.jpeg?1371057738)
The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Email the author
Updated: 14 March 2012 | 12:24 am in Letters to the Editor
Not running Doonesbury strip is a cop-out
thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The Gazette’s decision to not run Doonesbury strips about the Texas abortion law appears to be nothing short of a total cop-out. You hide behind what you perceive to be the sensitivities of your readers when instead it is nothing more than censorship of ideas not in line with your paper’s.
It is ironic that you should bring up the contrast in Mallard Fillmore. I stopped reading that strip long ago because it is exceedingly reactionary and offensive to all but those who long for a return to theocracy. If you suspect that your readers would be offended by the use of the word slut, then perhaps you should champion against the idiocy of Rush Limbaugh.
Matthew Brandt
Cedar Rapids
Rules of Engagement
Not running Doonesbury strip is a cop-out
Iowa City school district committee settles on two planning scenarios
Branstad seeking federal disaster status for 47 Counties
Police investigate Dayton-Evansdale abductions connection
DOT says pond-building effort is working for turtles
EPIC RESURGENCE: Five Years After the Flood
Time Machine section debuts on TheGazette.com
Lame, Gazette, just lame.
(Who made the decision to chicken out on this?)
Monday’s strip can be found in legitimate newspapers…or here: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/03/12
Tuesday’s strip can be found in legitimate newspapers…or here: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/03/13
I will post similar sentiments to those which I shared with Lyle. I understand the Gazette’s decision, which is exercising the paper’s “editorial judgement,” not “censorship.”
Those folks who are disappointed need to look at the bright side: aren’t you glad you don’t have to point to a puerile, humorless, untalented hack like Bruce Tinsley as a cartoonist who represents your political persuasion?
I defend their *Right* to their decision, just as I defend the *Right* of the Ku Klux Klan to rally at the capital in Madison, WI or the National Socialist Party’s *Right* to march through Skokie, IL. Yep, this ain’t censorship. It is, however, lame.
Wednesday’s strip can be found in better newspapers, or here: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/03/14
I agree with Jeff on this one. It may be characterized as a “cop-out” but it is not censorship.
The Gazette did not prevent anyone else from running it, they simply chose not to print it themselves.
So Will, you dislike Tinsley, too?
I was talking about your first paragraph. Bus since you ask…
I wouldn’t say I dislike Tinsley. All I can say is I’ve never really found his stuff worth the time to read. And considering we’re talking cartoons here…
“Bus since you ask…”
Somebody must have slipped something into my diet Dew…
What’s the matter? Can’t get enough disrespectful comments of women? It’s like creeps on parade this morning. I am now almost glad Rush made that comment because most would not have known about the most vulgar rhetoric from the left. Bull Maher making comments about Sarah Pallins down syndrome baby and no outrage from the liberals? No phone calls from the president to appologize? I am all for free speech but for obviously different reasons than this bunch. Comedians think they can degrade women all they want in the name of comedy. Well guys, it’s backfired.
First, Bill Maher has been chastised by the media, his advertisers and even liberals. Many may remember that his show “Politically Incorrect” was canceled due to the controversial statements that he makes. He’s since moved to a pay channel where he has no sponsors. And other liberal satirists and commentators have also been held accountable for their actions and have faced the consequences. Keith Olbermann was suspended, lost advertisers and ultimately lost his show on MSNBC for crossing the line. Ed Schultz was suspended when he crossed it. Don Imus was suspended, ultimately lost his syndicated show and lambasted by the likes of Al Sharpton, Joe Klien & Bruce Gordon.
It’s an absurd argument to say that personalities on the right are treated more harshly than those leaning left. The issue is that when you cross a line you get slapped and the force of the slap is relative to how far you crossed it, not your political ideology.
What Limbaugh said was way over the line. And he failed to apologies for what he did, yes he apologized for using the wrong words, but what he really did was take Sandra Flukes congressional testimony entirely out of context. In fact he fabricated his own version of her testimony (i.e. he lied) to provoke a partisan reaction by his listeners. At the very least it was slanderous; at worst it was just another big lie he uses to further divide the American people.
