A political cartoon is a form of art. The Zeal could write an article noting the parallels between Lenin and autocrats and imperialists in Africa, or more elegantly and concisely they can portray him as a Pharaoh in a cartoon. They have no obligation to offer an alternative, they are not a party like the anarchists, just a paper. I would even go so far as to say that much of the substance of their arguments may have been contained in the cartoon or accompanying articles. Much more to the point, what of the Leninist press. The two people that threw a bomb at the police station were terrorists. Can you prove that statement? Can you prove they had a political intent? This is supposition, likely interpreted in part by the aftermath.
More than anything though, why must the press appeal solely to our rational minds? It is a form of expression as much as other media, and should be a legitimate forum to express opinions. If all we desired was facts, there would be no need for multiple papers, after all FACTS are facts are they not? The entire press exists because we choose to dress and report facts differently. In fact the cartoon, is meaningless without its context. The reader must be aware of the facts to understand it. The must be aware of the facts that Lenin is the chairman, that he is advocating and pursuing the colonization of Africa, they must be aware that he has been a forceful leader that has taken some bold steps in his authority. Without this, a caricature of him as a pharaoh is just that, an odd depiction of some guy.