures. It can obstruct, perforate or twist their airways and gastrointestinal tracts.Now new research shows it takes just 6 pieces of ingested rubber the size of a pencil eraser to kill most sea birds. For marine mammals, 29 pieces of any kind of plastic — hard, soft, rubber or fishing equipment — is often lethal.It’s the first time researchers have quantified how much and what kind of plastic — soft, hard, rubber or fishing debris — is needed to kill a bird, marine mammal or a turtle. “I think the lethal doses that we saw were smaller than I expected,” said Erin Murphy, a researcher with the Ocean Conservancy and the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Toronto.“Seeing the particularly small thresholds for rubber and seabirds, for example, that just six pieces of rubber, each smaller on average than the size of a pea was enough to kill 90% of sea birds that ingested it ... That was particularly surprising to me,” she said.The sea birds were less sensitive to hard plastic: It’d take 25 pieces of the pea-sized hard plastic pieces to ensure a 90% chance of dying. Murphy and her colleagues from the University of Tasmania, in Australia, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, also from Australia, and the Universidade Federal de Alagoas, in Brazil, published their study Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.For decades, researchers have been documenting death by plastic in marine animals. They have reported it in the gastrointestinal tracts of nearly 1,300 marine species — including every species of sea turtle, and in every family of seabird and marine mammal family.The team analyzed data from 10,412 published necropsies, or animal autopsy reports. Of the animals studied, 1,306 were sea turtles representing all seven species of sea turtles; 1,537 were seabirds representing 57 species; and 7,569 were marine mammals across 31 species. They found that 35% of the dead seabirds, 12% of marine mammals and 47% of sea turtles examined had ingested plastic. Seabirds seemed to be particularly sensitive to rubber. For marine mammals, soft plastics — such as plastic bags — and fishing debris was most harmful. For sea turtles, their kryptonite was hard and soft plastics.“This was severe trauma or damage to the GI tract, or blockage of the stomach or intestines from plastic... and so these were physical harms that you could see, that you could see in the gut of these animals, and that were reported by scientists,” said Murphy describing the reports. The paper did not look at other ways plastic can kill marine animals — strangulation, entanglement and drowning. Nor did it look at malnutrition or toxicity caused by eating plastic.“So, this is likely an underestimate of the impacts of ingestion, and it’s definitely an underestimate of the lethality of plastics more broadly,” said Murphy.Nearly half the animals in their analysis were threatened or endangered species. More than 11 million metric tonnes — or more than 24 billion pounds — of plastic enters the world’s oceans every year, according to several environmental and industry reports. That’s a garbage truck’s worth dumped every minute.According to the United Nations, that number is expected to triple in the next twenty years. “I find this piece a brilliant contribution to the field,” said Greg Merrill, a researcher with the Duke University Marine Lab, who did not participate in the study.“We have thousands of examples of marine animals ingesting plastic debris. But for a number of reasons, eg. lack of data, difficulty of conducting laboratory-based experiments, and ethical considerations, risk assessments are really challenging to conduct,” he said in an email. Such assessments are crucial for actually linking plastic ingestion to mortality, because “once we know some of those thresholds, they can help policy makers make informed decisions,” said Merrill.And that’s what Murphy said she and her co-authors are hoping for: That lawmakers and others can use this information to reduce plastic, by crafting regulations to ban or reduce plastics, such as plastic bag or balloon bans, and encouraging small, local events such as beach clean ups.“The science is clear: We need to reduce the amount of plastic that we’re producing and we need to improve collection and recycling to clean up what’s already out there,” said Murphy. Earlier this year, in internationals talks on limiting plastic pollution, oil and gas producing countries succeeded in preventing language that would reduce the amount of plastics produced.

See how this wolf steals fish, a new discovery of animals using tools

Video from the coast of British Columbia may be the first documented instance of a wild wolf using a tool, according to the researchers who published it on Monday.

The wolf seemed to know exactly what she was doing.She dove into the water, fetched a fishing float and brought it to shore. She then waded back in and tugged on a rope connected to the float. She pulled and backed up, pulled and backed up, until a crab trap emerged. When it was within easy reach, she tore it open and consumed the bait inside.Subscribe for unlimited access to The PostYou can cancel anytime.SubscribeThe scene, caught on camera on the coast of British Columbia in May 2024, may be the first documented instance of a wild wolf using a tool, according to the scientists who published the footage in the journal Ecology and Evolution on Monday.Although the intelligence of wolves is well known, the discovery adds to an expanding list of animals capable of manipulating tools to forage for food, a trait once thought to be unique to humans.“It’s not a surprise they have the capacity to do this,” said Kyle Artelle, an ecologist with the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry who published the footage. “Yet our jaw dropped when we saw the video.”The discovery also solved a mystery.People of the Heiltsuk Nation in central British Columbia had been puzzled about what was foiling their efforts to capture invasive green crabs along their shores.The crabs are a real problem — they eat through eelgrass that harbors marine life and they devastate the native clam, herring and salmon populations the tribe relies on for food. But the traps people were setting with herring and other bait kept getting damaged. Sometimes, there were just minor tears in the nets. Other times, the entire trap was torn to shreds.Some of the traps were set so deep that, at first, researchers thought the thief must be an otter, seal or other marine mammal. William Housty, director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department, wondered whether tourists were tampering with them. The Heiltsuk Nation worked with Artelle to set up a trail camera to record the perpetrator.A day after the camera was installed, it recorded the female wolf in action.The efficiency with which she snagged the bait — in just three minutes — suggested to Artelle that the animal had done this before.“She’s staring exactly at the trap. Every motion she does is perfectly tailored to getting that trap out as quickly as possible,” said Artelle.In February, the team recorded a second video of a different wolf pulling a line attached to a partially submerged trap. The camera shut off before it could show whether the animal had learned to finish the job and eat the bait. But afterward, two traps were seen on the shore with their bait cups removed.The “weight of evidence,” Artelle said, suggests the female wolf or her full pack are responsible for the pilfering.The tribal territory in British Columbia is a rare place where wolves remain unharassed by hunters, potentially giving them time to learn.“We’ve always maintained a very respectful relationship with the wolves up here in the territory,” Housty said. The oral history of his people, he added, talks of a time when humans and wolves could shape-shift between one another.Researchers have seen tool use in captive canines before. Dingoes, for instance, have been observed opening latches and moving small tables to reach food at a sanctuary in Australia. And pets owners are familiar with the inventiveness of dogs, which can carry hockey pucks in plastic flying discs and move chairs to reach food.Biologists are witnessing more and more animals brandishing tools. Crows maneuver sticks in their beaks to collect grub from crevices. Pandas grab bamboo to scratch their bodies. Octopuses wield the severed tentacles of other animals as makeshift weapons to ward off predators.The wolf video raises a philosophical question: What does it mean to use a tool? Does the animal have to make the tool, as crows do when shortening sticks and peeling off their bark so they fit into crannies? Or can we call an animal a “tool user” if it uses an existing tool, as the wolf did with the rope?“I’m speaking to you on Zoom right now. I did not design this computer. I don’t know how it works, but I’m ‘using’ it, right?” Artelle asked.He said he hopes adding wolves to the list of tool-using animals will prompt some people to see them in a different light — the way public appreciation of chimpanzees grew after Jane Goodall discovered the primates dipping blades of grass into termite mounds to eat the insects.It is “an intelligence that is so familiar to us,” Artelle said. “For better or for worse, as humans, we tend to afford more care and compassion to other people or other species that we see most like us.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.