I stand behind Limbaugh’s right to say whatever he wants to say. We can’t silence anyone, not even those we disagree with. It can only help the cause of freedom to turn up the volume and shine the light on idiots like Rush, but I also stand by all those who find what he’s done repulsive and chose to exercise their right to protest the likes of him.
See the following for Sandra Flukes full testimony in contexts. http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2012/mar/07/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/
And Sue, your attempt to justify what Limbaugh did, because others didn’t receive the rebuff you believed they deserved is repugnant in its own right. Pathetic.
Blah blah blah- you’re only proving my point-keep digging Terry.
“Blah, blah…” is that best response you can come up with? No source you can read from to provide anything better ? Perhaps another Ad hominem comment (admin take note) like “creeps on parade” ?
Come on, Sue. Terry addressed the specific points you brought up. Extensively. Several paragraphs. In detail. You respond with “Blah blah blah.” With responses like that, it’s no wonder some folks are dismissive of your “opinions”.
Personally, I believe you are capable of far better. Please try not to keep proving me wrong on this.
Joe, I really had no intention of addressing everyone about this issue and Terry was no exception. There really is no excuse on either side. I didn’t feel he said anything that needed a response. I’m disappointed that, with maybe one male exception, nobody agreed with me. Of course most on here are dismissive of my opinions because I usually disagree with them. But that’s ok.
If you had no intention of addressing everyone about this issue, then why did you address everyone about this issue…in a public forum, no less? If you didn’d feel his detailed rebuttal to your assertions needed a response, then why did you respond? I’m always ready and willing to support folks with whom I agree with, regardless of party affiliation or whatever. On this issue, you’re on the wrong side, supporting Rush and his ilk. You’re seekng cover by deflecting from the issue at hand.
Terry, well said. Very well said. Some would prefer to believe there’s a double standard here:
“I am now almost glad Rush made that comment because most would not have known about the most vulgar rhetoric from the left.”
As evidenced by the quote above, it would seem that it’s pure partisanship that concerns some and not the attack on human sensibilities. Some apparently feel that since they didn’t hear about the comments made by Maher and others, that they weren’t found offensive by liberals. Not so. Conservative media just failed in making enough noise about them, perhaps to protect their own? Your last paragraph deserves repeating:
“And Sue, your attempt to justify what Limbaugh did, because others didn’t receive the rebuff you believed they deserved is repugnant in its own right. Pathetic.”
Kurt-you really should follow Jeff & Lori’s lead on this one. At least they have the class to stay nuetral. What kind of example are your setting for your daughters to excuse anyone that uses that kind of language on women. Don’t preach to me about conservatives war on women, take the blinders off, Kurt.
I’m sure Limbaugh appreciates your support, Sue.
I’m pretty sure Limbaugh wouldn’t give a flip if he knew, Julie.
Trust me Sue, I’m hardly “neutral” on this matter. I simply chose to look at it from a different angle than the usual “right/left” argument that is so often presented on these pages.
As I said below, a newspaper has every right ot make the decision Muller chose to make, it’s called editorial judgement, not censorship. In explaining his decision, Muller also took the added step of pointing those who wanted to read the omitted strips to the Doonesbury website, something he certainly didn’t have to do.
Another Ad hominem attack “…what kind of example are you setting for your daughters…” (I suspect he cares nothing in the least about what examples you think are appropriate). And where is Kurt preaching to you about conservatives war on women? Point it out specifically.
“At least they have the class to stay nuetral.” Wasn’t it YOU that made this conversation a partisan issue?
It amazes me how you turn things I say into something I didn’t. (Kinda like Rush did with Sandra Fluke’s testimony.)
As for the rest of your attack on me, I never said anything to excuse any of the nasty things said by any of these people. Quite the opposite if you paid even the least amount of attention to what I said. Aaaaaaand – where do you get off saying I’m preaching to you about a conservative attack on women?!?!? If you look at my post I didn’t even address you, I addressed Terry. YOUR name was only mentioned in HIS quote. Why you want to pick a fight with me on this is beyond me, but if you’re going to do it at least have the decency to only hold me responsible for the things I actually say.
