Concord Monitor mea culpa over the Marland cartoon (GW Bush flies into WTC/Social Security)

Concord Monitor ^ | 2/8/02 | Mike Pride, Concord editor

[upchuck]

But my decision to run the cartoon assumed that for others, as for myself, enough time had passed for the wounds of Sept. 11 to heal and for the terrorist attacks to take their place in the long history of political satire.

Huh? Five months is all the time it takes you to get over the deaths of 3000+ Americans? What a blooddless, insensate a$$hole you are! How dare you project your uncaring attitude on us! You need immediate treatment with some serious drugs (frontal lobotomy comes to mind). I seriously doubt 911 will ever be treated as political satire, at least I hope not. By comparison, look at how often Pearl Harbor is treated as political satire.

This guy is a completely insensitive boob!

And, memo to Mr. Marland (the cartoonist): You, sir, have crossed the line and are utterly without class. First Amendment rights be damned, there are certain things that are just not done.

[cake_crumb]

I emailed Pride about the cartoon earlier. Here's my rant about the non-apology:

The verbal gymnastics you engaged in, to justify the publication of Mike Marland's sick idea of intellectual humor, while attempting to give the appearance of making an apology to the citizens of this country are a miserable failure.

You said in your statement that "judgment is subjective, it can be wrong as well as right." In the case of all who were involved in making this mistake, judgment is simply absent. No number of excuses will change the fact that you are evil and heartless.

Later you said: "One reason Marland has been so good is that we allow him free expression." Good? Is the definition of "good" as subjective to you people as the definition of the word "is"? As an artist I find nothing "good" about that piece of work.

Finally, you say that "running the cartoon was a mistake because we live in the world of the Internet."

What?? It wasn't a mistake because it was a HATEFUL, HURTFUL, OFFENSIVE, MINDLESS, CHILDISH, TASTELESS, USELESS, THOUGHTLESS, CRASS AND HOPELESSLY OBTUSE?? In short, everything you people stand for in the minds of the average American. It was only a mistake, because the Internet made your almost criminally negligent lack of judgment known to millions of Americans?

You didn't even have the grace to use the word "president" in conjunction with the name of the president. I got news for you people: your president lost the election, and Clinton is nothing but a joke.

Again, you disgust us.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Wonderful letters.

Operation Freep Monitor should stand as a shining example of the power of principled expression. All Freepers who called, emailed, wrote and generally spread the word, are to be commended for exposing this trash.

NEVER FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LarryLied]

So you want the government to ban campaign commercials that do the same thing?

No. I simply think someone who propagates the lie that SS is threatened by Bush's budget is not acting in good faith or thoughtfully as this editor pretends to be doing.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

You use an aweful lot of words to basically say nothing. I don't know what more he could say to satisfy your simple and one dimentional outlook on life.

Apparently, you are incapable of understanding any analysis that extends beyond calling another poster's opinion "simple and one dimentional (sic)."

A review of the thread appears to indicate that most of the other posters were able to understand this point quite well, to wit, that the editor's claim that not running the cartoon being "censorship" was belied by both the reality of publishing and the editor's own words elsewhere in the editorial.

Given that the editor's point on this was shown to be, in essence, false, his (and your) claim that the apology is sincere is unsupported.

Your inability to grasp this means that you will probably similarly not grasp the point of this follow-up; however, one can always hope...

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I also find it interesting that you chose to attack me personally ("simple and one dimentional [sic]"), given that my original post only attacked the editor and his reasoning, and not you.

You may wish to reconsider your "forum etiquette."

[Alas Babylon!]

Toupsie and Seamole are just (and I mean this is the nicest way) blowhards who want an excuse to repose their silly letters to the editor. It carries no weight with me when both their letters and the content of their ideas posted here are so completely wrong.

Well, frankly, I strongly disagree. I thought their comments were focused like a laser beam on the heart of the matter. Their reponses were extremely well written. Probably (and please reply, anyone, if you agree or disagree) most FReepers would agree with them. If you don't like these two posters, fine, but I do not agree with your OPINION.

[Paulus Invictus]

Great letter! Did you get a response?

[MightyMouth]

Who said anything about the government banning something? You're kinda silly, aintcha?

[cake_crumb]

"Your reference to his point about the copyright misses the entire reason for the outrage and his subsequent and correct reaction."

No, the reference to the legalese inserted into Mr Pride's statement didn't miss THE point. It made A point. Prides "reaction" was not in the least bit correct. I suggest you read it again, and a little more carefully this time.

Pride says in his statement that "running the cartoon was a mistake because we live in the world of the Internet." Note that Pride doesn't say that running the cartoon was a mistake because it was innappropriate, hurtful and offensive to the families of the dead. He just regrets that in the Webwide world, his total lack of judgment was put on display for all the world to see...and the world was swift to react.

[MightyMouth]

Well, my goodness. Just who exactly ARE you that anyone gives a rat's @ss whether it carries any weight with you or not?

[VA Advogado]

No. I simply think someone who propagates the lie that SS is threatened by Bush's budget is not acting in good faith or thoughtfully as this editor pretends to be doing

The editor said the drawing was provocative. What part of that do you disagree with? It does exactly what he says it does. Even to the extent it got you up off your couch to comment here.

[VA Advogado]

I am who I am Olive Oil.

[carmody]

This editor should ask himself if he would have allowed a cartoon that depicted a Ryder truck with the words "Clinton Budget" scrolled across the side and drawn in front of the OKC building.

The cartoon he allowed in his paper was both heartless and tasteless. He is not sorry that the cartoon appeared, he's only sorry that because of the internet, he was revealed as a fool.

This cartoon was a blatant effort to squelch public debate of the President's ideas by linking it to a horrific event. The editor and his cartooning jester danced on the graves of innocents while trying to hurt George Bush. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

screw the commie dirtbag. we should continue to freep him until he thinks twice about running such a commie liberal scum cartoon again.

[VA Advogado]

"Behind Liberal Lines (sic)",

Sorry to have embarrassed you, however its clear from the approach you've taken here you've had it coming. Its clear you know not of what you speak.

[ecurbh]

...a running gag to be used as contextual cage-lining for the logical mousewheel of their political dogma.

Love that line! Man, I wish I could write like that.

[cake_crumb]

"Though Mr. Marland's cartoon might be copyrighted, it does not prevent fair use by private citizens in the course of public debate. As a seasoned editor, you should know better. That is basic Journalism Law 3001 at the Manship School of Journalism at Louisiana State University -- a fortunate experience of mine in college"

Excellent! EXCELLENT!! That's an oooch...ouch...GAME, SET AND MATCH if ever I read one!

BUMP