Attacking people for things they never said is nothing new for Kettleson, I’ve seen it on multiple occasions. I’ve also seen her provide a link and claim it said something which upon examination it didn’t. Quite possibly shes one of these people who is so committed to her beliefs/position she reads/hears/sees something and subconsciously twists it around in her head to fit her template.
Sue, I was running errands, and will soon return to enjoying my spring break, so please don’t congratulate my alleged “neutrality.”
Either you’ve been carrying around your anger for Maher for far too long, or you were just reminded to get mad all over again by the right-wing noise machine. Maher’s comment came, what, FOUR YEARS AGO!? I also happen to remember David Letterman getting chewed out for some stupid joke he told about Bristol Palin, so spare me your manufactured faux outrage.
As for women like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, they are so different from Sandra Fluke as to render any comparison ridiculous. Let’s see, Fluke has worked to get Georgetown University to include contraceptive coverage in its employee health insurance, andf testified after the charade of a GOP committee hearing where an ALL-MALE panel testified about contraceptive coverage.
Contrast that with Palin, Coulter, and Malkin. I don’t contend Palin was inciting violence with her “don’t retreat, reload” comment, but she was a polarizing figure from the very beginning of the ’08 campaign, BY HER OWN CHOICE. Coulter has made a living publishing such titles as “Treason: Liberal Treachery form the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” and “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America.” Coulter deserves to be roundly criticized for her reckless rhetoric.
Same for Malkin: she likes to paint herself as a victim, even when she is insulting Obama and anyone who does not share her politics. As Terry has argued above, many “liberal” transgressions have been justly denounced. I see a huge difference between Fluke, Coulter, and Malkin: Fluke was providing thoughtful, reasoned testimoney about her work. Coulter and Malkin have made livings out of excoriating political opponents, so please do not argue the latter two women are “victims” in the same way as Fluke.
I hope admin razors your “creep” comment: it is a juvenile insult which relfects poorly on you, Sue.
Per Jeff’s post, Sue, in other words, they deserve it.
I don’t know that I would go that far, Ray. The fact that earlier post just couldn’t seem to get enough of the discourse was dissapointing to say the least.
“She who lives by the sword…”
Jeff, I did not mention the bomb throwing Coulter nor did I write the Gazette to complain when her column was dropped, I’m sure you didn’t either. The Gazettes decision not to run the cartoon makes no difference to me, it’s the rabid dog response I found interesting. That could be why they chose not to run it. It is there choice.
Go ahead and join the male chorus with your excuses for why one is justified but another is not. And excuse me for thinking you were taking the high road on this assault against women, you clearly have proven otherwise.
Heavens to Murgatroyd, Sue! So, you intended to conflate women like Coulter and Malkin with ALL women!?
See Sue…if it happens to conservative women who Jeff obviously disagrees with, it is OK to call them names that make Rush’s ad hom look like child’s play.
Where did Klinzman say it’s “…OK to call them names…” ? What post and what paragraph(s) ? ( I’ll call him on it. )
Let’s see, Jeff, makes a clear disctinction that Fluke and her commentary was so different from political commentators/candidates as to “render any comparison ridiculous”.
Jeff K:
“Maher’s comment came, what, FOUR YEARS AGO!? I also happen to remember David Letterman getting chewed out for some stupid joke he told about Bristol Palin, so spare me your manufactured faux outrage.
Stating that what an offending person (MY verbage) said 4 years ago, and calling it false outrage, doesn’t give you pause as to why anyone (me) would question his sincerity regarding his lack of outrage toward conservative women?
Guess what Carlock, if you can’t see it, then don’t do anything, which you won’t. But know that two people who I know that are in no way “partisan” both thought that Jeff K was indeed saying it was OK for these conservative women to be called vicious names…
Admin, I understand if you delete what follows:
Ray, I don’t condone any attacks on women like Coulter or Malkin AS WOMEN. I DO think they are fair game for criticism which focuses on the content of their arguments and how those arguments reflect their characters AS PEOPLE. If you cannot see the difference between what Sandra Fluke said to earn Limburger’s wrath and how Malkin and Coulter conduct themselves, well, that’s YOUR problem, not mine.
And yes, that means they deserve to be called “vicious names” like “divisive ideological hack” or “dishonest partisan apparatchik” or “conservative tool” or, well, you get the picture. As for Sarah Palin, I will contend here she shamelessly used her family as a political prop at the 2008 GOP convention. Again, that does not excuse attacks on her family, but I think it is fair to question her commitment to “family values” when she used her own family in such a way. And, Palin has pursued celebrity to cash in on her political infamy: again, I see that as an indictment of her character.
I don’t care what your two allegedly independent folks said. I said folks like Coulter, Malkin, and Palin deserve to be roundly criticized for their political actions and defects of character. I contend you have mendaciously, deliberately misread what I posted.
“But know that two people who I know that are in no way “partisan” both thought that Jeff K was indeed saying it was OK for these conservative women to be called vicious names…”
Care to name the two people who you claim are in “in no way ‘partisan’”? I’ll wait right here with my Diogeneanesque lamp waiting to find anyone who fits that description.
OH NOEZ! Even Ann Coulter disses Palin! Is this a conservative attack on conservative women, Sue?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/14/ann-coulter-gop-has-a-problem-with-charlatans-like-sarah-palin/
I believe it was the Register’s Donald Kaul who called Phyllis Schlafly a “Vichy feminist.”
But, of course, it’s okay for Rush to toss out “feminazi” like candy at a parade. I have to wonder if Sue realized that Trudeau was lampooning conservative men with his figure of the fellow in the “shaming room” (I LOVED the clipboards with the scarlet “A!”) who called the young woman who wanted an abortion a “slut.”
I love how any time a newspaper exercises editorial judgement, people cry “censorship!” Like it or not, a newspaper has the right to make a decision such as the one Lyle Muller made here, and people who cry censorship should try living in a country where true censorship is practiced.
And I made my decision my canceling my subscription to the Gazette.
It’s OK Steve…I just re-started my subscription, thus “cancelling” out your fit of anger.
I was planning on canceling anyway. Being on a fixed income and having everything going sky high in price, I have to do away with the non-required items in my life. Besides, I get better and unbiased news coverage on the internet. Where do I get my internet? Try the public library which I am help paying for with my property taxes.
Perhaps inadvertently, the Gazette did more to promote viewing of this comic strip this week than it could have if they had published it normally. I don’t read either of those two strips but did look this one up to see what the fuss was about.
Yep. Same here.
I wonder how many “delicate sensibilities” would have been offended if The Gazette had chosen TO run the strip and had not made any announcement about it. Would anyone have noticed? I’m not seeing any “thank-you’s” for not running it. Curious.
Thank you Gazette for choosing not to run the comic strip. As it’s been many years since I’ve taken the time to read Doonesbury, had your decision not excited some to voice their discontent, I know I would have missed this mastery of satire. I just might have to start reading Trudeau again.
There ya go! Honestly… have you ever seen so many people get so offended that they’re not allowed to be offended by Doonesbury? It has to be a leftist plot.
Thank you, Terry, for your defense, properly, of the “left” and accuracy.
Kurt – thank you bringing to light what seems to happen whenever editorial discretion/censorshp, whatever you personally want to call it occurs – inevitably, whatever is being shone less light, then opens up even more viewership/readership than it might otherwise have received.
I only began to posts comments online about a month ago, and what still bothers me – to some extent, only – is how easy it becomes to stray from the focus of the letter-to-the-editor. Believe me, I recognize, I contribute to this as well, but still, it can be disconcerting. I suppose, one could argue, these somewhat off-topic posts have their place/purposes – too many to get into here.
Calef – I do not like name-calling that much either, not that you would notice considering some of my posts, but PLEASE understand there is a difference between name-calling somone who has put themselves in the political arena and proceeds to verbally assault those with whom they disagree and a relatively innocent woman whose only “crime” was to testify before Congress.
“By the authority vested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape!”
Let’s see, the clinic now has a “shaming room” where uptight middle-aged Caucasian GOP solons interrogate clients, holding clipboards marked with scarlet “A’s,” the doctor reads a rote script because the law states he cannot be trusted, and a transvaginal probe is a “shaming rod.” Lyle, you missed a golden opportunity here: these strips could at least have been run in the want ads, as you did for many years.
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/03/15